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.'"
What's a CIO? The article doesn't even say.
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
s/think.KNOW/gi;
There, fixed it for you.
If we only THOUGHT the CIO was clueless, that would be a different story. too many businesses are like septic tanks - the really big chunks (the floaters) rise to the top.
So remember, children, high visibility isn't necessarily a good thing. It might mean you're just full of shit.
Coder: "How tall are you?"
CIO: "6.1"
Coder: "Gee, they're piling shit higher nowadays."
First he says don't be a dinosaur, then he starts talking about tapping Ethernet cables.
The last time I tapped an Ethernet cable, my buddy was throwing 9-track tapes at the dinosaurs to keep them away!
Anonymous Cowards get no respect.
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 former CIO of one of America's 'Big Three' car companies, who shall remain nameless, but I'll say that the name of the company is a four-letter word ;) -- was an IBM vendor puppet. Of course, he came from IBM, and after he left, he went back to work for IBM....hmmm.....
Needless to say, his policies live on. The only approved vendor at the four-letter American automobile manufacturer is ... IBM.
My blog
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?"
CIO: "Very funny. Now security will be escorting you out. No, we won't give you a reference."
I've reported directly to a couple of CIO's in a couple of different organizations. In both instances they were petty, clueless people. On the other hand, I've had customers whose CIO's were not so bad and seemed to have a good grasp. I don't think there is a one size fits all answer to this one, but it's true that quite a few of the CIO's I've interacted with have been what I would kindly call clueless idiots.
Then again, they were smart enough to somehow get that high paying gig, so go figure. Many times though it's not what you know, it's who you know.
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.
8. The CIO collaborates to death. Whether it is the character flaw of being indecisive or some middle-school notion of democracy, you are in charge. Collaboration is critical, but you also need to make the right decision at the right time. Collaborate like Captain Kirk. "Spock?" "Bones?" He gets opinions from his experts but there is never any question about who will make the final decision. And, if you never watched Star Trek then you shouldn't even be a CIO.
... "finds far too many ways to use the word 'Synergy'" - is that on the list, or anything involving corporatespeak?
10: No sense of humour.
I was just offered a CIO position this am, we're negotiating the start date. Too funny.
And, if you never watched Star Trek then you shouldn't even be a CIO.
Whew, got that one covered. Scotty! I..need...that...data center power. And I'll preface all my emails with a Stardate.
Stop thinking about your golf game.
D'oh! How did he know that?
Guess I'll find out if this is better than running my own consulting gig. All those times I shook my head wondering how people so clueless got into decision making positions, karma comes around. All those times I suggested a better way to have it ignored. Not anymore. It's an interesting feeling.
Vendors are a problem. Relentlessly annoying. Going to have to come up with a system to keep them from bothering me all day.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
s/think.KNOW/gi;
Substitution replacement not terminated at line 1.
Not much of a fix.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
You don't think that his Star Trek comment is funny?! There's a sort-of accompanying article about managing developers, based on what developers say motivates them. Not all the opinions agree, obviously. (I wrote that one.)
Which it turned out didn't matter, as the entire population was wiped out by a virus contracted from a dirty telephone.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Sounds like the CIO wasn't doing his job and implementing documentation policies to make sure there were no esoteric mission-critical functions that could only be handled by one individual on the planet.
#1. That the CIO could recognize documentation if he saw it (mine cannot).
#2. That the CIO would check that people were following the policy to maintain the documention (mine does not).
#3. That the CIO knows what the mission-critical functions are (mine cannot tell the difference between the email app running on his workstation and NAS).
I was told to find the "problem" on the "network" because one of our programmers was having trouble opening MS Word documents and he told the CIO who remembered that there had been a time about a week or so ago when his email app was very slow. Therefore, it must be a network problem. Go find the network problem. Stop telling him that there isn't one.
The pay is good and I can walk to work AND there is almost no oversight. I can work on what I want the way I want. Except for the times when the CIO feels the need to exercise his authority.
Hey dipshit, I guess you're too dense to understand the statement. You must be a CIO.
