Slashdot Mirror


How To Talk Like a CIO

itwbennett writes "Today's CIOs speak business-buzzwords as a second language. And there's a good reason for that. There is a trend among CIOs to distance themselves from being regarded as technologists and to put themselves forward as business strategists. It boils down to one simple rule: Just as you should never be the first to mention compensation in the interview process, you should never be the first to break out the tech jargon in a business setting."

161 comments

  1. Easy by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just memorise all these and mix them up as you see fit:

    http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html

    1. Re:Easy by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Informative

      Believe it or not, that's the opposite of what the summary says.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Easy by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bingo.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:Easy by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Believe it or not, that's the opposite of what the summary says.

      No it's not. The summary (and the article, which is essentially the same fluff as the summary repeated several times--I RTFA'd so you don't have to) says to avoid technical jargon, which has actual meaning and is therefore terrifying to people who want to be executives. The bullshit list is business jargon, which is inherently meaningless and is therefore very useful to C*Os and those who like to imagine themselves in such positions.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Easy by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Bingo.

    5. Re:Easy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Which buzzword?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Easy by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just memorise all these and mix them up as you see fit:

      I tried that, but apparently they're better at it than I am... my proposal got rejected for not supporting the datamatrix foo buffer 2.0 cloud feature-rich zero-management extranet interface. The work order was to get a replacement power cord... the cleaning people let a vaccum cleaner chew on the last one...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    7. Re:Easy by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The summary (and the article, which is essentially the same fluff as the summary repeated several times--I RTFA'd so you don't have to) says to avoid technical jargon, which has actual meaning and is therefore terrifying to people who want to be executives

      It says to avoid technical jargon, but not because it "has actual meaning". In fact, the advice it gives is just a specific application of the most basic communication advice ever, that is, "know your audience, and address what has meaning and relevance to them". Business executives don't care about the details of technology, they care about the whether and how that technology can deliver value in the context of their business problems. This isn't avoiding real meaning, its addressing relevant meaning.

      If you didn't get that from TFA, you may have read it, but you certainly didn't understand it.

    8. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it's marked as "Insightful" and not "Funny".

    9. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Easy by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you didn't get that from TFA, you may have read it, but you certainly didn't understand it.

      I'll just re-quote from the article the passage I quoted in a previous post:

      The senior VP had serious technical chops, but he wasn't about to demonstrate them in front of his peers. He feared, justifiably, that if he did so he'd get classified as a techie and taken out of consideration as a possible future CEO.

      Understanding this is pretty easy; if you choose not to do so, that's your business, so to speak.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re:Easy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      You didn't capitalize it correctly. That's the kiss of death.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Easy by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

      I see you found this page too.

    13. Re:Easy by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2
    14. Re:Easy by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Don't you worry about blank, let me worry about blank!

    15. Re:Easy by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I gathered from this article is that it is desireable in a coporate setting to be extroverted. Extroverts are rewarded, introverts are pocket-protector wearing peons.

      No wonder everyone hates management.

    16. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm stupider for having read this. You hurt my brain. You suck.

    17. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just blew this paradigm right outside of the box.

    18. Re:Easy by Skreems · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Business executives don't care about the details of technology, they care about the whether and how that technology can deliver value in the context of their business problems.

      The problem is, those two things go hand in hand. If you don't understand the details of the technology, you're highly likely to miss a bunch of nuance in understanding how (and how much) it can solve your business problems.

      Now, if you as a hypothetical executive are willing to accept that you really DON'T understand the nuance, and trust those under you that do, then things are just peachy. Except that attitude doesn't often pair with the type-A personality that inhabits the C*O world, or even the VP world. What you're left with a majority of the time is someone who thinks technical details are "beneath them", but wants to make sweeping generalizations about what tech will do for their business. Due to the points above, those generalizations are nearly always wrong, and sometimes dangerously so.

      I like to use an analogy in this type of discussion: Neil Gaiman once said (I'm paraphrasing) "People think an author goes off in a room for a week and stares at a typewriter. Then magic happens, they're hit by a stroke of genius, and emerge with a completed novel, fully formed. The reality is nothing like that. It takes years of hard work from multiple people, endless revisions, and is generally the opposite of magic."

      Most people can connect with that. Of course an author doesn't write a 400 page novel in a fit of genius. Of course there are editors, and revisions, and revisions on revisions. We may not have an intuitive view of what all that work actually looks like, but anyone who's not a complete twit can examine that statement of reality against their preconceived idea, and sense its correctness.

      Well, technology is a lot like that. Redundant failover systems don't fall from the sky fully formed. Coding API or User Interface abstractions don't leap into existence overnight. They're painstakingly nurtured from the seed of an idea by someone who's tired of facing the same problem over and over, and grown over months or years, usually while fending off a bunch of half-interested managers and coworkers who are more interested in making themselves look smart by talking loudly than in actually understanding what's being built.

      You may think that higher ups shouldn't care about that, and to a degree I suppose that's right. They shouldn't care about the minute details of every technical thing to cross their desk. But damn it, they SHOULD understand the difference between good tech and shoddy tech, and what it means to their business. Because a corporate culture starts with the C*Os. And a corporate culture where proper respect is paid to the painstaking work of building quality systems can accelerate that business in a self-reinforcing process, while a corporate culture that dismisses tech as "that geeky stuff they do with computers" will almost certainly fall behind and fail as the people who know how to build stuff well get pissed off at constantly justifying doing things "the right way" to people who don't care, and eventually quit.

      To go back to the analogy... how long do you think a publishing house would stay in business with a CEO who thinks that "writing is that thing where authors go off in a room for a week and magic happens"? That's essentially what this article is tacitly saying is A-OK, and for any company that's even remotely based on technology it's just as ludicrously wrong. That kind of BS may fly today because the culture is still in flux, but in the next 20 years every one of those companies is going to get lapped by another company that understands the magnifying effect technology can have on productivity, and understands it from the top down.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    19. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The senior VP had serious technical chops, but he wasn't about to demonstrate them in front of his peers. He feared, justifiably, that if he did so he'd get classified as a techie and taken out of consideration as a possible future CEO.

      Understanding this is pretty easy; if you choose not to do so, that's your business, so to speak.

      True. But that says a lot about what's wrong with the world. I'm beginning to think we're headed for a new dark ages. You can't keep building your world on bulldust. Eventually the "infinite financial growth, cheating your customers is good, actually doing things is for losers that work for me" paradigm breaks down in a horrible way. Thank goodness we still (for the time being) have people that understand the technicalities, and want to create not just sell or make money.

