Who are CIOs Planning to Hire Next?

Ed Baker writes "Do you have the skills CIOs are looking for? Cioinsight.com just posted their latest research, in which they asked more than 400 top IT executives about the hiring outlook for 18 different IT positions, and finds that the demand for new systems and infrastructure is leading to more hiring for IT professionals who can build them. The result: Project managers and programmers/systems developers top the list of IT professionals CIOs are looking to hire."

Comments

All I want to know is...

[oberondarksoul]

How much do you have to pay to get advertising like this?

Re:All I want to know is...

[bob_calder]

I got it for free at one job, but only read it a couple of times as it was always full of self-serving crap.

You know, like when you agree to answer a survey and realize it's your bank when they ask questions like: "Please rate how much you like Washington Mutual. One, love it. Two, think it's awesome. Three, would marry my teller. Four, wish they would adopt me."

Wait! I do love her! Come back!

Re:All I want to know is...

[megaditto]

First post

There, corrected your Troll for you.

Well, duh!

[kazbah]

I mean, seriously!

I read as far as...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read as far as 'Hiring Outlook' then stopped. Fuck outlook, bring back lotus notes!

So what they're saying is...

[slapyslapslap]

So what they're saying is, there's no change from they way it's been for the last 10 years?

Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[winkydink]

I've harped on this for almost two decades. Technical skills keep you employed. Business skills get you promoted.

[OK, nit pickers, I'm waiting for you to point out the corner cases where this isn't true]

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[protohiro1]

Can we define business skills here?

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[meme_police]

And from that survey the bigger your company the more important business skills are. I work for a 330,000 employee company and there is no doubt that business skills are the most heavily weighted skills when it comes to promotions. Of the VPs I know here only one is pure tech and he's a worldwide guru in RF stuff. '

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[sgt_doom]

I think what the parent poster means by business skills is the exact same thing that the young intern did in the Oval Office to Bill Clinton (now why can't recall her name????).

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[Grishnakh]

Schmoozing, bullshitting, backstabbing your peers, politicking, empire building, etc.

It's weird; the American culture values business skills more than any other (except maybe acting skills and legal skills), but these skills aren't even mentioned in public school.

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[Grishnakh]

I forgot to mention one very important skill if you want to rise to the very top of the most powerful corporations: throwing chairs.

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[mcrbids]

It's weird; the American culture values business skills more than any other (except maybe acting skills and legal skills), but these skills aren't even mentioned in public school.

That's just the law of supply and demand. With demand outstrips supply, prices rise. When supply outstrips demand, prices plummet.

Since the US educational system has ensured that those with effective business and leadership skills are in short supply, their salaries are higher.

I think you'd do very well to be a technology-savvy businessman. That's the niche I fill as the CTO of a small software company, and it's compensated me very well.

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[Grishnakh]

I think you'd do very well to be a technology-savvy businessman.

I think I'd rather poke my eyeballs out with a fork. The only way I'd want to be a businessman is if I started my own single-employee internet company.

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[pacalis]

And business skills are more likely to get you hired than technical skills in >$100M companies (Figure 3.2).

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[Shajenko42]

What, you think the elites, the richest people in the world want competition?

Compulsory education was designed to create factory workers, not leaders.

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[Corbets]

Business skills may not have been mentioned in your school, but they are still learned there. Learning to deal with your peers, being in high-stress situations (e.g. the book report that you put off till the last minute) and adapting to it, learning to see what opportunities exist and choosing the right ones (i.e. selecting your classes in high school or college)... it's all there somewhere.

That being said, in my public university, I earned a degree in Telecommunications and Networking that strongly focused the business understanding of IT. Some public schools do teach those skills.

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[Aceticon]

There is more to business skills than the stuff you find in The Prince

Too bad that the current crop of high-flying CEOs seems heavy on machiavellian tactics ...

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[sgtrock]

You know, every time someone brings up _The_Prince_ I wonder if I read the same book everyone else did. While the book was designed by Machiavelli as an extended resume (he wrote it in hopes of getting a job from some recently promoted prince or another), his preference for a republican form of government show through almost every chapter. Maybe I got that out of the book because my copy of _The_Prince_ included the circumstances under which he had come to write it?

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[Anonymous Coward]

The American culture values those skills more because it's just like Napolean said: 'Chicks only like guys who have skills.' - That would be Dynamite, not Bonaparte. You forgot sports and medical skills, but I still think the most important skills are definitely numchuck skills or bowstaff skills.

Re:Tecnhincal vs. business skills

[superflippy]

Schmoozing, bullshitting, backstabbing your peers, politicking, empire building, etc.

I saw students learning these skills at my public junior high school. If you wanted to be part of the popular crowd, if you wanted to rise to the top of the pack of Jennys, you had to master all those. And now I wonder why there aren't more successful prominent businesswomen out there.

The Age Factor?

[darylb]

I know it's basically advertising, but the piece doesn't take the Age Factor into account. When they say they're looking for programmers/developers, they mean they're looking for "programmers/developers under the age of 32 (or thereabouts)". I know lots of guys nearing the 40 threshold. As they do so, if they're not already in management, they're layoff fodder. This is for guys with solid, up-to-date technical skills. They just get paid more than the entry level worker bees (especially from offshore firms), and have more of that vaunted business knowledge to boot.

Re:The Age Factor?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Thats a crock. Many places (including my job) don't even bother with inexperienced developers. All ours are 30+.

Re:The Age Factor?

[geekoid]

how many where over 40 when they were hired?

He is correct, there is a very strong trend of hiring younger programmers 30 or under over older ones 40> in the industry.
If you company bucks this trend, then good for you.

Re:The Age Factor?

[cryfreedomlove]

That's not true at the company I work at. At least half of the new hires this year are 40+ with a handful being 50+.

Re:The Age Factor?

[fdrebin]

Thats a crock. Many places (including my job) don't even bother with inexperienced developers. All ours are 30+

Not even REMOTELY a crock. You may find out, when you reach that age range.
There are exceptions, of course, but TRY to be 40+ (or 50+) and get a job. You're generaly considered too expensive, burned out, etc. HR people (very silently) admit it.

Where I'm at, most are 40+. But there are VERY FEW places where that happens.

Re:The Age Factor?

[Shadow99_1]

I'm not even quite 30 yet and already I'm sen as inferior to someone just out of college by alot of companies... Even my girlfriend who is a bussiness major (though she just graduated this year) has seen that most big companies want someone they see as 'fresh' because they are seen as having no bad habits to unlearn.

What she's been told is hilarious stuff, like: "Honey, 25 is to old to just be starting in bussiness... If you had several years with another large company we'd overlook having to untrain any bad habits you have picked up from beign as old as you are, but it's not worth it for us to do that when we have fresh recruits straight out of college with no bad habits due to age who want this same entry level job." This was said by a 30 something HR woman at one of the companies she applied to... It's not sucha strange reaction either...

I'm a networking type, but one lacking experience outside of tech support/help desk work and a few odd jobs here and there in netwroking... And for awhiel now when I apply for entry-level real networking jobs I'm told that someone of my 'age' should have more experience and apply to a real netowrking job and leave the entry-level stuff to the kids... When did 30 become the new 60?

Re:The Age Factor?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

we just hired a 50 YO lead architect

Re:The Age Factor?

[orderb13]

Do you work for Hilton?

Re:The Age Factor?

[cayenne8]

"There are exceptions, of course, but TRY to be 40+ (or 50+) and get a job. You're generaly considered too expensive, burned out, etc. HR people (very silently) admit it."

One word: "Contracting".

Re:The Age Factor?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Govt Contracting

Whoever they're playing golf with.

[BVis]

Or whoever is their nephew, or the chick they're currently banging's brother in law, or $randomOldBoyNetworkFactor.

Once you get to the C*O level you are incapable of rational thought. Hiring someone based on their qualifications is akin to actual work, and therefore no C*O is capable of doing it.

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[MalleusEBHC]

Blanket stereotyping from someone who appears to be mad that they are stuck at the bottom of the corporate ladder. Nice. It's natural tendency to say $MYGROUP works hard while $OTHERGROUP doesn't do anything and reaps better rewards, but try and take a step back for a second and look at the flip side. Quit being jealous and realize that upper management is just like any other group in society: some are geniuses, some are fucktards, and the majority lie somewhere along the grey scale in the middle. You just hear about the extremes because average makes for boring news.

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[cryfreedomlove]

Did you see this in a movie somewhere or can you name a real company where the CIO is hiring the brother of the chick he is banging? Name the company right now or we'll know your full of it.

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[Grishnakh]

Quit being jealous and realize that upper management is just like any other group in society: some are geniuses, some are fucktards, and the majority lie somewhere along the grey scale in the middle.

Upper management isn't supposed to be a microcosm of society: they're supposed to be the creme de la creme. If they were all geniuses, I don't think many people would be too jealous, because they would obviously be earning their money. But if some are fucktards, as you put it, and most of them are just mediocre, then what the hell are they doing in upper management making tons of money (and also having a large impact on the careers of all the employees under them)?

I'd be happy(er) if I lived in a society where only the smartest and best people got to positions at the top, whether it be in business or government. Things would work out a lot better that way, and I wouldn't have so much of a problem with them making millions of dollars per year. But don't tell me to not be jealous or angry when morons and incompetents are promoted to very high positions while much better people get passed over.

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[sgt_doom]

Holy Crap! It would take me a solid month to list all the companies and startups where that's been the case. Suffice it to say, nepotism soundly rules today at all corps I've seen lately (all the top banks in North America, all the Fortune 50 to 100 firms, all the telecoms, .....)

