CIOs Dismissed As Techies Without Business Savvy By CEOs 269
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the no-respect dept.
from the no-respect dept.
Qedward writes in with a link about the gap between the tech side of business and the bean counters. "CIOs are being dismissed by CEOs as too techie and not aligned with business activities. According to recent Gartner survey of 220 CEOs across the world, business leaders expect spending on IT to rise, but without a corresponding rise in the importance of the role of the CIO within the organization. CIOs appear to be failing in the eyes of CEOs in terms of alignment with the rest of the business. The research showed the stereotype of the head of IT being too preoccupied with technical issues to be effective business leaders persists. He said they were perceived as unable to bring a breadth of business perspective to the table."
That's the point (Score:5, Interesting)
"CIOs are being dismissed by CEOs as too techie and not aligned with business activities."
One of the main purposes of CIOs and CTOs to represent the technology side of the business at the executive level. I work for a client that has no CIO or CTO and middle management is supposed to step up for the technology-side, but their not at the same level as the CEO and they're afraid to tell the executives the truth. CTOs and CIOs report to the board so that they have an equal standing with other executives.
Re:They are INFORMATION officers! (Score:4, Interesting)
Common misconception.
The CIO there is to assure share holders that the infrastructure is solid. He is there to assure Customers that the infrastructure is sound and wont' be a problem. Optimally they will convince the customer that the infrastructure is better the competitors.
He creates a plan to see the the infrastructure meets current needs, m and knows when to expand to meet trending needs.
The CIO employees people who keep the tech going strong. The CIO also needs to spin technology failures in a disarming manner.
The CIO needs to know when tis optimal to buy equipment based on Tax, budget, depreciation, and more importantly, buy thetech at the sweet spot in the curve.
If you do RnD you need to know how to sell purchases for projects that may not pay off.
CIO is a social job, not a nerd job.
Re:IT = Janitorial Services (Score:4, Interesting)
But who uses computers that way any more? Only really small business. Restaurants, plumbers, small stores, small law firms, etc.
Not even then. I just ordered a pizza from a local shop. The have a tracking system for each stage of pizza delivery (order processing, preparation, cooking, delivery) and shows you online where your order is in that sequence, and sends an automated SMS when the pizza goes out for delivery. They almost certainly use a GPS route finding system for their delivery people to take the pizzas, and may use a slightly more complex version to decide whether to send out multiple pizzas on a single run.
Small companies are often among the first to adopt new technology into their work flow, because hiring an extra employee is a massive expense for them, while tweaking an automated system is a lot cheaper.
Re:Then why is my program in the business school? (Score:1, Interesting)
If I wanted to do business only, I'd be getting an MBA. I wanted to work in the tech department, so I'm getting a different degree through the MIS department. You need someone who is more focused on the information and the technology than the business ramifications, otherwise you end up cutting corners dangerously and ending up with a dead infrastructure at a critical moment.
Probably not true.
Are Shipping Operations Managers hired from the driver pool or the mechanic pool?
Are CFOs hired from tellers or account clerks?
Are hospital administrators selected from the best nursing staff or even the interns?
The problem is that IT people always think that nobody but an IT person can possibly manage an IT department, and MBAs can't possibly understand the needs.
You've exhibited this mentality in your very post! You ARE part of the problem.
Yet in reality, MBAs are trained to be very risk adverse. They are also trained to manage costs, plan for the future, and plan for emergencies. They might even know a bit about growing the business, adding locations, expanding the customer base.
You should be reporting to a CIO that has a business background. You should be able to explain why you need that new router or that data center upgrade. If you can't make that case succinctly and factually, and with due regard for cost/benefits involved, then you NEED another layer between you and the board room.
But you should clearly not be making high level business decisions with ONLY a technical level background.
I started out in the technical end of IT as well. I lead that department after a few years. But I still reported to VPs who were business management oriented. And unless I chose to go back and get an MBA, that would have been as high as I was ever going to get.
Re:IT = Janitorial Services (Score:5, Interesting)
I've often gotten the impression that IT is perceived by management as Janitorial services, or Corporate Archives, or the company cafeteria by companies that are not directly selling IT services themselves, as well as government agencies in general. They are a cost center, but not a revenue center. They are not customer facing, so they are just another physical plant cost. Like keeping the lights on, the water flowing, and the elevators running.
Company cafeteria... customer facing... you don't know how right you are. It's just another symptom of out-of-touch CEOs not understanding the role of IT in their business.
I've been working for the last 6 years at a fairly well-known US-based company that designs & manufactures equipment and apparel for a certain fitness industry. We've got all kinds of engineers and designers whose work will live and die by their computers. IT supports them and the entire infrastructure that's constantly moving data from one place to another to help them get their jobs done. But I don't think the CEO notices at all.