    20. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ENGAGE KILLER EYEBALLS!

    21. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So to paraphrase your comments: They are just enabling the linguistic paradigm with respect to the synergies of their core target market?

    22. Re:Easy by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      Indeed, he/she shouldn't have gone for first post. :)

    23. Re:Easy by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is, those two things go hand in hand. If you don't understand the details of the technology, you're highly likely to miss a bunch of nuance in understanding how (and how much) it can solve your business problems.

      Untrue. Let us take a car example. I as CEO want to move our product from place A to place B. I also want to move myself from place A to place B.

      So I ask people who know about these stuff and he will then ask me how much stuff there is going to be moved and how often. He then proposes a truck or a fleet of truck or even train or transport by boat or a combination.

      For the personal transport, he will also ask a few questions and then will come up with a bicycle or a Maybach with driver or something else, depending on the answers.

      Where it will go wrong if the wrong questions are asked or if I give the wrong answer, because I want to influence the answer.

      e.g. if I as a CEO ask what the best Helicopter is for my daily transport, I will get an answer to THAT question. However if I live at the office, the answer to transport should have been "Walk".

      And that is often the problem: People who think they know something about the technology will ask for the wrong things and then are surprised they get the wrong answers.

      Very few CEOs get this. Very few are able to let go and just trust the people in their team to be qualified in their field. I have had only a few who actually said to me "I do not understand what you are trying to explain, but I trust your experience and expertise and believe you will deliver." Obviously this does not happen at the first day at work. It takes honesty from both sides. i.e. me telling when I did not achieved some goal, why and how I would prevent it in the future. Not trying to hide my ass and blame something or somebody else. My team? My fault!

      It is the basic difference between being a leader and being a manager. https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits.php

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    24. Re: Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once in a while, you just have to reinvent killer eyeballs.

    25. Re:Easy by dintech · · Score: 2

      If you don't understand the details of the technology, you're highly likely to miss a bunch of nuance in understanding how (and how much) it can solve your business problems.

      As a CIO, this is what you have underlings for. You build a relationship of trust with people who DO understand the technology. You'll tend to like these people if they can deeply understand the technology and can describe it in language you are used to. "Is this good, yes or no."

      This way you can then repeat that information to other people. If you get burned later because they were economical with the truth, you replace them with someone you can trust. This is is how non-technical people work.

    26. Re:Easy by kubajz · · Score: 2

      It's interesting to see how we IT people think that others should really understand the technical details of what we do. Have you considered that finance people have their important details as well (e.g. debenture covenant conditions), sales people have important details (leads and pipeline management), manufacturing people have important details (inventory levels management)? One of the arts of running a company is having people on the board who know when to talk detail and when to talk the big picture. And just because we like and know the IT detail does not mean that everyone on the board should. I do a lot of work with both IT and corporate strategies, and trust me - just because someone doesn't understand Six Sigma, activity-based management, balanced scorecards, PESTLE analysis or the concept of value, and just because at the top level of the company many factors are hard to define and manage, does not mean that they are not important.

    27. Re: Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uno!

    28. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 8th shared attribute of all the highly effective people discussed in that book is that they did not read that book.

    29. Re:Easy by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      by utilizing their competencies pro-actively, if I may add!

    30. Re:Easy by BVis · · Score: 2

      No, the way non-technical people work (at least at the upper-management level) is that they ask their underlings for a solution to a problem, when they've really got the solution they want to hear in their heads. The underlings, who have ostensibly been hired for their expertise in their fields, give them technically sound answers, but answers that are different from what they want to hear, which annoys and confuses them. (For example, you might want to compete with Amazon, but your resources are two Java devs, a junior UX designer, and an unpaid college intern. The boss wants to hear "Yes, we can do that, no problem", when the truth is that it's completely irrational to even consider it.) Eventually, management gets tired of being told that what they want to do is physically impossible, no matter how much money it would save (and that's the important part, make sure you never spend any money, ever) and stops asking them for their input, choosing instead to say "This is what we're doing, go deal with it."

      Upper management arrogance and ego are and always have been more important than technical realities. That's what needs to change. We shouldn't be encouraging CIOs to talk like CIOs, we should be encouraging people to not be fucking retards and actually LISTEN to the people they've hired to perform a duty.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    31. Re:Easy by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Your analogy fails because financial people don't want you to know what they are doing, their profit is invisible to you. We technology professionals have a tradition of transparency that is slowing seeping into other industries and seems to be seriously damaging the political and financial world.
      Don't let up!

    32. Re:Easy by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1
      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    33. Re:Easy by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to see how we IT people think that others should really understand the technical details of what we do.

      We are talking about the CIO here. Do you expect a CFO not to be able to read an accounting statement?

    34. Re:Easy by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      That's essentially what this article is tacitly saying is A-OK

      To be fair, it sayng that reality works this way, not that it's ok.

    35. Re:Easy by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      We are talking about the CIO here. Do you expect a CFO not to be able to read an accounting statement?

      But the issue isn't about what the CIO understands, but how the CIO communicates with other executives particularly other CxOs.

      The CIO should understand technology (and, ideally, should do so at least as broadly, though not necessarily as deeply, as any of his underlings), but also needs to understand the business context in which the firm uses technology and, even more importantly than just understanding, needs to focus on the business impacts of technology rather than the technology itself when communicating with other executives, and not divert communication at that level into technical details.

    36. Re:Easy by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The problem is, those two things go hand in hand. If you don't understand the details of the technology, you're highly likely to miss a bunch of nuance in understanding how (and how much) it can solve your business problems.

      There's an extent to which that is true, but that's largely what the CIO is for -- not to provide other CxOs with the technical details, but to have enough understanding of the technical details to be the executive with the understanding of the nuances of how technology can solve the business problem, and to be the repository of that nuanced understanding at the executive level, with the ability to articulate it at a level appropriate to the audience, which, in an executive context, is often going to mean losing some of the nuance to focus on non-technical explanations relevant to the decision at hand. There may be times when technical details are important to share, but that's going to depend both on the substantive context and the audience comfort level with technical details, and the CIO needs to be aware of both.

    37. Re:Easy by deadweight · · Score: 1

      We had a meeting and the PHB told all of the engineers, who had been playing with the Dilbert Mission Statement Generator before lunch, we were going to synergize our cross-platform strengths and could not understand why we could not stop laughing.

