InformationWeek

Dear Herbert:
I am an avid reader of your articles, so when I thought of CIOs to seek advice from, you were a natural (and easy) choice. So here it goes: I've been in technology sales and sales management for five years, and I have a career goal of becoming a CIO (insert your own joke here). I would like some feedback on what you think it takes now, as well as in the coming years, to become a successful CIO.

My belief is that a successful CIO needs communication skills, and an understanding of technology and his or her company's business. Generally, I think it's this basic "trinity," which a lot of unsuccessful CIO's lacked, but what's your opinion?

Thanks for your input!

Kevin

Dear Kevin:
I don't know that there is a lot that I can tell you. You seem to have a good handle on the key things that make a difference in whether a CIO is successful or just another blob of road kill along the executive highway.

Communication skills, awareness of the problems and opportunities in the business, and an understanding of how technology can change the playing field are all important, in that order.

Because of rapidly changing business conditions and the complexity of the technology, the most critical skill is the ability to communicate, and by that I mean the talent to listen as well as to explain things clearly. If you have good communication skills, you will have a real chance to understand peopleıs business challenges and comprehend what the technical specialists who work for you are trying to tell you, the other two parts of the basic trinity that you mention.

There are other attributes that come to mind that are essential to being a CIO. One is the wisdom to really, truly care about the people in your organization. I remember once going to a vendor dinner where I ran into a colleague. We talked about the market for SAP programmers, and I commented how hard it was to hire them. He said that he was doing fine--all he had to do, he explained, was pay super-premium wages. Foolish me asked how he was going to handle this imbalance in his salary scale when he was over the critical part of his project. "Fire them," he said, without blinking an eye. I

thought at the time that this shortsighted approach to his job would be the end of him, and it was. He was gone before some of the people he had bought so dearly.

Having the next attribute is a real benefit. We all wish we had it, and we admire those CIOs who do--but it can be accurately observed and measured only in hindsight. It is the ability to look at a technology and correctly forecast how and when it can be used to improve a business. If you have that capability, along with the others, you are almost a sure bet to be a success as a CIO, now and in the future.

Dear Herbert:
Just read your comment to Margaret in the April 14, 1998 online letters Forum, "one of life's great mysteries is why people hire so many incompetent managers" (don't even ask how far behind I am in my reading or why I ended up there in the archives). Is it really a mystery? I always thought it was because there are so few good managers compared with the number of management positions, and because a management position has to be filled, even if no competent candidate exists.

A staff or technical position can remain open for a while, partly because it's less visible and partly because there are probably some other people around who can cover it. I'm in a technical profession and get as big a kick out of Dilbert's point-haired manager as anybody, but I also can see how really difficult it is to be a good manager. One needs to be good at so many different things (or "demonstrate behavior indicative of a versatile skill set,"as the HR folks would say).

John

Dear John:
Actually, it is usually more important to fill a technical spot and not drain that last drop of blood from an overworked professional staff than it is to rush to appoint a new manager. In fact, there are several advantages to having the people report directly to the next level supervisor for a period of time.

The first is expedience; it provides the hiring executive with time to evaluate the situation. Next, it offers the staff an opportunity to work more closely with their former bossıs bossıa situation that can be beneficial to all. Finally, it is not infrequent for group teamwork to improve in this environment because of the necessity to make more decisions at a lower level and for a natural leader to emerge from the dynamics of that interaction.

However, regardless of the process used, too often the final choice for the new leader is not a wise one (see "Good Worker! Good Manager?"). I think that there are three main reasons why people have difficulty making successful managerial hiring decisions. The first is that they often (and I mean often) donıt really understand what's required to make the group in question function smoothly. Are the staff members self-starters? Do they need technical guidance or just someone to clear out the roadblocks in the way of getting the job done?

The second reason for poor decisions in picking supervisors is that hiring managers have all the quirks and emotions inherent in the human species. As a result, as much as one might try, it is difficult to be truly objective when interviewing a potential new manager. Indeed, it is a fortunate person who can wash his or her own attitudes from such a decision. If there is one skill, though, that separates the excellent leader from the mundane; it is the ability to pick good subordinates.

The third reason is the one that you mention. Regardless of how easy it is for us to second-guess the boss, the fact remains that being a manager (especially a first-level one) is very difficult and not everyone has the skills to perform the job well.

Herbert:
I read your article "Where Have All The CIOs Gone?" about the attrition in the ranks of the CIO. I work for a public authority at the state level as the senior management member responsible for all technical decisions made by the authority. I am a CIO by example, but not in title.

I have worked for several firms and have to admit I have seen the issues to which you refer. I believe the reason for the decline in the once numerous population of CIOs is due to the overall speed of technology and the pressure from business people. It's very hard to understand or follow all of the new innovations and how they may apply to your company's business model. Also, if you do "get it", educating the other members of senior management sometimes seems impossible.

I have a job where senior management meets to discuss what they would like to see, and I either give it to them, or am able to offer solutions better than they imagined. This situation makes me look good, and has seriously reduced my stress level.

The Authority has a business function that has been the same since its inception in 1918. The technology demands made upon me are never severe. I realize this is an ideal situation. I will never go into a large company again and assume a role where no one but the "techies" understand the impact of technology, and as such have to bow down to poor decisions made by senior management.

Bryan

Dear Bryan:
I am not publishing the state in which you live or the name of the agency for which you work. It would be cruel to subject someone who was nice enough to write to me to the resulting deluge of offers to be your replacement that I am sure would follow.

As you said, you have an ideal position from the standpoint of stress management. The key, as you probably realize, is that your agency has not changed its role for more than eight decades and that it is dealing with the same set of clients, who are in a somewhat captive position.

You're wise in recognizing that most organizations are not in that situation and, therefore, neither are their Chief Information Officers. Itıs a fortunate person who knows what he or she wants, has achieved it, and has the brains to realize it. More and more, I'm seeing high performing CIOs who are more than willing to trade the glamour, money, recognition, and unrelenting stress of high-profile corporate jobs for a position such as yours.

Herb:
Is there life for most CIOs after IT?? Or is the CIO position the end of the line?

Brian

Dear Brian:
Sure there's life after IT for a CIO. There's also life after IT for systems programmers, Web designers, and network administrators.

CIOs have left the technical environment to run companies, and not just dot-coms. Two of them come quickly to mind. Kathy Hudson, former CIO of Kodak, is President and CEO of Brady Corporation, a $400 million manufacturer of coated films and industrial identification products that employs more than 2,500 people. Michael Capellas, who first joined Compaq as its CIO in 1998 is now its CEO.

The important issue, however, is to try to have a life during, as opposed to after, IT. Many CIOs, and other information technology specialists, volunteer their time to civic and charitable organizations. Others have rewarding hobbies and second careers where their analytical and organizational skills are helpful.

As information technology becomes more ingrained in our culture you will find that CIOs and other IT people will gravitate to exciting and emotionally rewarding challenges in which their information technology experience will add value to their new endeavors.