Slashdot Mirror
9 Reasons Why Developers Think the CIO Is Clueless
Esther Schindler writes "Finally, a Forrester analyst who understands the attitudes of software developers. Mike Gualtieri identifies nine behaviors managers need to steer clear of or risk being labeled 'clueless' — from control freak tendencies to being a vendor puppet. My favorite, however, is point #8: 'the CIO collaborates to death,' in which Gualtieri opines, 'And, if you never watched Star Trek then you shouldn't even be a CIO.'"
If you are called a 'CIO' then you are pretty much guaranteed to be an idiot. WTF is an 'Information Officer' anyway, and how can you be the chief one if there are no others? What is wrong with being head of the IT department? It doesn't sound as swanky, which is surely a good thing, reminding you that IT is there to serve the rest of the business.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Also, point 4 in the article is going to be interpreted by any CIOs who do care as "be sure to stay current with all the hot buzzwords". Developers will see through most attempts at this instantly.
The problem is, in many companies, the role of the CIO is pretty nebulous.
It gets further confusing when you have both a CIO and a CTO. When you don't, the CIO has to fill both roles, which are often at odds.
The way I see it...
The CTO is responsible for understanding, predicting, and planning technology.
The CIO is responsible for ensuring that the technology in use by and acquired for the company is in the best interests of the company (and its shareholders, if applicable).
CIOs are typically from a financial background, as at the end of the day their primary responsibility is to the business units that fund the technology. It isn't about the latest, flashiest, or even best gadgets - it's about meeting the needs of the business units while spending the least amount of money to do so. Unfortunately, this often leaves us (the geeks) on the short end of the stick. And perhaps worse, with the financial focus of the average CIO, they often fail to understand where a reasonable investment in technology can save them money over time. Since the typical CIO is only in their position for a few years, they don't have a lot of time for investments to pay off. Cut costs today, and let the next guy fix the mess they've made.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
You obviously aren't someone who receives a lot of these 'professional' magazines. Almost all of these are 'free' mailings from groups who make their money by stuffing the zine with as many ads as can fit on the pages. And like this particular article most are filled with a combination of completely obvious statements or a load of BS written by people who have never actually dealt with the matter at hand.
"Really, you made it to the title of CIO and you haven't figured out that vendors lie?"
"Really, you made it to the title of CIO and need a magazine to tell you that you need to manage your team as people and not faceless units?"
"Really? No, really?"
At my old job someone appearently hated me and slipped my name to a number of these outfits as a "Web Master". They make good "oohh, look how well read he is" decor if you leave them all over your desk and someone clueless walks by, but that's about all they are good for. Most of the time the paper isn't even easily recyclable.
Maybe I'm just old hat, but I thought the role of a CTO was to deal with the.. uh.. technology. As in, for companies that actually develop technology. And the CIO does the IT.
As I recall, "CIO" was popularized by the dot-com companies, and immediately thereafter, since they needed as many C**s on staff as possible to get their VC funding, decided that a CTO was needed too, even though their business was selling pimento loaves on the e-web. So then it became just a great big alphabet soup with everyone squabbling over what their all important title should be. (Yes, I have worked in such an environment more than once).
I think the most obvious mark of a doomed startup is when people get completely hung up on establishing the org chart before the company has even made a dime in revenue. I realize it's basic human (/animal) nature to have to get the pecking order establish first and foremost. However when the title itself is the result of such as clueless and counterproductive process - and indeed, a throwback to such a clueless era as the dot com days, it's hard to see how you could expect your underlings could bestow any credibility on it.
I realize I may have offend any CIOs in the audience, but that's not the intent. My point is not personal - what I'm saying is just that if you're good at your job and still getting no respect, perhaps a less "tainted" title is in order.
My thought for the day: Your staff is there to educate you. You will be too busy to keep up, and to do all your own filtering and analysis. Make sure they know it is their job to keep you up to date on things that matter.
My favorite meeting moment: Boss steps into my cube for 1-on-1 meeting. I fire up a demo of a new technology I think he should see. Boss: "I just got out of a 1-on-1 with the general manager! He asked me what I knew about this and if I had started a project on it! I had to tell him I had never heard of it. Why didn't you show me sooner?" Me: "You're the one that rescheduled our 1-on-1 3 times this week."
The great thing about having a staff is the astronomical amount of information you can learn from them. Their job is to find and filter it. Your job is to make decisions with it.