    38. Re:Easy by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Only sort of. You can't expect the CEO/C*O of a major company to know 48 volts DC from 208 volts 3 phase from blade servers from Apache. CEO - What can we do to make our data center more reliable or cost less or be easier to maintain or some combination of those? Engineers (who get paid to study this stuff all day) - We should do this and it will provide X benefit at Y cost. * real life intervenes and the CEO has a cousin in the 48 volt battery business and you had better decide that is the best way....but I digress

    39. Re:Easy by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      I think you both might be a bit off.

      You have to know the details of your strategy. You don't have to know all the details of implementation.

      When i delegate to the people implementing here, I give scope of the project. How it fits in with everything. Resources available. Criteria it has to meet. I honestly don't care if when I delegate a monitoring system if the response comes back Nagios, or Zenoss, or something else. If I delegate a CRM system, I honestly don't care between Chef, or puppet. (I do however have an opinion about OCSInventory).

      No technology is going to me all the needs, or it will do stuff in slightly different ways favoring one over the other in various categories. It is nuanced. And, unless you dig into this stuff every day, you won't know every single way it can bite you.. and *every* decision will bite you as nothing is cookie cutter. Get the scope. Pick the ones that match it, then hammer the details.
       

    40. Re:Easy by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've gotten extremely frustrated with people who want me to help them do X, when it would work far better for them to tell me they have problem or desire Y.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you both might be a bit off.

      You have to know the details of your strategy. You don't have to know all the details of implementation.

      True, you don't have to know the details. The problem with this world is that it apparently is a problem, if a CIO knows all the details. One should think that extra knowledge is a goodthing - the CIO don't have to ask expert staff about everything all the time. Saves times and all. But nooo....

    42. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many great authors would write their entire book from start to finish in a couple of days.

    43. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pocket-protector wearing peons

      My father was the CEO of a small, non-tech industrial company. He wore a pocket protector every day for 40 years. :)

    44. Re:Easy by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I actually had someone who wanted me to develop an AutoCAD replacement and weren't even willing to pay for two developers for two years to get something out. Then I mentioned that AutoCAD had been developed in decades by dozens of developers. Well so much for that talk.

    45. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you're just not a team player.

  2. if you think my karma was bad before by nopainogain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today, I went to the EMC/VMware event in Baltimore. me, twentysome 50-60 year old C-levels, no technical information that could be gleaned, but a bunch of salivating million dollar budgets. I asked the engineer-presenter about his replication's bandwidth demands, he was not prepared to answer... the C-level guys asked questions like "what color is the box it comes in?" want to sound like a CIO? forget everything you know about object oriented programming, IPv6, and OSPF and Linux,, and mimic a sales-evangelist from EMC.

    1. Re:if you think my karma was bad before by Kreigaffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those are the people who extract the most wealth from companies. Their contribution? The same fucking insight you could glean by asking a 6 year old.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    2. Re:if you think my karma was bad before by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it wasn't IBM and two days ago instead - sounds exactly the same :)

    3. Re:if you think my karma was bad before by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Only a CIO would ask what color the box an IBM machine came in.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    4. Re:if you think my karma was bad before by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It's either black or grey. Or white. Probably black.

  3. Never??? by drdanny_orig · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually, I always try to be first to break out the jargon. I find it makes the C*O's eyes glaze over, and the meeting is cut short. That's a win for me.

    --
    .nosig
    1. Re:Never??? by Inda · · Score: 1

      I do the same only with football bullshit jargon. None of this "getting all the ducks in a row" - whatever that means?

      - We need to score from an offside position.
      - The business needs to be match-fit.
      - Our processes should follow the laws of the game.
      - We can't just hack down the opposition and expect a penalty.

      Some laugh; some snigger; some look at me with detest and that's the match winner.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:Never??? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Where are you from? Your terminology is not American in style and content.

  4. Why CIO's don't talk tech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CIO's don't talk tech jargon because they don't have a fucking clue about the actual work... That shit's beneath them.

    1. Re:Why CIO's don't talk tech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the world's greatest programmer or tech support drone probably doesn't make a good CIO, either. CIO's don't build things. They gather information from above and below them, and help make sure the business gets what it needs.

      But no CIO, at an organization large enough to have a real one, could possibly be bolts-and-buttons familiar with everything being done beneath them.

      Think of it this way... letting Barry Garner run the Pegasus wasn't a great idea. He was an amazing mechanic, not an amazing leader.

  5. Synergy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's paramount that this endeavor not fail. We need all teams to focus on the tasks at hand go create an environment conducive for business to business relationships. I spearheaded our Service Oriented cost savings initiative starting from the top down using synrgies afforded by hiring the best of the best to reduce dependence on legacy systems. Using off the shelf products is not a viable option.

    1. Re:Synergy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot vertical integration. ;p

  6. From TFA by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The senior VP had serious technical chops, but he wasn't about to demonstrate them in front of his peers. He feared, justifiably, that if he did so he'd get classified as a techie and taken out of consideration as a possible future CEO.

    For any /.er working in an environment like that, I'd like to think this would be a sign that it was time to get the hell out.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:From TFA by fufufang · · Score: 2

      The senior VP had serious technical chops, but he wasn't about to demonstrate them in front of his peers. He feared, justifiably, that if he did so he'd get classified as a techie and taken out of consideration as a possible future CEO.

      For any /.er working in an environment like that, I'd like to think this would be a sign that it was time to get the hell out.

      That really depends on what that VP meant by "demonstrating". If "demonstrating" means talk in technical jargons which most people can't understand, then that VP should expect loads people getting annoyed. Managers need to speak in a way so in which other people can understand. Real life is not about demonstrating one's knowledge of jargons.

      You should try and get someone who does computability/complexity research to talk jargon to someone who does VHDL/Verilog hardware synthesis. They totally can't understand each other.

    2. Re:From TFA by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And sometimes, your audience should buck the fuck up and learn a little about the things they're trying to talk about.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    3. Re:From TFA by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Depends on the money.

    4. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > And sometimes, your audience should buck the fuck up and learn a little about the things they're trying to talk about.

      Even worse: Sometimes your audience should buck the up and learn a little about what it is their company actually does to make money.

      There's only a certain distance that you can abstract yourself away from what actually happens before you get your head in the clouds.

