Slashdot Mirror
Why Don't More CIOs Become CEO?
jcatcw writes "Thornton May is mystified by the very small number of Fortune 500 companies that led by former CIOs. "Knowing what we know about CIOs — that is, that most are smart, hardworking, supremely aware of how the business works and increasingly savvy regarding the workings of external customers' minds — the failure of more CIOs to become CEO has to be one of the biggest mysteries of our age.""
How about, they can be productive, stay on the cool technology, and get good pay with only a fraction of the corporate governance bullshit.
As long as board members are choosen from the non-technical, management side, those same board members will pick non-technical peopel to head their company.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Most CEOs are former SALESMEN. Check out their careers. You'll see that most, if not all, were in Sales or Marketing at one or more points in their careers.
Boards NEED someone at the top of the company who understands what Sales and Marketing NEED. After all, no matter how superior your product is *cough*betamax*cough* if it does not sell, your company goes down the tubes. Not the internet tubes, the other kind.
No big conspiracy here. Just boards doing what they have always done.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
You're absolutely right.
CEO's come from a company's profit centers- sales and marketing. COO's come from a company's cost centers- operations, production, and IT. COOs rarely jump to become CEOs. The board that picks the CEO is almost always interested in maximizing profit, never interested in minimizing loss.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
The job of a CIO is to paint an honest and true picture grounded firmly in reality, and protect it from those who would engage in wishful thinking. The person who becomes a CIO is the person who has made it their lifes work to operate in this mode, and achieved the trust and respect of their peers by their effectiveness in doing so.
The job of a CEO is to paint a glowing and radiant picture firmly grounded in the hopes and dreams of investors, and protect it from those who would engage in critical thinking. The person who becomes a CEO is the person who has made it their lifes work to understand what others want and convince them it is just around the next bend, thus eliciting their ongoing co-operation.
Someone who has forged themselves into CIO material is most likely not going to be very good or happy at the CEO job for that reason. They require different personality strengths.
I often contemplate how we as a society can structure things so the guy who is telling the truth is a more effective organizational representative than the guy who likes to spin lies and half-truths. No answers yet..
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
CIOs have been unable to escalate to the CEO position because they cannot synergize the corporate enterprise environment into a sigma six solution in a manner that evasperates the board and homogenizes the company.
I'm pretty certain I made up a few words there, but if I said that to a CEO s/he'd likely nod and say "Why, you're absolutely correct!"
And that's why CIOs can't obtain the CEO position.
the best CEO's seem to be former sales people. They can promote the company and aren't shy about asking customers for money. Many CIO's lack extensive P&L experience as IT, in most companies, is a cost center. Without that critical P&L experience, making the transition to CEO, especially at the Global 2000 level is difficult.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
"Most board members are chosen by the CEO"
I sorry, what? AFAEK, the Board hires a CEO to run the company. Members of the board themselves are elected by the general meeting of shareholders.
I don't have a sig.
Do you actually know any CEOs? I mean personally? I interact with just a few of them from time to time and the ones I know are not lazy or stupid. In my experience they work very hard. It is just that they devote a good deal to things you don't find value in (climbing the corporate ladder). The ones I deal with are also accutely aware of the business they are in and don't disregard the customer. Again it is a mixed bag. You have to remember that they are supposed to maximize profits for the company. Yes I think everyone here would agree that one good step is to produce a good product, but just because you can find some flaw or something that you don't like doesn't mean the CEO is stupid or lazy. A lot of it comes down to compromise between the many forces at work in business.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
CEO's (should be) are outward focused. They steer the ship where, if they are correct, it is supposed to be to return the most value, blah blah. That's their job and their responsibility. It's not just about the product, but also about regulatory and personnel issues, accounting, and competition, all significant hazards to be avoided. Yes, of course it's about "the customer," but not in the belly-button staring sense most customers think. "The customer is always right" means the customer knows what he or she wants to buy (including services and treatment) therefore the corporation must produce products and services and treatment that the customer will buy in advance of their doing so, in the hopes that they will, e.g. iPhone.
The CIO, on the other hand, is very inward focused or, if recently enlightened, certainly has an inward focused background. It's about code and deadlines and infrastructure support. These are the guys who oil the pumps and valves that keep that whonking 100,000 HP steam engine in the bowels of the ship working. They don't stear the ship. They don't decide where it's going to go. They don't even have to know the mission. They are responsible for making sure it gets there in good shape. In many cases, they don't even have time to go above deck and look outside.
It is very rare for an engineering officer to make Admiral, even rarer for a supply officer or personnel officer, or, for that matter, a medical officer or JAG. These are all support roles, and if you've done your homework, you KNOW THAT IN ADVANCE. Admirals come from the surface warfare officer community or, in the case of carriers, through the aviation route. It's the same in the army: Schwarzkopf was an Infantry Officer, not a technician, who, incidentally, in the lower ranks is ALWAYS subservient to an infantryman of the same rank.
If a potential CIO is interested in doing the CEO thing, the best thing for him or her to do is make sure he or she gains significant experience outside the CIO ladder. A significant stint in accounting, personnel, or an "assistant to the CEO" type position will show significantly in the bid to become CEO. Narrowly focusing on just IT will never get you to the Board Room.
I know many of you don't like this. From an idealistic point of view, it's "wrong." because, as anyone here knows, IT people are the smartest, sharpest people ever to walk the planet who KNOW how the world works, REALLY. They deserve to become CEO, and if they don't, there's something wrong with the system, not them, and certainly not their attitude. But as a Board Member (or head hunter) I'm not really interested in whether you know C++ or even if you have managed to keep the servers online 24x7. (Can you imagine a bid for CEO: "I know C++ and Open Source is the way to go and Linux is cool and Bill Gates is an idiot capitalist pig dog.") The fact that you are a proven manager of infrastructure issues is great. That's what is expected of you. Keep doing that. Swap out my PC any time you want. But I want someone who knows precisely where the ship is going for CEO.
The bottom line is that there's a heirarchy out there that exists in every walk of life. Laws to fix heirarchy are artificial; the heirarchy is still there. If you are not the CEO then either you didn't want to be (not always a bad thing?) or you screwed up in your perception of what was necessary to get you there. Whining about it is not going to "fix" anything. Perhaps a little introspection will.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Since IQ is based upon median intelligence (100 = median), wouldn't the list continue to expand as the lower end is knocked off and the median rises? Or is this the clever joke you were constructing? The only way to stay alive would be to maintain vastly more intelligence than the next most intelligent person, but that would only work until you're the last person alive, at which point your IQ would be 100 (based on a sample size of one) and you'd have to jump off a building. Or somesuch...gah!
Now I have a headache, thanks a lot.
Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
Now I doubt this is going to go over will on /. but when I was in university we noted a - completely non-scientific - pattern that I'll try to sum up as succinctly as possible:
e land.html
'Those who want to work for someone else go into engineering/IT; those who want others to work for them go into the arts.'
If you don't believe me go check out the Forbes 500 richest people list and see how many of them either dropped out or have liberal arts degrees. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2003/02/26/billionair
Now excuse my while I go round up some flame-retardant clothing.
S.