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[BVis]

Oh please. It's a hypothetical example for illustrative purposes, not a description of a real situation.

Tell me that *sort* of thing doesn't happen. Maybe not that thing specifically, but that *sort* of thing. Which is why I ended that sentence with "$randomOldBoyNetworkFactor".

My point is, it's still not what you know, it's who you know, and a moron with an influential frat brother is still more employable than someone qualified for the position who has no connection like that.

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[BVis]

I was going to reply to that message with something very similar, but you beat me to the punch.

The only thing I would add to that is that it isn't really that someone's not as smart or someone isn't "better" than someone else, it's that the people who work hard get passed over while the people who take credit for other people's hard work get promoted. It encourages people to not work hard, because 1) nobody cares if you work hard, you certainly aren't going to be recognized or rewarded for it, 2) all hard work gets you is more hard work, and 3) someone else is just going to take the credit for your hard work anyway. It's the "Office Space" cliche: you only work hard enough not to get fired, because there's no reward in going above and beyond that.

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[Grishnakh]

It's the "Office Space" cliche: you only work hard enough not to get fired, because there's no reward in going above and beyond that.

Yep. It seems the best way to conduct your career in companies today is to not work very hard, only enough to avoid getting fired, and enough to make your resume look good. Then quit your job after 2-3 years and go to another company at a higher salary. Rinse and repeat until you retire.

The problem with this is that changing jobs every few years is a real pain, and when you're married with a family, who wants to pack everything up every few years and move to another city?

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[jimicus]

It helps if you don't think about them as morons. More "their skills are more appropriate for the job they've got".

OK, it is a bitter pill when those skills appear to be "play golf, make worse decisions than a crack-smoking chimpanzee and stab people in the back left and right". If that's the case at your company, you probably need to either find a new employer or take up hard drugs and golf.

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[BooRolla]

What makes you think that smarter people are better at handling those situations? Being "smart" doesn't remove your other vices (jealousy, laziness, etc).

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Smart people should know that jealousy, laziness etc. don't help them at all, and shouldn't be that way. I'd say it's part of being smart, my definition at least.

Re:Whoever they're playing golf with.

[cryfreedomlove]

I didn't ask you to name all of example companies. Just name one. Can you do that? Name one where the CIO hired the brother of the girl he is banging. Dude, just name one.

minor addition

[geekoid]

"Technical skills keep you employed. Business skills get you promoted."
I say:
Technical skills get you the job, social skills keep you employed. Business skills get you promoted."

Re:minor addition

[asuffield]

When was the last time you saw anybody being hired on the basis of an evaluation of their technical skills?

Sales skills (== lying) get you the job. They hire the person who lies the best about what they can do. I've never seen anybody hired on the basis of demonstrated ability - only claimed ability (and those claims usually turn out to be, at best, exaggerated).

Re:minor addition

[Breakfast Pants]

Try interviewing for somewhere like Amazon for an SDE position. It is almost 100% technical.

Re:minor addition

[segfaultcoredump]

I've been involved with dozens of interviews. They all tend to go like this:

me: I see that you claimed to have skils in XYZ. How comfortable are you with implementing an XYZ system?

candidate: I'm an expert with XYZ

me: Oh, how did you solve the /Bogus XYZ/ issue?
    or
me: What were some of the design issues you faced in implementing XYZ? (make sure it is not something that is covered in chapter 1 of the XYZ cram guide)

candidate: Oh, simple.... /5 minutes of bs/

If the candidate gives us a look of 'wtf are you talking about', then we smile and move on, drilling into real issues with XYZ (to determine just how much they know about XYZ).

The general idea is this: give them some bait, see if they take it.

As an average, I'd say that half of the candidates that get to my stage of the process are overstating their abilities. They dont get any further. I have yet to regret hiring somebody. (If they are faking it, I have a tendancy to keep drilling on the topic so that it soon becomes painfully obvious that even they realize that they are faking it and we all know it. Its a great way to make sure that the guy does not expect to actually get the job)

In general, lying will only get you a job at a place run by idiots. If that is the type of job you want, go for it. It can pay well, but the turnover can be a real pain. When layoffs come (and they will. Remember, you are working for idiots), dont expect them to keep "the best" people, just the ones that they _think_ are the best. i.e., the ones with the best golf scores. :-)

Re:minor addition

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, lying will only get you a job at a place run by idiots.

Fortunately, this covers 98% of large employers.

Re:minor addition

[qazsedcft]

If they are faking it, I have a tendancy to keep drilling on the topic so that it soon becomes painfully obvious that even they realize that they are faking it and we all know it. Its a great way to make sure that the guy does not expect to actually get the job

See, I have a problem with this approach. Instead of wasting everybody's time, why not just tell them frankly that they don't stand a chance and just move on? I once went to a job interview where the newspaper add had absolutely nothing to do with the actual job requirements. About 5 minutes into the interview it was obvious that I was not meant for that job, but they insisted on torturing me for 3 hours anyway. What's the f***ing point!

Re:minor addition

[walterbyrd]

>>I once went to a job interview where the newspaper add had absolutely nothing to do with the actual job requirements. About 5 minutes into the interview it was obvious that I was not meant for that job, but they insisted on torturing me for 3 hours anyway. What's the f***ing point!

I once turned down a $300 gig to go to such an interview. About five minutes into the interview, the guy glances at my resume and said: "oh, I can see by resume that are not qualified for this job." So why did they even call me in at all? Shouldn't they at least glance at my resume before they call me in?

Re:minor addition

[segfaultcoredump]

Just as a clarification. When i say "i have a tendandy to keep drilling on a topic", I dont mean for hours. It only takes about 5-10 minutes to take care of the issue. I'd rather cut it short rather than drag things on for hours. That is time i could be getting real work done, like surfing slashdot.

As for your particular issue.... I have been in the same situation before. In that case they didnt know what they needed, so i had to put my business analyst hat on to tell them that a) i was not the person that they were looking for and b) what they should be looking for. They didnt have much of a clue, and I'm sure that they are out of buisiness by now.

Anyway, thats my take on it.

Re:minor addition

[segfaultcoredump]

All moderate to large employers have issues. Even within the company I work for (1000 employees), that are groups run by idiots and groups run by great people (even... gasp... managers...)

The trick is to find the right group who has at least 1 or 2 good levels of insulation (aka management) above you. Every large company has these groups. The trick is to find them. Its not easy, but if you manage to find one, you'll be much happier.

Got to know the Business

[twitter]

Translation: Big dumb companies value propaganda more than function and don't value their employees. Notice that training is close to the bottom of the list. Technical competence and familiarity with fundamentals of the field should be the thing they look for in new hires. Business school is something a company should pay for it's own employees if it wants to promote them to upper management. For a new employee it's a place where they can forget what they need to know. Looking for detailed business knowledge outside of the company is an admission that you are not willing to train and have not trained your own people adequately in a long time. Prediction: Big dumb companies are going to get dumber and people working there will continue to be forced to waste their overworked lives on mind numbing nonsense instead of getting things done right. You will be worn out and discarded like a rubber gasket.

True familiarity with the way a company works can only come from working in the company and keeping up with your competitor's actions. Business school case studies, while interesting, generally don't apply outside the specific case except for obvious general principles. Sure, some business schools are very good at understanding industry but I'm not convinced that's going to be useful to some guy who's there to make a better network or information sharing tool for the company. Someone who's been at the company long enough is going to know who needs what information from who an how best to get it there. If they have had the time to keep up with the field, they are a company's best resource.

Yes, I've worked for a fortune 100 company. It got nothing but worse and this survey shows that the trend continues. Notice how the smaller companies valued skill more than propaganda?

Re:Got to know the Business

[BVis]

Yes, I've worked for a fortune 100 company. It got nothing but worse and this survey shows that the trend continues. Notice how the smaller companies valued skill more than propaganda?

I've worked for more than one Fortune 500 company (I'm honestly not sure if they're 100 or not) where it was very clear that there was *no chance whatsoever* that you would ever advance beyond your current job description. It seems to be SOP these days for Big Biz to cultivate the environment in such a way that it's very clear to everyone involved that if you want a raise (past the pittance that you get each year that doesn't even keep up with the cost of living) or a promotion, you must leave the company.

The attitude seems to be that you must leave a company with no more skills than you walked in with, EVER. Frequently employees who get training on their own are seen as being "disloyal" by trying to improve their skill set. Why? Because if you're making yourself more marketable, clearly it means you're not interested in staying in the position you have that doesn't require those skills, and are dissatisfied with the opportunities that you've been granted at your current company. (The fact that those opportunities are frequently described as "no fucking way" never enters into the thought process.)

Why Big Biz seems to be so incredibly phobic of encouraging the professional growth of its employees is a mystery to me. It's so incredibly pervasive that many companies have stopped hiring IT staff *altogether*. Instead they hire "contractors" (read: "temps" or "slaves" or "disposable humans") to do the jobs that need to be done for the continued functioning of the company. The contractor gathers experience about the computing environment over the months (or, more likely, years) that they're there, which is rendered completely useless to both the contractor and the company when one of the following happens: 1) Some beancounter arbitrarily decides that payroll is too high and forces someone to lay off contractors regardless of the importance of their role, 2) the contractor is fired (oh, excuse me, "has their contract terminated") because of some incredibly minor infraction of the rules, their failure to take abuse from a permanent employee, or just because, or 3) the contractor realizes there is no place to go from where they are, and decides to leave. The company has to go hire and train another "contractor", during which time the (usually critical) work the contractor was doing goes undone, to the detriment of the entire organization.