      Watch a few episodes of undercover boss. Even if those companies are not the "really" big ones and also ones that make money with some sort of menial labour (it is more interesting to show a boss holding a shovel than to attempt to write some C-code or cook coffee in an IT office), it is shocking to see how even the smart, likeable and good bosses have no actual clue what is actually the thing that is making them money.
      And at least in the german version, every few episodes there's a boss that really has no idea what's going on "down there".

      I'm sure that if you move to a company that is dealing with a much more abstract, technical product it is much, much worse. While there is a certain degree that technies have to simplfy what they talk about and need to talk more abstract to people who plan the strategy, there's a certain line that should not be crossed. If it's all babble, it is to assume your highest tier doesn't know and understand what the company actually is doing. That can only be bad.

    5. Re:From TFA by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Calm down dude, stress isn't good for you!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:From TFA by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      They you end up with a lot of people that know just enough to make false conclusions and make your job harder.

  7. Las boss was ahead of the curve with all that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh... so the ex HR bigshot Director of Tech Services at my last job was ahead of the curve. Worthless bastard, ruins the place, lays off good workers and jumps ship!

  8. Problem by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...You should never be the first to break out the tech jargon in a business setting."

    "So guys, our, umm, magic glowing rectangles have been, uhh, a bit less magical this week. Apparently an, umm... black box that communicates using, uhh... a special language... er, well, stopped speaking with another black box that's just like it, except not ours. So we, uhh, asked our engineers to look into that, and yeeeeah... they're ah, still doing that now. It's been about four days, and uhh, they're not exactly sure where the problem is, so if we could, you know..."

    (Engineer bursts into the room) "It was the router you bleeping idiots! If you'd just told us your network was down we'd have fixed it in TWO MINUTES, but your work order was blabbering on about magical boxes and glowing rectangles and we thought you were all drugged or somesuch and called 911 instead. It was only after someone in the NOC got back from their smoke break they saw the line was dead and dispatched a tech."

    (sounds of approaching sirens)

    "You deserve this," says the network engineer, storming off.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Problem by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The network is down, ETA?"

      This is a more typical C level email.

      What you described is a mid-level manager who was promoted out of harms way.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    2. Re:Problem by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      If it's an email, it should say "Email isn't working, ETA".
      My point is if the CIO says the network is down it almost certainly is not. He probably means his tablet won't connect, or his laptop battery died.

    3. Re:Problem by gman003 · · Score: 1

      And because he tried to send an email while the network was down, nobody received it until the network was fixed.

    4. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And because he tried to send an email while the network was down, nobody received it until the network was fixed.

      So, read the "network down" email, grab a six-pack & hide in the back of the network closet & sandbag the rest of the day. At the end of the day, send out a reply saying you couldn't find anything...:-)

    5. Re:Problem by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you'd just told us your network was down we'd have fixed it in TWO MINUTES, but your work order was blabbering on about magical boxes and glowing rectangles and we thought you were all drugged or somesuch and called 911 instead.

      Like the place I worked where every time a "the network was down" complaint came in, we bet on the actual problem. About half the time, "the network was down" meant the printer was out of toner. And the printer has a phone number on it for the Office Manager who manages those devices, with directions on changing the toner. "The network is down"'s second most common cause was a lost/changed password. The closest error to the reported error is if someone managed to accidentally unplug something, like a video cable or Ethernet cable.

  9. Don't you worry about Blank... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let ME worry about Blank!

  10. The only jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a CIO needs to know is, "Yes sir Mr. CEO. That's a great idea!"

  11. Never show cunning, too many traps... by zugedneb · · Score: 0

    that is, a politician never mentions any knowledge about say agriculture, military strategy, ecosystem, medicine...

    There are 3 impossibile to evade traps in showing knowledge as a leader:
    1 - in the west U are tagged communist, and I do not joke.
    2 - Never talk about work, or work within a field, only talk about "creating jobs" - the reason is that the world is difficult, and there are a lot of cunning folks out there who see it as an oppurtunity to ask really difficult or troublesome questions... In the eyes of the crowd, not being able to answer only sinks you in their eyes...
    3 - If you, as a leader, talk about the particulars, you take away the dream, and leave nothing but reality.... And lets face it, in reality we got some tools, a limited time to live, and eachother... Scary...

  12. How painfully vacuous... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Was there anything at all about CIOs, or was that just another pop-psych regurgitation of 'Primate Power: use these hackneyed verbal tricks to pretend that you are the monkey with the biggest cock in the room!' as seen far too often in the various 'self-help for the painfully mediocre' columns that run in various media?

    Even under the (probably quite generous) assumption that this advice is true, it's the kind of thing that you aren't going to learn just by reading, any more than you can become a good actor just by skimming a few scripts.

  13. I do and get into trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When talking about a router: "I need to go to Sears and get more bits for the router - carbide ones."

    Funny looks

    "What I program in? C, C++, D, E ... whatever it takes."

    Blank stares.

    "Java?! Don't drink it anymore. I don't eat JavaBeans either. Why do you ask?"

    Interview cut short.

    "Dot net? I know what a net is, but how do you catch dots with it?"

    "Microsoft partner. Dear Sir! I'm neither "micro" nor "soft" - pistols at dawn!"

  14. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why exactly should you never be the first to mention compensation in an interview process? That sounds like a recipe for a wasted hour.. if there is a serious mismatch of expectations, I'd rather know earlier rather than later.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly my thoughts. Personally I try to get it out of them before the interview.
      Or as plebs are we supposed to just say "yes sir thank you sir" and take any old wage?

    2. Re:Wait, what? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Ditto, I have 15yrs blue collar experience and 20+yrs white collar, never had to ask about wages during an interview. If they are unwilling to ask/tell me about remuneration upfront then I'm unwilling to talk to them any further. I prefer them to ask me what I want rather than tell me what they are offering, but the headhunting heydays of the 90's are gone forever.

      The way I see it is: If you turn up to a "pig in the poke" interview, you have already told your future boss that you're desperate and/or naive.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Wait, what? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Why exactly should you never be the first to mention compensation in an interview process?

      Because they may have an offer that is much highter than what you'll ask for. Or, in other words, reasons that don't actualy happen in real life unless you are a complete noob at the workforce.

    4. Re:Wait, what? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      It's nice when you have a good enough position to be able to do that, but don't try it when applying for your first job.