We've been hearing the messages to "cut costs" and "do more with less" especially strong in the last two years. IT budget is slashed, and we're saving money through attrition: one person quits/leaves/fired, and their work is divided amongst the remaining members of that team. My last annual raise was less than the cost-of-living adjustment. There was no money in the budget for me to attend a software seminar earlier in this calendar year -- I was told the travel budget didn't have any room in it -- yet it was in town (no hotel or airfare, I could drive from that hotel to home in 30min) and cost under $1000, and I'd be surrendering my own personal time (a Saturday) to go (I'm salary, not paid for that time). The only exception to the IT budget crunch is one department which writes and supports software that is used by our dealers.
Last quarter the CEO had his company pow-wow and gave out his president's award: "These folks have been working hard, making improvements, and despite the fact that most of use benefit from their efforts, I don't think they're properly recognized. My president's award goes to...{IT? IT I'm thinking}... the Cafeteria!" wut. the. fuck.
CEO and HR find new and stupid ways to spend money all the time, like replacing the NOT BROKEN formica-topped tables in the cafeteria with butcher block, replacing the steel-tube plastic-seat chairs with these things [amazon.com] at $135 a pop retail. Fancy new stonework patio with wrought-iron furniture and gas grill outside... the list goes on.
Holiday parties have been scheduled, and then indefinitely postponed. Holiday turkey gift certificates disappeared. Summer family picnic, gone. Despite record profits, the $100USD "attaboy" envelopes didn't show this year.
The CEOs spend their money on stuff they can see and touch. Stuff that will make them look good to outsiders. Even at this privately-held company. I wish he'd turn the checkbook over to an actual businessman.
Re:CEOs have important priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
The real problem in business is in fact CEOs, other executive managers, and the methods that are being used to select them. CEOs have devolved into grossly overpaid playboys with no responsibilities towards shareholders, customers, or indeed the company itself.
We are witnessing not just companies, but entire industries collapse before our eyes. Multinational firms, once immensely profitable, are being driven into stagnation, decline, and ultimately bankruptcy with each passing year. Excuses such as "globalisation", foreign competitors, and "government" are always trotted out, but no-one every really asks serious questions about the management of these companies, or why they spent increasingly large amounts on executive remuneration even as became less profitable.
Studies suggest [discovermagazine.com] that one of the defining characteristics being used by boards to select CEOs in in fact height--Yes, how "tall" someone is. I imagine other factors such as hairstyle, teeth, and charm are being applied as well because I see no other reason for the modern day plague of vapid and incompetent CEOs, and the associated layers of equally useless senior managers.
The problem is not restricted to management either. Boards too seem to have become saturated with unqualified socialites, often from unrelated industries or even unrelated fields like academia, selected for personal or political connections rather than for any actually relevant competencies.
But ultimately, I place the blame on shareholders and investors. They are the ones who ultimately approve the appointment of the unqualified, unsuitable, unethical, and incompetent CEOs currently wrecking companies left and right. If their definition of "business savvy" means knowing which designer suits to wear and looking good at press conferences, then they deserve to lose their money and the company deserves to fail.
Any competent CIOs and other such employees should not waste their lives in unprofitable asylums, instead should busy themselves setting up their own company which they can then run like an actual business instead of a office pantomime.
Re:IT = Janitorial Services (Score:4, Interesting)
They may help you keep the business you have, but just about nothing IT can do will sell one more unit of product, or add one new customer.
Umm, what?!?! Even if IT isn't customer facing, they can still make internal tools and resources to help the salesforce. Sure, IT itself may never make a sale directly, but when the sales person in the field is able to pull up data and information compiled by IT, or use a tool IT created, to help land a customer, then IT most certainly did in fact do something to help sell more product.
Personally, I think the bigger issue is the historical disconnect between IT and Sales. The CEO feels that and it lessens the perceived value of IT. But, when IT and Sales can work together, you can create some extremely powerful sales tools that will absolutely impact revenue. And when you do, the CEO will take notice. But that requires a CIO and IT staff that can work with Sales to help get that done.
At my company, if Sales has an ask, we talk and see how to best do what they're looking for. And if I think of something that might be useful, I'll approach Sales and ask if my idea would be of any use to them. If so, we'll hammer out details and add it to the project list. And because of that willingness to work together, we've created stuff that absolutely drives business. And that flexibility has kept my whole team employed through 4 different buyouts over the past 10 years.
Yes, IT has to keep the servers up and the desktops running and virus free, and that's not glamorous, and doesn't make for spectacular headlines. But IT can go far beyond that, and needs to if it wants a serious place in the business beyond just "janitors." And maybe if the CIO doesn't understand that, then the CEO's derision is justified.
Re:Then why is my program in the business school? (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies bankrupt under Bain: 30%.
Companies that bankrupted within 2 years of being "spun off" from Bain: 80%.
The Bain Capital methodology was simple.
Step 1: Buy out a company.
Step 2: Sell off all the assets you can, and raid the pension fund.
Step 3: Hide stolen assets [thinkprogress.org] in tax shelters and overseas accounts.
Step 4: Put the company into bankruptcy to shift the burden of pension fund [thinkprogress.org] and other debts to taxpayers. If necessary for state law, "spin off" company into unowned status first.
Mitt Romney: corporate thief and fraudster. Bain Capital's corporate raider scheme wasn't just fraud, it was fraud that put the burden of its behavior on the taxpayers.