This isn't restricted to IT by a long shot. A close friend of mine had been in the same job for 4 years. Her supervisor left to take another job, leaving the position open. This friend of mine had more seniority and experience than others in her group (not to mention being the only one in the group that actually did any work, the rest spent most of their time talking about Pro Wrestling and NASCAR.) Her supervisor wrote a letter recommending her for the position once she had left. A golden opportunity to reward a valued employee for hard work.

Rather than promote her (even in title, maybe not with a raise), they decided to eliminate the position. That's how much they didn't want to promote her (or anyone else). Big Biz has raised the concept of "penny wise, pound foolish" to an art form.

Re:Got to know the Business

[iced_773]

Yes, I've worked for a fortune 100 company.

Friends don't help friends install MS junk.

That Fortune 100 wouldn't happen to be Microsoft, would it? :)

Re:Got to know the Business

[Dark_MadMax666]

I was getting pissed of at the fact that if you want raise/promotion you gotta find new job and be hired at desired level instead of being promoted. I was hinted by upper management that the mains reason companies do not do that is to not cause jealousy (you are promoted and your colleagues are not ,that will cause political troubles and cat fights)

  After reflecting on that I find that a very valid point . So getting new job every 2-3 years is a reality now if you want career growth. If you are lucky you will land eventually in this sweet CIO/CTO position yourself.

Re:Got to know the Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I've worked for a fortune 100 company

You did? Which one? I can't find it in your resume. You're not talking about Joe Bob's Outrageous Steak Emporium, are you?

Re:Got to know the Business

[twitter]

That Fortune 100 wouldn't happen to be Microsoft, would it? :)

no

Re:Got to know the Business

[athorshak]

Gee, not that you're over generalizing or anything...

I'm four years out of college, and I've worked for a Fortune 50 company for the past two years and had great experiences. My management has actively encouraged me to take more training, even cross training with other parts of the company in case I want to go a different direction in my career. They know that I'm going to learn and grow, but they want to do everything they can to keep my knowledge and talent in the company.

I was just given a 15% mid-year raise (I have less experience than all of my co-workers, but perform at the same level, so they wanted to "catch me up"). I've also been told (more or less), that I'll be promoted come year end, and I trust my manager enough to know this will happen.

My management seems to genuinely care about me as a person. I'm allowed to work around my personal schedule, coming and going as I see fit. If I work late one day to get something done, I don't need to ask if I can take off early the next day to make up for it.

In short, I'm respected by the people I work for.

I'm sure there are a lot of hellish working environments in large companies, probably even within my own, given how culture can vary accross one large company. Just don't assume that a large comany will automatically be a terrible place to work.

Re:Got to know the Business

[BVis]

In short, I'm respected by the people I work for. I'm sure there are a lot of hellish working environments in large companies, probably even within my own, given how culture can vary accross one large company. Just don't assume that a large comany will automatically be a terrible place to work.

I'm speaking from my own experience, as well as the experiences people I know have shared with me. Of course there are always going to be exceptions, and it sounds like you've found one. (Congratulations. Just don't assume you have to stop looking out for #1; lots of jobs are one miserable "son of someone's frat brother" manager away from becoming hell on earth. Ironically, a company that's as flexible as yours sounds can actually be *more* susceptible to "terrible boss" syndrome.. the lack of a more formal structure allows a monster boss more freedom to make his people miserable. For example: Unless your "personal schedule" policy is written into the rules, it's available at the whim of whoever you report to. If Mr. I'm-a-miserable-bastard-so-you-all-need-to-be-more -miserable decides that you need to be at work from 9 until 6 each day without exception, on pain of "unsatisfactory" performance reviews or outright termination, you're not going to have much recourse.)

One other thing: Unless your company has a monopoly on a particular business model, or provides a product or service that's vastly superior to the competition, it's vulnerable to a company that works its people to death and pays them a pittance. Those companies are more "competitive" because they have more money to pull dirty tricks with.

Re:Got to know the Business

[vinn01]

Yeah, I was spoiled by having good bosses for the first few years of my working life too.

Things change. Bosses come and go. Reorganizations are hell.

If you ever work for a bad boss, all of the positive things you just said will disappear in a flash. I now work for a good boss again. I appreciate that much more than when I didn't know any better.

Re:Got to know the Business

[bdclary]

Posted by BVis:

Rather than promote her (even in title, maybe not with a raise), they decided to eliminate the position. That's how much they didn't want to promote her (or anyone else). Big Biz has raised the concept of "penny wise, pound foolish" to an art form.

How do you know that's the reason the position was eliminated? Was it in the memo? "Big Biz" has to be stupid, right? It couldn't be that they decided they actually didn't need the position, could it?

The anti-business bias in these comments is disturbing. At my current position (IT consultant basically), not only do our trainings include technical matters (Oracle ERP, Vulnerability Assessments), they also include the business aspect behind them which, in my opinion, helps to understand the bigger picture.

The opinion here seems to be that technical skills are all that matter; "business skills" ("lying," "back-stabbing", etc) are worthless, and that any company who looks for these "qualities" is dumb and will get dumber. As someone with an MIS degree, I think what most posters are calling business skills (lying, schmoozing, etc) is actually a demonstration of poor business skills (or lack thereof).

Business skills, as I've seen at school and work, include project management, leadership, and perhaps most importantly, negotiation. The colleagues whom I see as most successful excel in all these areas, honestly and creatively.

In my experience, in order for IT to be successful, both technical and business skills are needed. And a good example is the article posted here (in another thread) about the shuttle programming group. The article attributes the quality of the software to the competency of the programmers (technical skill), the rigorous process followed in creating the software (project management), and the friendly rivalry culture of the work environment (leadership skills). Heck, the article even mentions a programmer who left for another organization and returned because of the poor business skills.

As far promotion is concerned, promotions include more responsibilities and managerial type roles, where I think business skills become more important. I do agree that IT management, including CIO, should possess the technical experience to understand what they are managing. I've seen a case where a small IT shop brought in a school superintendent to act as IT director. With the director only demonstrating adequate (at best) project management skills, I doubt I have to explain in detail how the morale and proficiency of the department suffered.

Please read the article mentioned above; I believe it convincingly shows how both excellent technical and business skills complement each other.

Re:Got to know the Business

[BVis]

How do you know that's the reason the position was eliminated? Was it in the memo? "Big Biz" has to be stupid, right? It couldn't be that they decided they actually didn't need the position, could it?

As I said, this was a close friend of mine, and I've left lots of stuff out that could potentially be identifying. You'll just have to take my word for it. Suffice it to say the work that had been assigned to the eliminated role didn't go anywhere, it just got dumped on people who had too much work already without doing the supervisor's job too.

The anti-business bias in these comments is disturbing. At my current position (IT consultant basically), not only do our trainings include technical matters (Oracle ERP, Vulnerability Assessments), they also include the business aspect behind them which, in my opinion, helps to understand the bigger picture.

I can't speak for the other posters, but my "anti-business bias" is a result of personal experience and not just negativity for its own sake. Included in that experience is the fact that you have to be very careful around someone who writes (and presumably speaks) the way that you do; frequently the presence of these people foreshadows another "reorganization" or "paradigm" or some other bullshit euphemism for "we're going to make fewer people do more work for the same pay."

The opinion here seems to be that technical skills are all that matter; "business skills" ("lying," "back-stabbing", etc) are worthless, and that any company who looks for these "qualities" is dumb and will get dumber. As someone with an MIS degree, I think what most posters are calling business skills (lying, schmoozing, etc) is actually a demonstration of poor business skills (or lack thereof).

Technical skills are what generates actual work and acheivement. Business skills (good or bad) are what makes the work and acheivement profitable. If a company's choice is between "good business skills" and unprofitability, or "bad business skills" (read: "screwing the bejeezus out of the people who do actual work because we're better than them") and profitability, what do you think happens nearly all of the time? (Especially in publicly traded companies, who must show the maximum profit possible at the expense of everything else, lest they get sued into oblivion?)

Business skills, as I've seen at school and work, include project management, leadership, and perhaps most importantly, negotiation. The colleagues whom I see as most successful excel in all these areas, honestly and creatively.

The top echelon of business professionals have all of those qualities. Unfortunately, most of us here in the real world work with the other 99%, whose primary skill set seems to be exploitation, intimidation, lying, backstabbing, and kissing up to the higherups.

In my experience, in order for IT to be successful, both technical and business skills are needed.

99% of the time you get one or the other, and never the twain shall meet. The business people don't understand what the technical people do (therefore it can't be difficult or significant), and the technical people see the business people for what they are: mouth breathing parasites in cheap suits. (There are exceptions. Some can breathe through their noses.)

And a good example is the article posted here (in another thread) about the shuttle programming group. The article attributes the quality of the software to the competency of the programmers (technical skill), the rigorous process followed in creating the software (project management), and the friendly rivalry culture of the work environment (leadership skills). Heck, the article even mentions a programmer who left for another organization and returned because of the poor business skills.

In your attempt to demonstrat

Re:Got to know the Business

[athorshak]

I completely agree, and should have addressed that in my post. Ultimatly, I don't think it really matters whether the company is large or small, it matters who your boss is. A crappy boss can make you life hell in large or small companies.

Re:Got to know the Business

[bdclary]

I think we're arguing different topics. Either that or I'm confused.

I can't speak for the other posters, but my "anti-business bias" is a result of personal experience and not just negativity for its own sake. Included in that experience is the fact that you have to be very careful around someone who writes (and presumably speaks) the way that you do; frequently the presence of these people foreshadows another "reorganization" or "paradigm" or some other bullshit euphemism for "we're going to make fewer people do more work for the same pay."

I can't argue that your negative experience is wrong or untrue, but ...