    5. Re:Wait, what? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Because the first one to name a figure gets their options cut off. If I say "How about $80K?", I've just cut off hope of any higher. They know I'll work for that, so there's no point in offering me more. On the other hand, if I ask for a figure they're not willing to pay, I'm running the risk of being considered too greedy and having an inflated view of myself. If I happen to know their high end, I can start there, but otherwise I'm likely to come out worse. Similarly, if the interviewer suggests $70K, then I know I can rely on that and negotiate up.

      If you're a techie, you're probably a worse negotiator than your interviewer, so you're likely to be maneuvered into offering the first figure. Try to avoid that. Something like "I make $70K already, and I'd like an increase" will at least preserve some upward negotiation ability (of course, if the company isn't going to be offering that, you don't get the job, but that's probably what you want at the moment).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Naturally by epyT-R · · Score: 0

    Management/BSA graduate types of today operate on the dudebro concept. No technical knowledge of the business is actually required, only a bit of 4 function math and the invaluable who-you-know list. In fact, showing that you do have technical knowledge causes the others to either feel intimidated and work to expunge you, or you're passed off as an anti-social geek and hit a promotion glass ceiling.

    This is why our economy will probably tailspin in a few years: the people with the power do almost none of the work, while the people who actually do it, are increasingly tied up in the passive aggressive office dynamics created by that top level insecurity. Meanwhile, countries without 50 years of this holding them back will get things done more cheaply and efficiently...and, when things finally get really bad here, with more personal liberty intact. Now that will be a sad day for the USA.

    1. Re:Naturally by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      the people with the power do almost none of the work

      Funny, that's been the case since 1776. The research is not in but that situation may in fact predate the foundation of the Republic. There is a murky concept known by the odd name of "aristocracy" which may explain some of these bizarrities.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Naturally by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the people with the power do absolutely none of the work

      Fixed that for you.

      But on a more serious note, I work above a warehouse for an import company. The owner is a multi-millionaire Chinese ex-pat. It's pretty damn sobering to see him weeding, sweeping and driving a forklift when he has time. He doesn't have to, and he's not doing it to motivate his staff. For him, it's just the right thing to do.

      Restepca

    3. Re:Naturally by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      They had to have done something, or we'd probably be a recently freed territory of great britain today. These people were not of the same culture as what we have today.

    4. Re:Naturally by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A nice anecdote, but, really, he's still not in the same situation as his employees, mainly for the reason you stated: he doesn't have to. He doesn't have to answer to anyone, he doesn't have to do those tasks to get paid, and he doesn't have to tolerate any passive aggressive attempts at manipulation in order to keep his job.

    5. Re:Naturally by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      So, pretty much like Canada then. How is that a bad thing, except without all the slavery and genocide?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Naturally by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Hope he's good to work for, too. Usually the higher the position the less inclined they are to deign the actual working floor with their presence, which just means they have absolutely no fucking clue what's going on in their company beyond the boundaries of their office and water cooler.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    7. Re:Naturally by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      What do you call a Chinese peasant with millions of dollars?

      A peasant.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Naturally by mjwx · · Score: 1

      the people with the power do absolutely none of the work

      But on a more serious note, I work above a warehouse for an import company. The owner is a multi-millionaire Chinese ex-pat. It's pretty damn sobering to see him weeding, sweeping and driving a forklift when he has time. He doesn't have to, and he's not doing it to motivate his staff. For him, it's just the right thing to do.

      What you're seeing here is the difference between a "boss" and a "leader".

      A leader will get things done, even if it means he has to do some dirty work. A boss makes excuses why others didn't get things done.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:Naturally by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      That's precisely why it's a nice anecdote. Weeding and sweeping especially are shit jobs that people do because they have to. Finding a millionaire company owner who's still willing to get down-and-dirty is a good sign that he isn't full of himself. Buy the man a beer.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    10. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a company exec doing wasting his time with that crap?
      If he's the head honcho his time is more valuable doing management things that generate more money to hire the extra people needed to weed the yard and drive the forklift.
      How much money did he and/or the company lose because he wasn't doing his REAL job?

    11. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      richer than an american peasant and more honest about their social status.

    12. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why is it when you want to commend somebody you give them the satanic drink? You like a guy so you give him something that would make him stupid and would land him in Hell?! What the hell's wrong with you people?!

    13. Re:Naturally by petman · · Score: 1

      The anecdote said the guy was the owner. That doesn't necessarily mean he has an executive position. Maybe he owns the company but hires other people to be the CEO and fill all the other management positions. He holds no position in the company but sometimes he just likes to waltz in and help around where he can. It's his company, so what's wrong with him being able to do whatever he likes with it?

    14. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was the owner. He chose to spend time that m

      The idea that time is so fungible that you can easily reallocate his time from weeding @ $x / hour to "management things" @ $y / hour where y >> x is simplistic.

      If he'd ordered the officers of a public company to spend 50% of their time weeding the yard at their usual salary, that would be a waste of money.

      There are tonnes of people who weed their own yard, yet have a day job that pays way more than weeding, and it's not even an economically unsound choice because they can't just do their job instead and collect the difference between their salary and the cost of having somebody else weed.

      (I'm not among them. I hate weeding.).

    15. Re:Naturally by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How much money does the company lose when he's sleeping?
      Come on guys, grow out of this monachist divine right bullshit. This "born to rule" idiocy is exactly how people like Rupert Murdoch (utter bastard that he is) could cut a swathe through clueless American managers that thought they just needed the right connections, an MBA, and sit isolated in a little tower to run things.

    16. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they were good at inbreeding, killing the local yokels if they got uppity and playing villians according to Hollywood.

    17. Re:Naturally by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      This has been an ongoing issue since America transitioned from a capitalist society to a manamentist society sometime in the 40's. This book outlines some of this and laments the way the management class has seized power, http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500881h.html

    18. Re:Naturally by deadweight · · Score: 1

      I bet he learns a thing or two by being on the floor with the worker bees. If nothing else they'll be less likely to fuck off.

    19. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But on a more serious note, I work above a warehouse for an import company. The owner is a multi-millionaire Chinese ex-pat. It's pretty damn sobering to see him weeding, sweeping and driving a forklift when he has time. He doesn't have to, and he's not doing it to motivate his staff. For him, it's just the right thing to do.

      You know, normally the high level folks are out of the loop from what reallyhappens and who does a good job. The ole' thermocline of truth thing. This guy probably knows a lot more about what actually is going on in his business then most C level.

  16. Flintstones said it best by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    "Strategize, Visualize, Conceptualize."