So, I'll explain it.
1) It's generally believed that most people in the IT profession are fans of Star Trek or some other sort of Science Fiction.
2) If you are in a position of managing IT and the people running your IT systems, you should have a certain level of technical knowledge and background.
3) If you don't, or have never watched Star Trek, you probably aren't into tech
4) If you're not into technology, you shouldn't be a Chief INFORMATION Officer
It has nothing to do with basing decisions on a TV show.
Woah. I underestimated how draining it is to feed trolls like you.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Top three signs:
1 - CIO reads magazine articles equating "Ruby on Rails" and "multicore programming" in the same sentence,
then proceeds to plan new projects with a vision towards "massively distributed MVC, ROR, multicore Web 2.0 social applications",
(code word for slow ruby websites that seem developed by drunken monkeys).
2 - Follows advice regarding "Your ability to talk tech will go a long way to earning the respect of application development professionals."
Usually developers have close to zero tolerance for the inane utterances ("talking tech") of managerial staff,
or as it is call in technical terms, "bullsh!t".
3 - Reads articles that use dehumanizing terms to refer to technical staff ("resources"),
then proceeds to use them to form akward "complimentary" sentences:
"Bob, you are by far my most leveraged, hyper-synergic resource".
- Bonus: CIO fires the company's most experienced engineers, hires an all-Kazakhstani team,
which after six months of working without a formal design produces hundreds of slideshows
that are demoed to customers on MacOSX, extra points if shown on spanking new MacBook Airs.
When he took over when he was an Army Colonel, he cracked down on various items. When he retired from the Army, a slot was made for him to remain there. Below are the list of various items he did:
On the dress code aspect, when he took over as colonel, he made an example out of a couple of Sys Admins when they showed to a meeting in blue jeans and sandals. He had them fired on the spot and escorted of the premises and off the base. A friend who worked there prior to when he showed up mentioned the place was fun to work at. When he did nights and weekends, they didn't care if you showed up dressed for comfort. When the colonel showed up that changed ! He also took away the traditional Hawaiian Shirt Friday as well. He also cracked down on people who left early on Friday, another "tradition" in the DoD contracting world.
When the colonel took over, he didn't consider the culture of the place at the time plus the culture of Colorado which is considered very casual like in dress. One thing not mentioned until now, his additional degrees are from East Coast schools like U. of Virginia. With formal rules being more important than getting the job done, the dynamic changed for the worst. I really don't to go back to that facility as long as he is there. I still keep in contact with some people who still work there. One day, there was a water problem where all the bathrooms were shutdown but people were told they could NOT leave for home early and to keep working. The basement of the building has been converted to "cube farms" from basically storage. One thing not included was more bathrooms. Even for the men you have to wait 5 or 10 minutes for a toilet stall to open up. A lot of times there are several people waiting for each stall. Complaints have so far been ignored.
$90k sounds good to you, as a CIO?!? Come to Western Australia (Australian Dollar btw is basically 1:1 with USD) - broom pushers on mine sites get paid more than that here.
And I literally mean people who push brooms.
For goodness sakes, I have a friend who's job it is to mark a dot on the ground every few metres (where to put the explosives) and he gets $120,000 a year.
Go to uni and get a degree, they said....
No. Thunderdome is the correct response. Seriously. Wii-boxing. Geek game showdown. No physical contact, and an enjoyable way for everyone else to ease the tension that conflict can bring. Don't tell them about it... just keep a console around and when the opportunity is right, take each of them under an arm and lead them off. If you do it right and pull it off, it's one of those "... hey, did you hear about so and so... he freakin' made them Wii Box!" stories that will precede you where ever you go.
;) If they call your bluff, let the geeks eat 'em alive with technical questions like, "so, is your LDAP backend X500 DIT compliant? We need it to work with our hacked together NIS/perl-fu directory. Here, we can show you the code!"
