It is painfully evident in many of the ads for so-called CIOs we see advertised in most of the on-line job boards or regional newspapers. Requiring in-depth knowledge of specific applications or technologies, mean its obvious these roles have been defined by someone with no clue of the true nature of the CIO. They see the role as technical as opposed to a true business leader and change agent.
|Other Articles by Dan Gingras|
Reaching for the Brass Ring
Its Time for New IT Governance Models
The Death of the Internet? Surviving as the First CIO
Its not that what they are seeking is wrong, it may be that they really need a technical leader to keep things under control, but dont call it a CIO.
I used to have a simple metric as to whether the role called CIO was in fact strategic, it was a simple question which defined the nature of the role. Tell me where the role reported, and Ill tell you where its focused. If it reported to the CFO, then it was not (in general) strategic, it was a financially focused role, viewed as a cost of doing business within the organization.
I have had CFOs ask me why the head of IT was more important than the head of the Facilities department, explaining: We cant operate without computers, but we also cant operate without the right buildings either.
Ive been increasingly pessimistic about the growth of the role over the past decade, evidenced by a relatively flat percentage of CIOs who report at the highest level being stuck at around 40% and showing no movement for years. This means the bulk (60%) of CIOs are CIOs in title only.
I recently saw some corroboration around my thinking by none other than the famous Jack Welch, former chairman of General Electric in a recent Business Week column titled 'A Twisted Chain of Command,' which I strongly suggest you not only read, but print out and save in a binder
Complaining about the Rasputin-like dominance of the CFO in the organization, Welch says its not going too far to say that chief financial officers, and very often do, wield too much influence within companies. And if its not the CFO, its the so-called chief administrative officer, who has excessive power, overseeing finance itself, human resources and any number of other staff departments.
Welch continues, So why does it happen? With IT, the explanation is easy: Its an historical hangover. Initially, IT was mainly seen as good for lowering costs and increasing efficiency. In those days, decades ago, there was some logic to having IT report to the CFO. Most good companies, however, took IT out of finance when its broad strategic utility became obvious.