Technical skills are what generates actual work and acheivement. Business skills (good or bad) are what makes the work and acheivement profitable. If a company's choice is between "good business skills" and unprofitability, or "bad business skills" (read: "screwing the bejeezus out of the people who do actual work because we're better than them") and profitability, what do you think happens nearly all of the time? (Especially in publicly traded companies, who must show the maximum profit possible at the expense of everything else, lest they get sued into oblivion?)

Here is where I think we're arguing different things, so I'll restate what perhaps I should've stated more clearly before: The sentiment that I perceived when I first read the comments was that companies were stupid for looking for IT people with more business skills. I disagree with this, as I think good business skills (along with technical skills) make an IT unit more productive, profitable, and most likely, a better place to work.

I think what you're arguing is that bad business skills adversely affect an IT unit. And I certainly agree with that. But I will argue that your options of good business skills and unprofitability or bad business skills and profitability do not hold over the long term. My opinion is that good buiness skills will increase performance and morale (leading to a better ROI), while bad business skills will ultimately reduce performance.

In my experience, in order for IT to be successful, both technical and business skills are needed.

99% of the time you get one or the other, and never the twain shall meet. The business people don't understand what the technical people do (therefore it can't be difficult or significant), and the technical people see the business people for what they are: mouth breathing parasites in cheap suits. (There are exceptions. Some can breathe through their noses.)

And this is my point: Those with BOTH skills are in demand (according to the article) because of how valuable they are. The article does NOT say CIOs are hiring people with business skills over those with technical skills.

In your attempt to demonstrate a workplace that "gets it" you've proven my hypothesis that 99% of the time management and IT are mortal enemies. When that programmer got a taste of what the real world was like, he ran screaming because it was so alien to him. I'm glad to hear he was taken back.

I think my attempt proves both of our points (since we're not quite seeing eye to eye): Yours, that incongruent management (which happens a lot in the real world) and IT is detrimental, and mine, that congruent provides a quality product and work environment, which is why technical people with business skills are in high demand.

As far promotion is concerned, promotions include more responsibilities and managerial type roles, where I think business skills become more important.

IMHO, nothing could be further from the truth. As an IT worker gains responsibility, their need for truly understanding the technical issues becomes paramount. When you get "business" types making technical decisions... well, you get Windo

Looks great but

[BeoCluster]

Can I make a Beowulf Cluster of those CIOs ?

Re:Looks great but

[russ1337]

Can I make a Beowulf Cluster of those CIOs ?

Why? are you building a quantum computer? Cos you have to understand that you are going to get all possible combinations of ever possible answer to every question you didnt ask, at once. And nothing that comes out of it will make sense...

Re:Looks great but

[truthsearch]

Most of them probably don't run Linux. :(

Re:Looks great but

[bombadillo]

"Can I make a Beowulf Cluster of those CIOs ?"

No, this is Slashdot. You may only imagine a Beowulf Cluster of those CIO's.

Re:Looks great but

[g1zmo]

I think you're on to something...

Ubermensch

[khasim]

I've harped on this for almost two decades. Technical skills keep you employed. Business skills get you promoted.

And the bestest employee would have great tech skills and great business skills. Everyone wants to hire the superman. That's a given.

Now, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 low, 10 high) how far down can your tech skills go to bring up your business skills?
(5 being average for that sector, not for the public)

If you stay employed because your tech skills are an "8", but you want to be promoted and your business skills are only a "4" ...

Is it acceptable to drop 4 points in tech to gain 4 points in business?

Re:Ubermensch

[geekoid]

you are not balancing a character sheet here.

You can maitain your '8' in tech AND raise you business skills.

Re:Ubermensch

[DeeZee]

Why do you have to unlearn PL/SQL to learn budgetplanning?
People learn things all their lives, not just while they are in school. Keep training yourself. If the company won't spring for courses, pick up a few books on select topics, and read once in a while. Not every day, not every week even, but read two-three books a year, and your brain stays alert.

Re:Ubermensch

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Unfortunately, some people simply don't have business acumen in them, just like some people just don't have tech skills in them. (possibly like me, wtf knows) Where this survey comes in interesting - of course, it's also bloody obvious - is where it says, "IF you are good at understanding business, big companies are more likely to hire you. If you are good at understanding technology, small companies will be more likely to hire you." Which would you rather work for?

Re:Ubermensch

[geekoid]

right now? bif business. BUt thats becasue I went through several small business that either died from lack of funding, mismanagment, or missing a market window. In one case they went 'out of business' but then a month later the owners sold the technology for a lot of money.

Of course, since we didn't work there, they didn't need to pay out the 30% that the promised to divide up among the team(4 people)

rat bastards, I hope their new yaught sinks and takes them with it.

Re:Ubermensch

[Grishnakh]

No one said you had to unlearn anything. But if your job doesn't involve working in X technology every day, you're simply not going to know it very well, regardless of how many books you read or courses you take. I've taken countless "training" courses throughout my job at my current megacorporation. They're really not all that helpful, not compared to actually having to work with it. Most people tend to forget things they don't use.

Re:Ubermensch

[Mateito]

You are always "unlearning". The language, techniques, architecture, whatever that you knew inside out is now obselete.

Business skills do become obselete, but nowhere near as fast.

If you head more into the business side, you will probably become less of a specialist, more of a generalist, but have a better idea of the big picture.

In my experience, there are roles for both. The generalists design and maintain the overall architecture, keeping it steered towards business goals, and the specialists keep the individual components working as well as they possibly can.

Re:Ubermensch

[protohiro1]

Small companies sound good on paper. They suck in practice. They have no cash at all, so they can't pay you, can't buy you the softs you need and they put the servers in the basement and cross their fingers. You can't get promoted, so you have to leave to advance. I would give up the "fun" atmosphere and "non-corporate" environment for a more paid vacation and quarterly salary reviews.

Re:Ubermensch

[Gr8Apes]

quarterly salary reviews.

What are these 'quarterly salary reviews' you speak of? Annual is the best I've seen.

Re:Ubermensch

[brettdavis4]

This has happened to me quiet a bit in my 5 year career. I'll get hired on and only learn and use A, B tech skills when companies are looking for A, B, C, D, E tech skills. I'll try to study C, D, E tech skills, but you are 100% right if you don't use them in everday work it is hard to remember them. That is the main reason why I've decided to do contract work instead of working for one company. I'm planning on working 3-6 month contracts for the next few years. Hopefully, this will give me a better and stronger skill set. I don't understand why companies don't hire on someone and just train them. If I have a general understanding of C, D, E tech skills, why not hire them on and see if those skills could be strengthened.

Re:Ubermensch

[Anonymous Coward]

Your salary can get reviewed all day and night, but what about an increase :)

Grr.. forgot my password!

Then why does WSJ say they're outsourcing?

[WillAffleckUW]

It's interesting that they project that, but at the very same time, starting with an article on the front page of today's print edition of the Wall Street Journal, I see that they're projecting increased outsourcing to India.

Not that it's not possible to have "increased hiring by CIOs" and outsourcing, as they'll be "hiring" the outsourced jobs, which a handy graph in the same edition shows is where certain major firms have been "expanding".

Results matter, not spin.

Re:Then why does WSJ say they're outsourcing?

[sgt_doom]

You are exactly on target, of course! Every several years Microsoft claims they'll be hiring in the Puget Sound area, but then it turns out they've just hired in India, or China or Russia, etc. If a fairly conservative group such as Gartner projected IT outsourcing to increase by 20 percent over the next few years - you know it will probably be more like 40 to 60 percent - given the exponential increase of offshoring in most job areas.....

[Joe Lieberman's support group: Rush Limpbaugh, George W. Bush and SATAN]

Re:Then why does WSJ say they're outsourcing?

[Danga]

Every several years Microsoft claims they'll be hiring in the Puget Sound area, but then it turns out they've just hired in India, or China or Russia, etc.

Are you serious?? You are completely off base, MS is hiring like crazy right now at Redmond. I actually recently got invited out to Redmond to interview for a senior developer position and I am not H1-B, etc, I am a US citizen.

Re:Then why does WSJ say they're outsourcing?

[sgt_doom]

No, M$ does actually hire, but not their publicly stated numbers - the only hire a small fraction in the Puget Sound area compared to what they claim they are going to hire locally. And yes, I am serious.....(also, once you are hired, please keep your hears attuned to see how many people knew each other prior to being hired there, in other words, what level of nepotism they practise....)

Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[khasim]

you are not balancing a character sheet here.

You can maitain your '8' in tech AND raise you business skills.

No, you cannot. There are only so many hours in the day, so many days in the week, etc.

Like I said, everyone would love to hire the guy who is great at everything.

The reality is, those people don't exist. Which is why Dilbert cartoons are so popular.

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[geekoid]

I keep my technical skills up to date, and I am increasing my business skills.

When at work, home many area do you need to keep your technical skills up to date?

Now, am I keeping technical skills I do not use or need up to date? no. But I can't fancy why I would need to keep ontp of the latest FORTRAN development, or C++ skills when my job does not, and will not require them.

OTOH, my database skills are up to date(really not to difficult if you understand the underlying mechinisms).

You just lack motivation.

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[Cyno]

Depends on the goal. If your company's goal is to create a solid, stable, efficient, maintainable, scalable infrastructure then you can forget about the business skills and focus on the job. If their goal is just to make money at all cost, then forget about the tech skills (you already got the job) and focus on the business skills, such as how to smile and lie to someone's face and turn around to stab them in the back in your next meeting with their superior, and how to cover your ass proactively to avoid taking the fall for disasters that will result from the obvious lack of competence, since nobody cared about competence, its not the goal, etc, etc, etc.. :)

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[Cyno]

In other words there's a reason we have managers and individual contributors. Managers should be of more intelligence than their individual contributors and able to look beyond their unhappy frown to understand why the daily stress their job dumps on them might somehow make them unhappy. The alternative is the individual contributor finds a new job, possible as a manager, simply to avoid stress.