You won't even have to break the ice the first time you meet a client. It sounds nuts, but sane solutions don't solve problems and get great results. They become political and accounting decisions if left rational for too long. As for the vendors, make them fear you by telling them to have free hardware dropped off to your tech guys to play with before you even consider making a purchasing decision. After all, if this wacky device is nearly as great as they say, the geeks'll love it! Also, Cisco and Sun were kind enough to give you a full rack to play with for a few months.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
That's the whole thing, though.
People are making more than that for unskilled work on the mines, here. Skilled people (managers, tech's etc) are making $200,000 +
The downside is you have to work on a minesite in the middle of nowhere, so I guess it evens out a little...
EVERY one of these damn reasons applies to my CIO. And I am my own one-man company!
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Well, the problem is that those positions even got to be called "officer" in the first place. All of them.
"Officer" used to mean, you know, army or navy. Even using it for the police is as recent as the end of the 19'th century, though it could be argued as a continuation from the times when the city guards acted as both police and garrison. Even the use for someone who holds an office of the state, was originally reserved for judges, but, anyway, the key words were: of the state. You know, someone acting in an official government job.
So at the very least I have to wonder about the original shallow souls who thought they need an even funkier title.
Now I won't blame the ones who just get such a stupid title thrust upon them; after all, they're the victims there. But I have to wonder about the original ones who just had to invent some new titles for themselves.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
From my experience, when someone seems clueless or illogical, it's just that they're not saying which problem they're really trying to solve.
E.g., if I were to come and say that my team needs a pony, and it would be great for team morale, and double as company car too, you might think, "WTF? Is he that retarded? Who rides a pony through town to a meeting with the customers?" The issue is that I'm not solving the problem I'm claiming to. The real problem might be that my daughter wants a pony, and I figure, maybe the company can pay for it. But of course, now I can't go to a management meeting and say, "I want the company to buy my daughter a pony." So now I'll work backwards from the solution I wish ("the company should buy a pony that I can use") to an acceptable problem it would solve (e.g., "we need environmentally friendly transportation!") And maybe I already have a second phase of that plan in mind, but I'm not telling it to you yet, either.
The same applies to a lot of seemingly retarded managers. It may be just that they're not solving the problem you think, or that their job title says they should solve.
E.g., if he comes up with a vision towards "massively distributed MVC, ROR, multicore Web 2.0 social applications", maybe really he's just trying to play bullshit bingo with the CEO or the investors. You're not the one he's trying to impress, the guy signing his paycheck is.
Or maybe he's got a second phase in mind too, like that next he'll need more hardware for that, and he's already bribed by some vendor. Or that he already knows which graphics company he wants to outsource some of that to and what bribe he'll get.
Literally, I've seen one project where their visionary wanted to have at least 1MB graphics in an applet, and that was back in the dialup and ISDN days, just because his best buddy had a graphics design company, and he wanted to outsource those graphics to that. Corruption by any other name, but there you go.
Or maybe he just wants more budget and a bigger team under him, because that raises his perceived status and importance.
Or maybe he just wants to be able to keep the current team, in the face of some retarded budget allocation which would otherwise have him fire everyone now because there are no projects in the pipeline for July, only to re-hire them in August when the next projects kick in. So he's creating some grand task as some make-work solution.
Or maybe he's just strategically gaming the budget rules in advance. In a lot of places they have retarded processes like that if you didn't use all your budget this year, you get a budget cut next year. So people end up turning the heating on in March, because the winter was mild and otherwise they'd get no heating budget next year, when maybe the winter will be worse. Same here. You don't really know what you'll have to do next year, so you essentially have to burn some money in advance to be sure you'll get a budget for it next year. A case of "massively distributed MVC, ROR, multicore Web 2.0 social applications" is something so overachieving and nebulous that it can burn any amount of money you want it to burn.
Etc.
Firing everyone competent and hiring the cheapest burger flippers, well, again I've seen it done for strategic reasons.