    C-Speak takes what could fit on a 2 x 1.5" sticky note and expands it to fill entire books.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  17. Say absolutely nothing with any real meaning by Tridus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That about covers it. We get this nonsense in the government too. Senior management does their "lean six sigma strategic planning" for the year, and comes up with a giant poster on the wall of the department priority plan.

    It's got lots of lovely sounding buzzphrases and fuzzy things, but absolutely nothing that anybody who does any of the real work can actually do. So it's totally useless. Business goes on as usual, and we kind of nod politely when they're in the room and wait for them to leave so we can get back to work.

    If you want to get by as a "leader" these days, the goal seems to be to offer no actual leadership, no firm plans, and no position on anything.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Say absolutely nothing with any real meaning by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly how it is at every company everywhere.

      Sometimes I cringe at all the waste. Not the time, because the people who develop that shit, their time is worthless to begin with -- the actual physical waste, all the shit they produce to make themselves feel good but is only ever sneered at by employees that actually do work for their paycheck.

      Constant improvement is secret code for constantly creating more complicated procedures under the guise of 'streamlining' a procedure.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    2. Re:Say absolutely nothing with any real meaning by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      Except having these great ideas don't matter unless they can be implemented, something that CIOs don't do.

      The CIO saying we need to reduce downtime (or whatever the current buzzword is) doesn't really -do- much to affect quality. Gee, I thought having the servers go down for an hour every month was a good thing! Instead, the engineer who implements a way of preventing that monthly downtime has actually done something to boost quality.

      There needs to be a bridge between the business side of things and the tech side of things, but in most companies that role is not filled by the CIO.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Say absolutely nothing with any real meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to get by as a "leader" these days, the goal seems to be to offer no actual leadership, no firm plans, and no position on anything.

      So what you're saying is...I have a chance?

    4. Re:Say absolutely nothing with any real meaning by Kim0 · · Score: 1

      6Sigma is wrong, because it uses gaussian distributions, which reality only uses some times.

    5. Re:Say absolutely nothing with any real meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6Sigma is wrong, because it uses gaussian distributions, which reality only uses some times.

      Due to the Central Limit Theorem, those "some times" happen quite often.
      (I have no opinion on the worth/truth of 6Sigma.)

    6. Re:Say absolutely nothing with any real meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 6Sigma is wrong because like most of these things, it was developed for a manufacturing process and the theory simply is not intended for other industries.

  18. Brutally Honest by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just sound like the world's biggest douche bag and say, "Cloud ... blah blah .... Cloud"

    1. Re:Brutally Honest by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Just sound like the world's biggest douche bag and say, "Cloud ... blah blah .... Cloud"

      Suppose it's a sunny day?

    2. Re:Brutally Honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just sound like the world's biggest douche bag and say, "Cloud ... blah blah .... Cloud"

      Suppose it's a sunny day?

      When you deal with this stuff, every day is cloudy.,

  19. Do this. Don't do that! Can't you read the sign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

  20. Great article, thanks for posting! by JimtownKelly · · Score: 3, Informative

    Great CIOs, demonstrate a balance between understanding the business and understanding the technology in their communications. Fortunately I've worked for a couple of these in my career. Few and far between.

    --
    -- Jimtown Kelly
  21. Ugh... I hate that shit by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    This is the example I use of how NOT to communicate at my company:

    Each individual stakeholder must focus on the downward flow of delegation to ensure timely deployment of critical deliverables and the achievement of key milestones. Without cross-functional deployment of synergistic competencies, we risk significant schedule slippage and may miss key dates that we have agreed to with our core customers.

    I much prefer:

    "Everybody, get your shit done on time and work together to avoid getting stuck, or we won't sell our shit and we won't get paid."

    Sums it up nicely.

    1. Re:Ugh... I hate that shit by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      The former being delivered by approximately a dozen well-dressed office dwellers before they depart to their catered meal for the rest of the day,
      the latter being said by one dude who waves everyone off back to work before even turns to leave.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  22. Re:Do this. Don't do that! Can't you read the sign by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

    Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

    Isn't the term "only" itself an absolute?

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  23. WTF? by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

    I want my company's upper management to be clear and concise, rather than vague and full of shit. Sadly, the trend is to communicate as little as possible.

  24. CIO Monthly by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

    was that just another pop-psych regurgitation of 'Primate Power: use these hackneyed verbal tricks to pretend that you are the monkey with the biggest cock in the room!' as seen far too often in the various 'self-help for the painfully mediocre' columns that run in various media?

    Hmm, not working for you? Try one of the other columns:

    Ten hot buttons to drive your CEO wild.
    Managing the Managers Managers for Fun and Profit.
    Is your CTO spying on you? Find out using this one weird trick.
    Not getting any at home? "Borrow" it from the supply closet.
    How To: Turn Heads in your next Teleconference.
    Lie with Numbers without getting caught: It's not you, it's them!
    Lingo Bingo: Generate More Buzz with less Words.

  25. Cloud, Cloud, Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The cloud is where we want to be, regardless of the technical evaluation proving that the cloud doesn't make sense for the environment.

    Your technical evaluation is easier if you ask me what the outcome should be.

    1. Re:Cloud, Cloud, Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cio's allways forget if you have clouds sometime its going to rain.

  26. literally never use tech jargon by cmurf · · Score: 1

    Increasingly CIOs don't even understand the tech jargon, regardless who uses it first. They're an MBA with a CIO label on them. Congratulations businesses who have a CIO who can speak business, but is objectively way behind the curve with the IT professions he's supposedly chief of and they're not impressed.

    1. Re:literally never use tech jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increasingly CIOs don't even understand the tech jargon, regardless who uses it first. They're an MBA with a CIO label on them. Congratulations businesses who have a CIO who can speak business, but is objectively way behind the curve with the IT professions he's supposedly chief of and they're not impressed.

      The IT professionals needs to grow up and understand that buinesses are doing business and not IT. Hence, it makes sense that the business is controlled by business people that use IT to acheive business goals. However, intimate knowledge of gcc internals does not make you a C-level executive.

      A good CIO choses people that can be trusted to make good technicial decisions . The CIO stays on the macro level. Example: CIO decides IT strategy is to enhance sales force mobility in 6 months with business goals A,B,C. Director level decides this is done by vendor X using a mobile cloud based interface to ERP. Manager level decides it's done by implementing this in Biztalk and using an HTML5 app on the mobile devices. Grunt level does the work. CIO approves the lot.