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[jafac]

The real challenge to upgrading one's business skills, is to not get bogged down in meetings. Once you start down that road, it's very difficult to also perform marathon coding sessions - or especially, provide good support to your "customers" (external or internal).

A freind of mine recently started down that path - and yesterday, complained that he had 12 hours of meetings on his schedule.

The "support" role is kind of a nice one, because you have a great opportunity to sharpen social skills, and because problems tend to come in across a broad spectrum of areas of knowledge, you tend to also develop a very broad base of technical skills. The trade-off is, you end up with the attention span of a ferret on acid, you never get technically very deep in any particular topic, including "business" technology.

I'm starting down the tech-to-business path as well, having transitioned from support to development, and I know I've got to avoid meeting overload. I already know how to not get bogged down in "support" - that was how I made it out.

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[Corbets]

For the record, creating a stable infrastructure and making money are not mutually exclusive goals. However, the reason a business has an infrastructure is to make money, and that's the part most IT types miss. You need to analyze everything you do in a cost-vs-rewards light - *that's* the business skills that CIOs want their tech people to have.

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[Aceticon]

If your company's goal is to create a solid, stable, efficient, maintainable, scalable infrastructure which improves the business processes of the company and/or satisfies the needs of the customers (and thus helps the company make more money) ...

A technically perfect system which does not help (either directly or indirectly) a company make more money is totally worthless from the point of view of a company (even if it's very interesting from a technical point of view).

Good technical skills together with some business skills are needed to actually do good stuff which gets used in the real world - the business skills being used to actually figure out what is needed instead of what would be cool to do

The pinacle of technical achievement IMHO is making a technical perfect system which people use and are happy about it.

I do agree that the more Machiavelian business skills are not required, though ... ;)

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[Anonymous Coward]

Access 2005 FTW!

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[Cyno]

Nope. Technology is not business, its science. In order to provide the stable solution I mentioned I would have to spend my time evaluating teh technology in a production environment. Lots of things look nice on paper in the business world, but us techs cannot rely on theory to get our jobs done.

In theory Windows XP is the most secure and stable OS ever. See the problem now? Its not as simple as CIOs fantasize it should be. We don't have the time to do both our job and theirs and expect that our job gets done right. If you want it done right, let us do our jobs. That's what we've been training for these last 10+ years.

To put it another way, I'd like to see this CIO do my job before they tell me how to do my job. If they can't maybe they should keep their trap shut and focus on their job. I rely on them to be competent and not make mistakes, to keep our company profitable. Also I might have a wealth of information they would be interested in, if they could humble themselves enough to hang out with us hippie techs.

Yes we can be rude and disrespectful. Whatever gets the job done. But you'll find it takes a lot to offend us, a lot more than it takes to offend a CIO. Call us names, make fun of our lack of social skills, do whatever you want to do around us (even in the nude if you like), just remember who keeps the servers running.

Re:Like I said, "Ubermensch".

[borgboy]

It's so much easier to compete against someone who has already decided his limits.

The study agrees with what employers tell us.

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago the college where I work was looking at what new programs we should offer. We spent a lot of time talking to the local employers. They told us that they needed people who can operate across disciplines. In other words, they needed someone who can talk to the engineering and manufacturing and marketing.

Employees who don't think beyond their own specialty are a problem. For instance, engineers will come up with a solution for any problem you give them. Often though, the solution produced isn't economic. Designers who are familiar with manufacturing and business processes will usually produce designs that are economic. As well, there is the problem that an MBA and an engineer don't speak the same language and that can cause all kinds of interesting problems.

http://www.conestogac.on.ca/jsp/programs/schooleng it/degree/applieddegree.jsp

Re:The study agrees with what employers tell us.

[BVis]

You've heard the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none?" Granted, there are people out there who are able to work across disciplines as you suggest, but they don't get hired. Why? A few reasons:

1) You're less likely to have Engineering Skills 1, 2, and 3 if you have skills in other disciplines. Granted, there are exceptions, but in general, that's the case. And since everyone does hiring by search engine these days, your resume will never see the light of day if it doesn't have all the right keywords.
2) In the case that you DO have all the skills, it's presumed (correctly or not) that you're going to want a salary commensurate with your skill set and your geographic location. Here you run into the "if we pay our people as little as we can possibly get away with, we'll be more competitive" mentality and you're out of the picture even before the second interview. The fact that you're exactly what they're looking for is irrelevant; if the choice is between someone good and someone cheap...
3) You've found a company where they actually DO value your skills and contributions and you're not in the market :)

Re:The study agrees with what employers tell us.

[Roachgod]

I disagree...It is my very versatility that keeps me with a nice job and plenty of options. The issue I think most people have is that they don't know how to tailor their resume to a particular opening/market.

Having a wide skillset means you can get a job many places as opposed to just a few. Think of it as insurance.

Then again, only a small set of my skills are strictly IT, it is nice to have enough skill to be a freelance artist as well, have medical training, and teaching experience....

Re:The study agrees with what employers tell us.

[BVis]

The issue I think most people have is that they don't know how to tailor their resume to a particular opening/market.

That's a very good point. Having multiple resumes makes it less likely that you'll get bounced for being "overqualified" (read: "expensive"). Anything you can do to make yourself look cheap will get you in the door. After you're in and they decide you're the guy, screw 'em. They'd do the same to you.

Re:The study agrees with what employers tell us.

[allenw]

This is all very good advice, and I thank you for posting it. I was laid off a few weeks ago from [insert big company name here], and I am currently going through the resume editing process.

Re:The study agrees with what employers tell us.

[Rushowr]

I can personally attest to that point. I have been called a "jack of all trades, master of none", my skillset includes things like import engine rebuilding + repair, graphic and broadcast artist, network administrator, PHP/AEL/C developer, live and studio production engineer, etc.., and to top it all off, those are skills I have learned professionally or through self-education with professional experience later backing it up.

Unfortunately, most employers want that slip of paper that says you were not only dedicated to learning something, but that you had the money to pay someone else to tell you what to read and help you understand things you had difficulty with. There's definitely more people who can learn quickly via higher education, but there's that select few that learn much better outside of the "normal" environment.

Additionally, I'd like to add an extra note of agreement to the third item in BVis' list. It seems like I work crap jobs for months while trying to find a company that realizes I'm qualified for their open position AND a good investment, but the moment I have a solid position with a good company, my inbox is flooded with interview requests, etc.... Luckily, I learned my lesson about the grass not REALLY being greener back in '99 when I left a FOX affiliate for a startup graphic & web design company that changed their mind about the position the day AFTER my 30 day notice was up at the television station...

ok...enough ranting...shutup Rushowr....

Re:The study agrees with what employers tell us.

[Roachgod]

Yeah, the peice of paper thing bit me in the ass a few times. The key is to find a way, ANY way, to get a silly slip of paper that says you know what you are doing. The obvious way is a degree...but if you can get a job (even freelance) that involves the necessary skill, and thus a reference, then BOOM, your RESUME! is that bit of paper. Even better, it doesn't have to be anything particularly big or impressive. It just has to be something that impressed your client so that they talk you up.

Thats how it went for me... Small bit of art, larger bit of art, real art stuff (and this time I got it on paper, having learned my lesson)....job at game company as artist.......

you get the idea.

Re:The study agrees with what employers tell us.

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Yes, have more than one resume, for different things. One can be more generalized with wordy explanations of some bigger projects and another can have lots of raw info like skill x y z etc. grouped by categories, with very brief explanations of some past projects. Then you can specialize further focusing on certain skills and using your other skills as extras.

I just got a new job :) using my hardcore raw data resume version. At one point I had been told I was overqualified a few times and most other times got nothing back at all. It was crazy. I couldn't get a job and yet I had been "overqualified" for some.

Another big thing is "networking". I hate that hiring based on knowing people instead of just whether they would be a good employee or not. It helps if someone at the company knows you.

Thats fine

[geekoid]

what is not fine is the fact that I don't have an uncle who is a CIO!

I don't know about the rest of you,

[Almahtar]

but I think this is useful information. I wouldn't have thought that business skills/knowlege would be more attractive than technical prowess for an IT guy. It's especially useful to know that the higher the budget/larger the fish, the more so this is true.

Re:I don't know about the rest of you,

[Javagator]

Take this information with a grain of salt. Except for small companies, upper management doesn't make hiring decisions for technical staff. The project manager and the senior programming staff do the hiring at every place I've worked. And we look very hard at technical skills. You need one or two people who can talk to customers and upper management, but most people on a programming project develop software.

Who cares what CIOs think about technical hiring?

[Money for Nothin']

CIOs (in Fortune 500 companies, at least) are so far removed from the proles at the bottom of the corporate pyramid -- the admins/engineers, developers, etc. -- that they frankly don't have a damn clue as to what they need. It is not their job to know *specifically* what they need that far down the corporate ladder; that is the job of one or more layers of middle-management they have separating the CIO from the people with actual technical skills (unlike the CIO), i.e. the rest of us unwashed masses (and in IT, this is sometimes a literal phrase...).

The CIO's job is to manage management en-masse (to "throw IQ points" at problems, as Bill Gates' approach tends to be), and to have "Big Ideas", or at least read the same business-tech magazines their lowly technical people do (eWeek, InformationWeek, etc.) which present big ideas -- and then tell the techies what to do, even if it's technically the wrong thing to do. Your typical CIO does not have a technical background...