E.g., because with the same budget you can have more people under you, which raises your own status. And some places also have rules for what your job title and/or salary can be, based on the number of people under you. Ok, it wasn't at CEO level, but I do know someone who raised from a minor team leader to mid-level manager just by having his team inflate like a blowfish. He kept hiring incompetents and still needing more... and got rewarded for it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Wow, I really like this post. You hit the nail on the head: The CIO is absolutey not clueless, he has some other objective in mind that he keeps secret. My CIO just got voted "CIO of the year" and we all went "WTF!?" because he seems so clueless. Thinkning about it (and having your post help) he just knows how to be a "good CIO". It's a game I don't think I want to play (nor am I good at it), but the pay is good. I think I'll stay with what I enjoy, in the trenches.
Who?
I have to second that motion. This article was of abysmal quality, but then again Forrester.... Pffff... I had a girlfriend once that worked for Forrester's branch office in Amsterdam and I have never met so many incompetent bags of wind in the same space ever before. They did employ hot women though. One of them wore a cat-suit for Halloween that was quite.... Inspirational.
Anyway, I have never seen anything emanating from the likes of Forrester or Gartner that actually had any bearing on Life, The Universe and The Rest insofar they weren't taken on by C*O's and made into self-fulfilling prophecies.
Bloody idiots.
and lose your chance to recieve a shiny orange crowbar and maybe some cake? NOWAI!
----
Nope, He marks a black paint dot every time the wheel on the end of his stick goes 'tick' (i.e. at a pre-defined distance).
:-p
Speaking as someone who has an MBA and an Engineering degree (and doesn't work on a minesite), this is somewhat depressing.
Actually, no offense, but I found that companion article to be far worse advice. Unless it was meant to be just funny mis-advice, and the joke went right over my head.
E.g., trusting developers and not managing them too much... Well, there's more than one kind of person. In fact, there's a whole continuum of them. At one end, there _are_ indeed people who are perfectly capable of managing themselves and who can be given the big picture and left to their own devices to finish that big chunk. At the other end, there are people who really need to be coaxed to do anything whatsoever.
As an example of the latter extreme, my ex-coleague Wally once asked for some weeks to estimate the effort to fix a trivial bug. You read it right: not time to actually fix it, but that much time to estimate how much time he'd need to fix it. He actually got it, btw. Sometimes just trusting every developer is a bad idea.
Almost all of us think we're at the former end of the spectrum, so, yes, if you ask us, every single one will say he's perfectly capable of managing himself and needs no stinking manager checking on his progress. Reality is often a whole other thing.
The right thing to do, and at that the _hard_ thing, is recognizing the right amount of management each one needs. (And if you're willing to dedicate more effort on your part to coax someone, than it would be to fire him and write the damn module yourself, I guess.) Applying the wrong amount in either direction can get bad results fast.
But at the very least, the best advice I've ever read on the topic, is, "beware the guy in the room." You know, the idea that we have this super-programmer in his own little (metaphorical) room, we're leaving him to his own devices, noone knows what he's doing, but we're confident that at the exact deadline he'll come out screaming "Eureka!" and they all lived happily ever after. Even for the guys who are capable of managing themselves and usually deliver results, do have some indication of progress being made and do track it. That way at least you'll know if he hit some hurdle right before the deadline and is too proud to ask for help.
The thing about needing to be shielded from the rest of the company... well, we would indeed very much like to be left alone with the computer and to ignore the rest of the humanity, not just the rest of the company. Whether that's also good for business, that's a whole other issue. Being isolated in your own ivory tower can lead to some very bad design decisions, based on what you _think_ the outside world needs. Plus, it's good for the morale to know at least that someone else in the company is using our programs, and we're not just moving a pile of sand from here to there, for no other purpose than to stay busy.
So basically do filter out the unneeded crap and politics, but make sure not to filter out stuff that is actually needed for those guys to understand what they're doing and why.
And finally, ok, I know that an analogy isn't supposed to be 100% equivalent to the thing it represents. But the analogy with the cat, much as I do like cats, is IMHO rather mis-leading. You don't expect the cat to do anything whatsoever, except keep you company and not damage your furniture. That's it. You just want it to like you, basically. If you need employees which just like you and don't do outright damage, yeah, take the cat analogy. If you need employees which actually finish a task by a deadline, you might need a bit more effort.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.