      If you believe a CIO should be involved in the decision if the sales force should be using HTML5 or Flash apps, you're not understanding how to run a large business.

    2. Re:literally never use tech jargon by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Our CIO at the XXX Agency got all butt-hurt about not having a MacBook and being looked down on by his trendy buddies, bothered us about getting Macs in a Windows shop, and now we don't have one anymore. Never did do anything useful.

  27. Re:Do this. Don't do that! Can't you read the sign by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    It would make sense if it was a Sith saying...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  28. Through the looking glass by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We build stuff and it better damn well work. So....

    Our CEO is a physicist. All of the people in upper management have degrees in science or engineering, including sales and marketing. Yeah, you have to use business jargon, but if you don't talk tech, you don't get to participate at a strategic level. The less you know, the lower in the pecking order you are around here.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:Through the looking glass by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Shit, in software, if it works the first time, how can I bill them to fix it?!?

      THINK man.

    2. Re:Through the looking glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy the more people who will use your software the higher than chance it will fail spectacularly at the glance of some super-idiot. The magic number is somewhere around 4.

    3. Re:Through the looking glass by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      We make surgical instruments. If it doesn't work the first time, we can lose a future customer in the most permanent sense.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  29. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The thought may have been there, but you didn't quite rise up to the occasion.

  30. Give me CTO any day by ReadParse · · Score: 1

    As a fairly experienced technologist with increasing responsibility over the last several years, and who has had a certain amount of success and gathered some decent ideas along the way, I do actually think of myself as either a future CTO or future business owner.

    But I almost NEVER think of myself as a future CIO. CTO definitely. But you can *have* CIO.

  31. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did anyone else interpret that sack of crap as a polite way of spinning the old bofh addage of operational euphamisms.

  32. Not always by Edward+Kmett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a CIO, I viewed my job to be the opposite of everything in this article.

    Of course it is good to listen. It is good to be able to interact with anyone on their level of technical expertise and understanding. This advice holds at every level of an organization.

    It is also occasionally good to be capable of being demonstrably the most technically competent person in the room. Effective organizations do need the person who can actually ensure there exists an implementble strategy to accomplish the things the CEO is selling the world, and the things the client wants, and who can articulate to vendors exactly why their magic bullet isn't quite what you need. And in many ways as a CIO, your role is to be the one person at that level of management who really understands the ins and outs of how the technology works, how things can improve and how you can adapt to meet the challenges of the organization as a whole.

    Sometimes that means being the voice of reason as the curmudgeonly technology guy, but more often it means trying to steer management towards implementable solutions and being able to suggest things that give the other CXO types options they didn't know existed.

    Whether facing inward within the organization or outward to clientele or vendors, you need to be able to communicate effectively. One thing this article omits is that when facing outward, it is often good to know when to overload the vendor to get to someone who is more competent to address your concerns, and somewhat more judiciously to be able to out-tech a client's technical guys as well.

    Sometimes it _does_ pay to be the smartest person in the room.

    --
    Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
    1. Re:Not always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...Effective organizations"

      "... implementble strategy..."

      "articulate to vendors"

      "magic bullet"

      "adapt to meet the challenges"

      "steer management towards implementable solutions"

      Bingo !!

    2. Re:Not always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it _does_ pay to be the smartest person in the room.

      So you like to be alone a lot?

    3. Re:Not always by kanwisch · · Score: 1

      but more often it means trying to steer management towards implementable solutions and being able to suggest things that give the other CXO types options they didn't know existed.

      This. I have dealt with enough of c-suite to know they can't focus on details, and they can't be told "no" except in very sparing circumstances. What they want is options. They have told you, directly or indirectly, what the business wants to do and you and your team need to figure out how to do this.

      The CIO does this at the pinnacle of strategic levels. Directors do this with a touch of execution mixed in. Project managers/managers do a heavy dose of translation from strategy to execution, and business analysts/programmer analysts finish the job of translating into details. Its a continuum.

      To me, the worst leaders are those who do exactly opposite of what many of you pine for: Stick their noses in details well beneath their level, resulting in micro-management. That is a reflection of distrust and "mightier than thou" which does nothing but piss people off and murder morale.

      I'd wager heavily that a desire for CIOs who know the finer details and talk through them often haven't worked for one. I have and it was THE single worst working experience I've had.

    4. Re:Not always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the article doesn't say never show your chops, or never use techspeak. As you said you do, you place the appropriate level of communication in the appropriate context.

      My guess is that, as a good and competent CIO, when you're with other CXOs (who are not technical,) you will not drone on about the advantages versus disadvantages of virtualization compared to hardware failover. Instead, you will listen and speak to discern that the problem is lost productivity due to downtime and inform them there are two ways to proceed and (virtualization) is the better. Also, as a competent CIO, you then approach your devs or sysadmin or your one subordinate and tell him he should get prepared to work with VMWare's technical staff for an implementation, being careful that the mailserver (already running on a Stratus dual server) is left off.

      In short you know in which contexts you must use high level management speak and low level technical detail. Which puts you in the minority of CIOs, as most are ponies whose sole trick exists on one side of that fence or the other. (Hence perpetually annoying either senior management with techspeak, or your internal department with bullshit bingo.)

    5. Re:Not always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i++;

      It is knowing the audience. And if you want to impress your EIEIO peers during the meeting with your technical acumen, simply ask "Can we discuss the implications of the technical solution off-line? The details would bore everyone, but I am curious if this was fully thought through and solves the business issue." Then whack him on the head later with whatever technical jargon you need - assuming you have the "chops."

  33. Don't be the first to mention compensation? by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let me be the first to say, "Bullshit". I'm not in that interview chair because I enjoy the process. I'm not planning on working there because that's how I want to spend 9+ solid hours of my day ( although I do enjoy my work ). I'm there to earn a check.

    Likewise, they aren't interviewing me because I'm an insightful and witty bastard ( although I am ). Neither are they going to hire me because looking at my pretty face is the highlight of their day. They want production out of me.

    Now, that won't be the first thing out of my mouth, but I certainly will not hobble myself in an interview by letting them dictate what we talk about, when. Once I feel satisfied that I can do the work they want, and further, I think they feel satisfied I can do the work they want me to do, compensation becomes the next point of topic. If they don't bring it up, I will.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Don't be the first to mention compensation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Both sides need to understand the salary range and expectations before wasting time.