Mainframe Operations

[itunes keith]

Mainframe Operations at the bottom of the list? Am I a young person in trouble?

Re:Mainframe Operations

[morryveer]

No. relax grasshopper. Note that the other categories are much more generic than "mainframe operator". and there are few, if any, entering this field.

Re:Mainframe Operations

[Richard Steiner]

We can replace you with a very small tape robot...I mean tape silo...I mean very large...I mean *WHACK*

We can replace you with a very large tape silo. :-)

no no no no no

[oyenstikker]

Social skills and [false] confidence get you the job, not completely sucking* keeps you employed, and kissing above and kicking below (aka business skills) gets you promoted. Techical skills get stuff done.

* Nobody wants to fess up to hiring sub-par people, so they pretend they're okay and keep them around.

Re:no no no no no

[bobcote]

That's why there are so many headhunters calling with these "wonderful" contract - to- perm job offers.

Hiring managers are protected from their own incompetence by auditioning employees for two to six months before making a commitment. Also if the person is too good they can keep them around without the danger of them becoming your boss. You can also not renew the contract and take full credit for the work.

But at least it's decent presentation...

[jsharkey]

Remember how annoying other n-page articles have been, with their loads of ads and the never-disappearing "Next Page" links? Kudos to this magazine for boiling their article down to one summary page, and for pushing all clutter to the edges. Hopefully other sites are watching and will take notice!

That's what I said.

[khasim]

No one said you had to unlearn anything. ... Most people tend to forget things they don't use.

That's what I said.

Are you going to spend the time keeping your tech skills up to date or are you going to let them atrophy while you build business skills?

Ideal skill set

[mpaque]

1. Nod your head continuously any time your boss is addressing your team. This conveys that you agree with everything he says and that you only wish you could have articulated it as brilliantly as he is doing. If his ego is insatiable, his eyes will constantly gravitate in your direction for affirmation. In other words, embrace your inner bobblehead.

2. Disagree with everything the boss says. Go out of your way to contradict her every statement. This shows that you're an independent thinker and way smarter than the rest of the peons you've been thrown in with.

3. Use the same buzzwords as the boss. Make sure what you say is an actionable, user-centric, directionally correct turnkey solution with touchpoints. As you can see, it doesn't even have to make sense if you say it fast enough. For extra points, speak entirely in acronyms.

4. Ask questions during company meetings that have no purpose other than to showcase your tremendous intellect. If the CIO is talking about reorganizing the help desk, don't be afraid to raise your hand and ask what effect the current business strategy will have on the next quarter's profit margin. For an added bonus, ask this question at the end of a meeting. (See next point.)

5. Don't make any major presentations during the course of a regular meeting. Wait until the meeting organizer is wrapping up and makes the perfunctory "does anyone have anything else?" request. Then you launch into your spiel, assuring that everyone has to pay attention to what you say. Sure, they may hate you for making the meeting run long, but you'll have made an impression.

6. Laugh hard at your boss's jokes. The higher placed the boss, the greater your laughter should be. If it's the CIO, feign uncontrollable mirth by intermittently wiping tears from your eyes.

7. Be at work 23 hours per day. Be there when your boss gets in and when she leaves. Even if your workload only constitutes about 3 1/2 hours, stretch it out with coffee breaks, four-hour lunches, non-work-related web browsing, and general co-worker chit chat. After all, productivity is measured by your physical presence not actual turnaround.

8. Pay close attention to whatever phone/PDA/gadget the boss uses. Do a great deal of research on it, then casually let the boss know that you're looking for a new phone/PDA/gadget with particular features--namely the exact ones that his model is known for. The boss will instantly recommend his own gadget, so that when you buy it yourself, he thinks you took his advice, rather than merely copied his purchase.

Shamelessly ripped from "The Trivia Geek" at TechRepublic

CIO's don't often interview non-mgmt

[MECC]

And when CIOs to hire non-management professionals, they very often make bad choices, from my experience. Its rare for a 'CIO' to have the kind of background needed to evaluate real IT professionals. Smart CIOs let people to the evaluating who have the experience to do it well. Other CIOs, well, if one tried to impress me with their cluefullness when 'interviewing' me, I'd might take the job if I really needed it, but I'd keep my resume up to date. And not take stock options.

Wrong, wrong, wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an insanely sweeping and incorrect generalization. Not all large ("big dumb") companies are like this. Many of them value, recognize and promote individual contributions. Furthermore, even within a single corporation these things change from one business unit to another, depending on who happens to be running it. Your odds of being in a "bad" situation within a small company is about as good as being in one within a large one. How can you possibly generalize like that?

It's too bad you were damaged by a "big dumb company" but the one I work for (which is actually a subsidiary of a Fortune 50 firm) is nothing like the nightmare you describe here. I don't understand why these "well this is what happened to me so therefore it must happen to everyone" opinion posts get modded up like this.

'scuse me...

[subxero37]

... but shouldn't it be whom?

Nit-pickerry...

Those are political skiils, not business skills.

[winkydink]

They are related, but not the same thing

I beg to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

From my end of the planet, a business diploma will get you in charge of the IT shop. Techie skills are for the low-lifes the business people yell at. Technical skills get you nowhere. I don't know where you people are from (apparently not where I'm from). A business degree is a great start to be in charge of anything I.T. Comp. Sci. degree? We might hire you as a temp. (entry level wage but only if you have 10+ years experience).

Re:I beg to differ

[Tablizer]

From my end of the planet, a business diploma will get you in charge of the IT shop. Techie skills are for the low-lifes the business people yell at.

Perhaps. Go into tech because you *like* tech, not because it is the best path to riches and fame.

Re:I beg to differ

[powerpointmonkey]

I'm a techie with an MBA. Last month I turned down the offer of a directorship at the huge corporate where I work, because it paid less than my techie job. Last week I handed in my notice in order to go back to the world of IT contracting, where my technical skills are going to pay me THREE TIMES what they were offering for the directorship.

Sure, it means i'm going to have to be one of those 'low lifes' that the business people yell at, but while the business guy is feeling smug about the number of underlings he/she has working for them, I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:I beg to differ

[Tablizer]

So you are a highly-paid peon :-)

Since when are CIOs involved in hiring?

[Richard Steiner]

Maybe in small companies. In larger companies, the CIO is often not even in touch with major corporate IT strategy, much less day-to-day subjects like hiring criteria. Heck, director-level people are rarely involved -- that's the type of thing that Managers and team leads do, and they're in the trenches.

Project mgrs and developers, huh?

[MrNougat]

So you don't have any routers or switches or VoIP systems or servers or printers or workstations or backup storage or --

Yeah, the project managers and developers can take care of all that stuff in their free time.

For the nth time, IT is more than programming/development. There's a whole lot of infrastructure that needs installing, repairing, maintaining, and securing, and your development staff and management is either unwilling or unable to deal with it. Which is fine, because there's a whole bunch of people out there (yes, like me) who are both willing and able, for the right price.

Oh and one last thing: if you plan on hiring and promoting people who have stronger business skills and knowledge (stronger than technical skills and knowledge, presumably), you're going to end up with a head that doesn't know what to tell the body to do. Again. Or still. Whatever, "business leaders" - you're just there to soak money until the place goes under or you get canned with severance.

God I get so pissed about this.

Cyclical

[Tablizer]

During recessions the need for "delta workers" greatly drops. Delta workers build new things or make significant changes to things. Infrastructure maintenence-related positions are safer from recessions because they keep the business running day-to-day. Thus, new systems work is more volitile and will go up during good times and drop more during bad times.

Re:Cyclical

[Run4yourlives]

Good Point. You should add though that volitilty also translates directly to salaries as well... high in the good times, low in the bad.

But from where, and for how much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Conveniently, the mag skips those questions.

A PM with superior skills that's only looking for $18/hour has it made... those looking for $40-$60 might have a tougher time.

Why all the programmers?

[wwiiol_toofless]

Are all these companies still writing software in-house? Seems to me it's cheaper to buy a catch-all product and have 1 or 2 coders customize it to suit that particular company's need. Most of the crap I see at my place is Access or SQL with a clumsy front end. Why aren't there modular/scalable software solutions all over the place? And yet we're hiring more and more coders everyday, meanwhile our help desk is overwhelmed trying to support all the crap our software shop is puking out. Hire more desktop support.

Re:Why all the programmers?

[mr-seismik]

You've hit the nail on the head. Software development? Unless this is a company that is ready to actually market and make a profit with its product, it's juch a waste of time. The amount of small specialized and crap applications that could be replaced in moments by open source, or some of the new web-based applications is staggering. I suggest you browse the top active projects on SourceForge for some scalable, modular software. Keep an open mind and you'll see the possibilities. The way to go is to educate people, slowly, to see the light. I think Google is doing this better than anyone else, with its wonderfully attractive web software, and the support of a huge company behind it. I've also noticed how they're hiring the best engineers left and right.

Re:Why all the programmers?

[dctoastman]

Open Source software doesn't write itself and SourceForge isn't a magical well full of never-ending developers. It takes significant time and effort to create those top active projects. Some of those are being worked on by people being paid to do so by their company. Open Source development is a great way for businesses to pool resources without actually having to negotiate contracts or actually meeting each other. Hire some developers to create an OS project out of a skeleton spec, drop it on SourceForge with a GPL and have another company who thinks the software is worthy actually assist you in developing it. If the software reduces the cost of doing business, then it does not need to have a "marketable value" as such. You are essentially paying developers to make your business run cheaper ("leaner and more efficiently" for the marketing souls out there).

Re:Why all the programmers?

[Run4yourlives]

What an ignorant comment.

Here's the thing: If you have a successful business selling widgets or whatever, it stands to reason that you're successful because you're doing something differently than everyone else.

Now, in a lot of cases, that "difference" that sets you apart affects your business processes: you know the ones supported by your catch-all product?

In almost every case that I have come across, off the shelf products don't do nearly as efficient job at harnessing the efficiencies of a business the way a properly developed in house system can.

Re:Why all the programmers?

[wwiiol_toofless]

Well I know what IT position category you fall into... I was generalizing that at least where I work, they throw money at "slipstreaming the business process", which is essentially throwing money at coders and asking for a scratch-built data management solution. Are you trying to tell me we couldn't find a solution that's already built and tested, that couldn't be "adjusted" to meet need? Reduced to the barest concept we are talking about cubby-holing data in such a way that makes it more accessible, reusable and logical. I'm POSITIVE there are certain cases (perhaps many), that require a custom solution, written in-house, on company time, but that doesn't seem the most efficient way to me. Perhaps you are right, maybe I'm just an "ignorant" desktop support troll. Or was the flaming response just your self-preservation mechanism kicking in?

Re:Why all the programmers?

[Run4yourlives]

I'm POSITIVE there are certain cases (perhaps many), that require a custom solution, written in-house, on company time...

Then we're in agreement, what's the problem?

but that doesn't seem the most efficient way to me

Have you ever considered that perhaps you knowledge of the process is less than complete?

Re:Why all the programmers?

[wwiiol_toofless]

Have you ever considered that perhaps you knowledge of the process is less than complete?
Of course. I'm neither an analyst nor anything more than a novice programmer and lowly desktop technician. But I am required to sit through meetings where things of this nature are discussed and I'm entitled to post my novice opinion in here, just like you are entitled to your haughty refutations. So are you playing Devil's advocate here or are you really trying to say there are no avenues for a company other than custom, ground up solutions?

Re:Why all the programmers?

[dctoastman]

Can I then ask why you contradict yourself? You say that you can see where in-house development is required, but don't understand why they don't try something more efficient. That's like saying blind people are required to touch an object to know its shape, but don't understand why they don't just look at it. The thing is, it is not black and white, all or nothing. You in-house what you can't purchase or find. Or better yet, you find an OS project that is close to what you need and take it the rest of the way (sending the changes back into the community, of course).

Re:Why all the programmers?

[Run4yourlives]

So are you playing Devil's advocate here or are you really trying to say there are no avenues for a company other than custom, ground up solutions?

Neither, I'm simply countering your initial assertion that it is more efficient to modify off the shelf products than it is to build your own. In many situations, it is not. You agree to this.

I think you got a little miffed at my saying your comment was ignorant. I wasn't using the word as an insult, but its literal meaning.

Do they teach how to fake and manipulate in MBA?

[jawahar]

http://reddit.com/info/dokh/comments/

what the hell is IT anyway ...

[incoherent_bubble]

I've noticed that old (pre-internet era) companies use "IT" as the umbrella term for anything technical where newer, more tech-savvy companies separate product development (software engineering, web dev, qa, etc) from "IT," reserving the latter term for systems, support, operations, and networking.

To generalize, I really wonder if the trends of these old companies with their archaic processes really have any meaning to the rest of us. Maybe the companies in this article emphasize greater business-savvy because their business models are disappearing and they don't stand a chance on the technical side anyway.

Parent Is Obviously CIO Material!

[Anonymous Coward]

We've found a diamond in the rough, so to speak in the parent. We'll just

buy a catch-all product

... What? There is no such COTS product? Well, can't we use Word or, if we need a database, then Access?

and have 1 or 2 coders customize it

...Oh yeah, we laid off all our programmers who actually did work. All we have now are project managers and we can't ask them to code - they don't know how.

Things are so much better now.

"IT Doesn't Matter!" and Local Gvmt

[Anonymous Coward]

They hired a CIO. Guy's got his head up his ass and in the clouds at the same time. Call him AssGrabber(AG)(he's gay). Anyway, AG's bullshitting the department head(DH), who thinks AG knows what he's talking about and has given AG the goahead to replace a (working) big iron system that has served years with little downtime and has no problems.

So what does AG do? He hires a bunch of Project Managers(PMs) beholden only to him, enough to double the size of the IT department. Fast forward 3 years: absolutely _nothing_ has come out of AG's administration. He sits in his office blowing smoke up his own ass. Once a week he meets with the DH and blows smoke up his ass. Once a month he meets with all of IT and they marvel at his use of IT acronyms; each month a new set of acronyms. Meanwhile his PMs are scared, looking for jobs elsewhere.

AG paid premium wages for his PMs, doubling his staff costs with no productivity increase, nothing to show for it: has not even produced a technical software specification document. Meanwhile the former IT members (now these are the people who can code and understand the business) are leaving because there is no future with AG in charge. AG mistreats anyone who was there before he was hired and rewards his do-nothing PM hirelings. Unfortunately the only ones working and getting things done are the former. And because people are leaving, support is declining, and the user community is bitching. Pretty soon AG will be found out unless he does something.

AG says that he's gonna replace that big iron system, customized for the applications over years, by buying COTS and customizing it. But he hasn't looked at the system he says he'll replace. The inside scoop is that the plan is to buy the same system a nearby local government bought, so they'll be compatible, but mostly so AG doesn't have to determine what the requirements are [and cynics say also because the fix is in - the seller of the system is a former hi-level gvmt insider].

So the new IT methodology is to buy a system, cram it down the users' throats and proclaim victory. This must be the new paradigm for IT. Nicholas Carr was right: "IT Doesn't Matter!"
disclaimer - all people and places are purely fictional, of course.

Fake news

[SIInudeity]

Hehehehe. Immediately after I read the slashdot Fake News article, I read this article... Coincidence?

Tentative definition of business skills

[Jeppe Salvesen]

- Sufficient social skills to be likable - and to give praise to both others and yourself.
- Know your Machiavelli and know when to use it and when not to use it.
- Be professional in how you communicate and deal with people and organizations.

And - you keep an eye on the budget when prioritizing.

Work ethic

[Anonymous Coward]

I've decided to only hire those who answer YES to the question - Have you read through and through www.whywork.org? regardless of their resume.

Project managers is a euphemism

[hmmm]

"I want to hire a project manager" is usually a translation for "The last guy in here who tried to implement a project screwed it up, some magical project manager person will of course do it perfectly next time because all my existing staff are muppets"

Sayings are fun, but are they really true?

[walterbyrd]

I've worked in IT over 25 years.

From what I have seen, over and over, hiring, retention, and promotions, are almost arbitrary. Such decions are almost never based on sound logic. Many times I've seen people promoted to management who have neither business, or technical, skills.

If so called "social skills" means playing politics, then I suppose that is important.

Doing a good job is the last way to get promoted

[walterbyrd]

The simple reason is: why rock the boat.

For example: let's say you are hired to work for slave wages at the helpdesk. After two months, you have proven your worth by doing a great job.

Hey, they have a great helpdesk tech who works for slave wages. Why should they ever promote the tech? If they promote the tech, then they'll have to get a new tech, and train him/her. Of course the tech will just quite, but companies are seldomly that far sighted. After the tech quits, the company will bitch about how techs are job hoppers.

Companies don't want to train because they are afraid of training people for the next job. Besides, it doesn't fit into the budget.

Whom are CIOs Planning to Hire Next?

[Ezubaric]

They're going to hire people with good grammar.

Is this kind of information useful?

[walterbyrd]

It seems to me, that most of the jobs listed (that anybody would want)are only available to people who already have those jobs.

Biz skill can hurt you if your a techie

[walterbyrd]

After I was laid off at general dynamics, I was offered some free training from unemployment. They rejected all of my training ideas, and kept pushing project management, so I took that.

I inverviewed at raytheon for a job that I seemed to fit perfectly, especially since my top secret clearance was still active. The interviewer was very concerned about my project managemnet training. He kept saying: "this is just an admin job, it involves no project management." No matter what I said, his concern was very apparent.

I also interviewed at Sun, for a job that required a TS clearance. Same thing. The interviewer abrubtly said: "most of the people we hire for this position don't have that sort of education." and that was it.

My training in PM is useless for getting a PM job. Those jobs require years of experience in PM, and also years of experience in the specific technology being managed.

Project Mismanagers...

[chaeron]

Heaven help us from more Project Managers.

I have yet to meet one that I consider competent. Though I have heard fairy tales of such mythical beasties actually existing.

The push towards ever more (incompetent) PM's stems from a lack of leadership in the executive suite and the common misconception (or desire) that people are fungible resources, that can be plugged and played at will. Exec Management in many companies (especially the large ones) have no concept of leadership, and thus they promote a mechanistic approach to management, which manifests in their hiring ever more PMs and delegating responsibility down to them.

Ever seen a project manager that could be labelled a "project leader"? I haven't. Yet. And I'm not holding my breath.

PM's, at least the accredited ones, worship the PMBOK (Which would be better acronymized as the PMFOC, IMO). Seen any mention of a PMBOL (Book of Leadership)? That'll be the day.

Unfortunately, I see no end to this approach. It's only going to get worse, till everything crumbles. Offshoring is just another symptom of higher management's abdication of leadership and the treatment of people as commodity components.

My 2 cents worth.

Re:Project Mismanagers...

[cavemanf16]

You don't see any good project LEADERS because most project managers are not good leaders. Good leaders get promotions, and quick, because they LED their projects very successfully. So most good project leaders turn into business leaders. The not-so-good project managers do just that - manage a project right down the toilet, and never have a good reason why they keep failing because they don't know how to lead and stay on top of issues that cause failures in the first place.