      I've had a number of discussions about interesting roles, only to find out down the track that they're offering significantly less than I'm now earning.

  34. Contradictory skillsets. by doubledown00 · · Score: 2

    The point of the article is that if you want to rise to CIO, you have to understand the company and how its buisness operates. This means having to transition from skills that are helpful in IT (detailed oriented micro thinking) to skills that are used in business (macro based "big picture" thinking). The article says not to use jargon because managers at the high echelons do not care about the nuts and bolts of how something gets done. They care about the end result and other non-technical drivers (cost, ROI, etc).

    Understand, these are typically skills that do not make for a good IT worker. Someone good at IT is detail oriented and laser focused on specific tasks. It is difficult training one's brain to think in a different manner. And in the IT real, people are quick to discount those who don't think as they do. The sad part is those that "think differently" in this case happen to be those who sign the paychecks.

  35. Not _always_ true, but often so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article doesn't cite research or stats or anything; it's nearly unfalsifiably vague.

    However, IMO many CEOs and their friends (who get director's jobs, who keep the CEO in power) are really out of their depth leading technical companies. Some are there by nepotism, or sheer luck, or by being really talented in the world of 1970, or (I suppose this is a form of nepotism) merely being presentable elderly white males who can talk the talk wall street expects.

          These people very much want the world of business decisions to be such that any generic elderly white mail American can usefully opine on without context or domain knowledge. Any discussion that suggest this isn't so is uncomfortable. Maybe the tech issue really isn't that important, and the core question can be rephrased as one of whether or not we should "proactively leverage our core competencies" and blah. But if the actual specific question, including some level of details, is really important to higher ups - they are going to be, at the very least, awkward. People who talk tech may be talking in inappropriate detail, but they may also be saying something necessary that reminds too many other participants that they have no "value add". You will not thrive by making CEO's face such questions unless and until you really chose your moment carefully. I.e. in conjunction with your plan to depose them. If you aren't thinking that way, shut up. And/or move.

        Bottom line: any CIO who thinks "don't talk tech until someone else does" is useful has been horribly over-promoted. If you can't work out for yourself when
    to talk tech and when not to, without such a shallow rule to guide you, you're way in over your head with a "C" title.

  36. CIO? by pr100 · · Score: 2

    Ironic that an article about avoiding jargon uses "CIO" - I've no idea what that means...

    1. Re:CIO? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Do you know what a CEO is?
      Now consider that this site has a heavy IT focus...

  37. Suffer no fools by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    You make a good point, some individuals wake up one morning and find themselves owning a thriving business, they built it from the ground up and pride themselves on being able to competently perform any and every role (yes, in many cases these people are delusional). However....

    Here's another anecdote along similar lines..

    I drove taxis for a few years, the guy I worked for had one of the biggest taxi fleets in the city (Melbourne), his personal wealth was around $AU30 million, he also sat on the board of the city's taxi directorate. He was normally at the depot 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, he and his son did all the repairs and servicing of the cabs, his standard attire was a pair of oily green overalls and steel cap boots. New sales reps often wandered in and asked him where "his boss" was.

    His work ethic set a great example, he worked harder and longer than anyone else in the company, consequently he knew the industry inside out and top to bottom. The only job he would no longer do was driving. Unfortunately the rest of his personality was that of a complete *arsehole, he used his depth of knowledge and experience in the industry to bully his son, his workers, other board members, the local council, basically everyone on his radar. Any driver with half a brain avoided the old man and dealt with the son for shift changeover, but if you wanted your overheating cab back on the road fast then you went to the old man with the big screwdriver hung on his right thigh like a six-shooter.

    *arsehole - He was a smart, honest, hard working guy, if these traits had been weaker I suspect he would have been "top dog" in a prison somewhere. I'm now roughly the same age as he was when I knew him, the "suffer no fools" attitude has its uses but it just doesn't scale to accommodate people who firmly believe everyone else is a fool.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  38. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your "first post" ejaculation seems to have been premature.

  39. Bazingo by techsimian · · Score: 1

    ..it's a technical term...aaaRRRGGGHHHH...dammit

  40. Re:First post by techsimian · · Score: 1

    self-bukake?

  41. You forgot the obligatory closing line... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The network is down, ETA?

    Sent from my iPad"

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
    1. Re:You forgot the obligatory closing line... by FirstNoel · · Score: 1

      Nice,. Yeah, that's more accurate.

      --
      "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
  42. Exec speak by DeathGrippe · · Score: 1

    When confronted with technical jargon they don't understand, execs need a language they can fall back on to make themselves feel better and impress their tech underlings.

    Thus was executive speak created, it's like a secret handshake that reassures themselves and their peers that they all belong to the same, exclusive club that specifically does not include techies.

  43. Know stuff AND be a good manager by Z8 · · Score: 1

    Untrue. Let us take a car example. I as CEO want to move our product from place A to place B. I also want to move myself from place A to place B.

    You're picking a case where you're assuming that transport is independent of everything else. If everything were like that then, sure, managers wouldn't have to know anything, and MBAs might actually make the best executives.

    In many real cases, parts of the business are all connected and there aren't necessarily dividing lines. For instance, if you're having labor trouble, perhaps a fleet of trucks will be more vulnerable to strikes than rail. But perhaps your product will spend more time sitting in a hot car with real, which could be an issue if it's heat sensitive.

    These are just example to fit in with your car analogy and may not be plausible. But in real life there are often cases where there aren't clean interfaces between problems, and a CEO who knows the details can ask better questions and better anticipate problems.

    And that is often the problem: People who think they know something about the technology will ask for the wrong things and then are surprised they get the wrong answers.

    Maybe you are right about the psychology in some cases, but there seems to be a simple response to this. The ideal is to know (not just think you know) the techology AND ask the right questions.

    Very few CEOs get this. Very few are able to let go and just trust the people in their team to be qualified in their field.

    Trust should be rational. If you have no idea what your people are doing it'll be harder to trust them.

  44. Fung Shui CIO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ours was a women who, by force of will, placed us in a crazy routine. All employees were to wear only specific colors, walk in prescriped routes. Code required a harmony that would reflect peace and joy. She even had a shaman smudge the offices until the fire alarm went off causing a deluge that sent all workstations to an eternity of bliss.
    She would often wear a phallic device in her pants. This would terrify the managers as they were dickless to begin with.

  45. How to talk like a C[E,F,I,O]O by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    "Hurf derrrf I have cocks in my mouth!"

    Nailed it.