The problem is such a large one because the successful leaders of projects stand out even more than successful day-to-day managers since their project has a defined start and end. When they bring that bad boy in on-time, under budget, and fully functional you can bet the other leaders who assigned them that task will say "Hot Damn! That's a great leader! We could use her in upper management!" And, because the pay in upper management is indeed, so good, that great project leader becomes a business leader and doesn't lead half as many projects again.

* P.S. Once I finish my bachelor's in the next couple of months, I'm planning on going for my PMP certification. Once I have that I'll have the silly piece of paper that says I'm "allowed" to manage projects, then I'm going to go lead some projects - well, because I know I could do it better than most - get noticed, and start turbo-ing my way to the top of the business ranks for fun and profit! :-P

Re:Project Mismanagers...

[chaeron]

I'm not sure I agree with your causal connections. Most good/natural "leaders" never become project managers in the first place. It's not an attractive career option. I've never seen a project manager rise to upper management ranks, probably for just that reason.

A project manager tends to be a twilight zone position. Really knowledgeable business or technical people are not interested, and have other career paths. So PM's rarely have good knowledge of the domain that they are supposedly managing. In fact, I would suggest that in the IT world, many PM's are failed techies, that couldn't cut it doing "real work", or good techies that hit a ceiling in the career path, switched to PM for the opportunity, but have no/little leadership talent, are now obsolete technically (ie no longer knowledgeable), and having instantiated their own version of Peter Principle hell, are very unhappy. Extremely talented techies rarely want to become PM's and if they do, usually bail out pretty quickly, since they don't find it very satisfying.

Good managers don't become PM's because that would be a step down the food chain.

So a PM is typically not good or knowledgeable about the domain, nor do they have good management skills (typically a poor attempt at a synonym for leadership). I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule...but I have yet to meet one.

Though there is a germ of truth in your comment, though not quite as you laid it out. Good leaders (at any level or in any discipline) are extremely valuable and also quite rare, so why in the world would they or their companies want them to be PM's. Doesn't typically happen. QED.

But the exec managers want to delegate and treat people like robot automatons. They are deluded in thinking that is productive or a good path to success, but regardless, they then delegate to the "professional" PM's who then continue to foster the delusion to the next level. Self-fulfilling prophecies.

I don't much believe that there is any such thing as "management of people". You can motivate, inspire, lead, cajole, sell and even threaten (though that is counterproductive as a consistent approach). But you can't "manage" a human being. They have free will, and most will exercise it...many times covertly to your detriment if they smell you are trying to "manage" them. Managing is a dirty word....it conjures images of manipulation, coercion and worse, by it's very nature.

People are messy as thus is leadership. It's an art....not a skill you can acquire from a book (PMBOK) or in a course. You can only learn it in the SOHK (school of hard knocks) and by mentoring/example.

Funny thing...I used to think that to assemble (and inspire) a hotshot team, you needed top-notch, hot-shot resources. Experience has caused me to rethink that. An exceptional leader (notice, I didn't say manager, nor project manager), can take a solid, but average group of individuals, and and inspire them to productivity and greatness that would boggle your mind. Maybe that's because most organizations are a mediocre grey (the law of averages virtually guarantees that in larger organizations) and it doesn't take that much to stand out. But you only need that little productivity/inspiration/perspiration uplift to work miracles, and blow away your competition in the process.

Which brings me to my last point. Unless you are a mature student with a long history of business experience behind you, I doubt that you have much in the way of leadership skills. It's not something they teach you in school or something that can be learned in a Bachelor's curriculum (which explains why so many MBA's are so useless and cause so much damage through their hubris). Real world experience counts. Not much else does when it comes to leadership, though I do admit there are some rare folks that have a natural talent for leading and inspiring.

That being said, the abysmal level of PM's in general, means that you are probably correct in saying "I could do it better than most". B

Re:Project Mismanagers...

[cavemanf16]

Haha! I did get a kick out of your post and your aggrandizement of the horrors of the word "management." :)

That being said, don't read too literally what I wrote. The "fun and profit" for me will come when I am my own manager, boss, leader, and the only things I have to do during the day are what *I* decide I need to do. Of course, this ignores the wife factor, but I digress. ;)

My point was mainly that a good leader has either raw talent or developed talent for leading others, or more likely of mix of raw and developed talent to do so. A "Project Manager" or a "PMP" is just a title, and only reflects a person's given responsibilities, not their abilities. So when I said that a really good leader who happens to also be called a "project manager" usually doesn't last as simply a "project manager" because their talent allows them to go on to pursue bigger and better challenges and opportunities as a leader, which oftentimes turns into the title "Manager of people" in one form or another. (And when I say "manager of people", I'm merely talking about leading the day-to-day processes that go on, rather than a particular project with defined start and stop dates.)

So in the end, it's not that I think having a stupid certification somehow makes me a great leader, or technically capable. Far from it! I know most titles are crap! But what it does give you is paper credibility for about 80% of hiring managers to actually look at your resume. The street cred is all earned, and only comes from performing well in the role you've been given. And let's face it, like it or not, the paper cred is the easiest way to weed out those with potential street cred from those with neither the paper cred or the street cred.

Re:Project Mismanagers...

[cavemanf16]

Oh, and I am a 'mature' student. I'll be one month shy of my 30th birthday when I finally graduate from DeVry with my BS in Comp. Eng. Tech. And yes, I only went there to get the paper to say that I'm qualified for certain jobs. I've actually been working in large companies for the past 8 years... right up the corporate ladder. ;)

screw trends and corp. stats

[phiwholigan]

am i the only one on here who could give a flying fvck about trends and hiring statistics? i am a software engineer / oracle dba for a $100 million company who is happy with my job. i never want to become management or the boss or any of that crap. i will program til i die, and i will die a happy man. if this company pisses me off i will walk out the door and get another job in seconds because software doesnt write itself and databases dont manage themselves. you cant fake skill. my code speaks for itself. i dont want a promotion i want a raise and bonus. i can work anywhere for anyone who meets those requirements. in the end i will make plenty of money by doing what i do best. so who cares that project managers and programmers are a hot hiring trend. not me, and if you have the skills you wont either. almost anyone can manage but not everyone can code!

Re:screw trends and corp. stats

[Run4yourlives]

i don't want a promotion i want a raise and bonus.

Being that you aren't prepared for more responsibility (promotion), you'll need to actively demonstrate - continuously - that the code you put out tomorrow is somehow worth more than the code you produced yesterday. This is a difficult thing to do, which is why you won't get raises and bonuses like some sort of union gig as often as you would like.

Where's the infrastructure-building personnel?

[kRutOn]

... finds that the demand for new systems and infrastructure is leading to more hiring for IT professionals who can build them. The result: Project managers and programmers/systems developers top the list of IT professionals CIOs are looking to hire.

Is it just me or do these two statements not make sense together? Once they hire all the project managers and programmers, they're still not going to have people that can build infrastructure. You'll need more systems administrators to get the actual hardware infrastructure in there.

Perhaps this magazine meant the news was that CIO actions don't align with their stated goals. :-)

Re:Looks great but - but nothing - use it FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, but if I sell it to management correctly (after all it will ALWAYS have the right answer .. somewhere) then I get to be the custodian of one of the companies most valuable assets. I just need to not be selected to the committee that has to interpret the output. Perhaps that would be best handled by a committee of middle managers who can't properly assess the risks - backed up by churnable contractors, of course!

The smart people run from being assigned to the project and the shortsighted power-grabbers are sucked into the honeypot!

Here's my take

[Run4yourlives]

IANACIO, so take this tidbit for what it's worth, because its only based on my experience.

CIOs and other executives appreciate one thing more than anything else from their technical people: know the business.

That's it really - if they can be confident that you understand the nature of the business they are in, it's quirks and gotchas, in addition to the ability to harness the techy stuff, you will succeed.

Be careful not to fall into the typical IT trap of assuming everyone above you is an idiot. Sometimes they are, but in many cases you simply aren't understanding the business aspect of their actions - and that's the part that keeps you paid.

Instead of spending tonight playing WOW, reading Slashdot, or reading up on the latest wifi encryption, learn something about what the company you work for does. You'll be better off for it.

Re:Here's my take

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, at my work computer and have cleaned out my cookies...so I will have to post anonymously.

I work as the Asia Pacifc IT head for a mid-sized business, and I cannot agree with you more. I came up through the infrastructure trenches so I do have a networking/net-admin background, but what got me to where I am now is being able to understand the business. When I am working with my team, I try to motivate them to think about the business. Instead of setting direction I try to guide it by asking the employees what they think is the right thing to do next year for their areas. I will explain the corporate strategy, and encourage individuals and teams to come-up with IT strategies to fit the corporate strategy. Some people have no interest and want to be directed, but most really enjoy the opportunity to contribute and make plans, I only nudge them back on track if what is being proposed is out of synch, or just not finacially feasible for the company. I also have the teams set their goals, and figure out the budgets for their proposed projects. This, I have found, serves several purposes.

1) Individuals and teams are motivated.
2) They are learning to think about the business and think in those terms.
3) Management and Leadership capable individuals become easy to spot and develop.
4) Team players who just want to work and do not want to lead also participate and are identified. Their jobs can be adjusted to meet their motivational needs. (these people are valuable too!)
5) Everyone gets better at setting goals and meeting them.
6) Everyone has a sense of ownership.

I highly value my teams and employees. If someone is looking to advance, I look for Business savy and leadership potential, or I look to develop it in interested parties. If someone just wants to work and stay where they are, that is fine too and I try to make sure they have developmnt in the areas they want to have expertise in. You need a mix, but more than that, you need to develop teams!