Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Clearly the answer to farwheat's question is "a big fat nothing", considering Clinton was/is a person who had to take a poll everyday to find a moral compass...
As for Patton, it could easily be argued that no other General at the time could havebeen resolute enough to make the contribution he did, but that he wasn't even then "politically correct" enough for the powers that be and the sheep who follow them.
My nominee to replace both these icons is George W. Bush (aka "43").
He has become both a resolute Commander-In-Chief that the troops respect and also a cool-under-fire enemy the terrorists appear to fear.
He has authorized himself to accept help and build coalitions, the people who can provide that help respect him enough to offer it, and he appears to have the good sense to sort bad advice from good and to stay the principled course regardless of personal/political assault.
As for Patton, it could easily be argued that no other General at the time could havebeen resolute enough to make the contribution he did, but that he wasn't even then "politically correct" enough for the powers that be and the sheep who follow them.
My nominee to replace both these icons is George W. Bush (aka "43").
He has become both a resolute Commander-In-Chief that the troops respect and also a cool-under-fire enemy the terrorists appear to fear.
He has authorized himself to accept help and build coalitions, the people who can provide that help respect him enough to offer it, and he appears to have the good sense to sort bad advice from good and to stay the principled course regardless of personal/political assault.
To consider George W Bush a leader in any respect is either bitter, biting irony or a fatuous disregard for the public record. Bush is a 4th grader compared to Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton, who at least was highly intelligent while he was morally corrupt.
DId you hear the Superbowl fans booing Clinton during the opening... Gee - didn't read that in any paper... Now theres a non-leader that CIO's can model themselfs after... and get boo'ed at the next board meeting or employee meeting...
So, essentially what all of these posts are saying is that every individual is either one thing or another, with no other facets to their personality other than the one you choose to emulate (GWB), or villify (Clinton, et al).
Hmm . . . does that mean each of us is only allowed to be represented by one of our characteristics, and someone else is the judge of who we are based on whichever character flaw or attritbute they choose?
The article points to the valuable characteristics of eachof those individuals as assets for a CIO . . . but I guess since GWB is perfect, he should have been the measure.
Hmm . . . does that mean each of us is only allowed to be represented by one of our characteristics, and someone else is the judge of who we are based on whichever character flaw or attritbute they choose?
The article points to the valuable characteristics of eachof those individuals as assets for a CIO . . . but I guess since GWB is perfect, he should have been the measure.
If you wish to module yourself after someone like Bill "What is Is" Clinton - please do it. But don't try to tell the general public that he is someone you should follow. He has no Leadership skills - if you want someone with character and chrisma (like they put it) - Try Ronald R. -
Clinton - has more spin doctors and people to make sure his lies don't come back at him than Carter has peanuts.
If you are going to name someone to follow you should name someone that a majority of people respect... Such as Major or NY or GWBush - of Martin Luther King - but Bill Blow Job Clinton. Or George Blood and Guts Patton - why not name Custor (hell he did good at the little big horn)..
If you wish to module you life after two men that had no Code and No Honor - please feel free but don't try to tell me - that they are the greatest men and should be followed..
I try to walk this earth with eyes open - not shut and take what the media says as what is happening around me...
Clinton was a Pig - Patton was a Bastard - Neither had CODE or HONOR -
Clinton - has more spin doctors and people to make sure his lies don't come back at him than Carter has peanuts.
If you are going to name someone to follow you should name someone that a majority of people respect... Such as Major or NY or GWBush - of Martin Luther King - but Bill Blow Job Clinton. Or George Blood and Guts Patton - why not name Custor (hell he did good at the little big horn)..
If you wish to module you life after two men that had no Code and No Honor - please feel free but don't try to tell me - that they are the greatest men and should be followed..
I try to walk this earth with eyes open - not shut and take what the media says as what is happening around me...
Clinton was a Pig - Patton was a Bastard - Neither had CODE or HONOR -
I certainly don't want to model myself after any of the men mentioned in the article or the posts. But, I am interested in looking at each individual and identifying character traits that I find admirable. Obviously the ones you mentioned are not ones that I am looking to identify myself with.
From what I know of Patton generally, he was a jerk. That does not mean that he had no redeeming value, or characteristics that were admirable.
Clinton wasn't necessarily the most impressive leader, and certainly not the greatest moral role model. But if you ever watched him with a group asking questions (not reporters, people) he listened to what they said and he took time to think about his response, and he didn't treat any question or comment with scorn. A good quality to have when you deal with people as a CIO.
When I am judged by others I hope they are forgiving enough to admire my good points, even while acknowledging my flaws.
That was my point . . . not that either of these men are good, or perfect, but that you look to see the qualities mentioned in the article.
The last of my 2 cents on this one.
From what I know of Patton generally, he was a jerk. That does not mean that he had no redeeming value, or characteristics that were admirable.
Clinton wasn't necessarily the most impressive leader, and certainly not the greatest moral role model. But if you ever watched him with a group asking questions (not reporters, people) he listened to what they said and he took time to think about his response, and he didn't treat any question or comment with scorn. A good quality to have when you deal with people as a CIO.
When I am judged by others I hope they are forgiving enough to admire my good points, even while acknowledging my flaws.
That was my point . . . not that either of these men are good, or perfect, but that you look to see the qualities mentioned in the article.
The last of my 2 cents on this one.
Better then the coke snortin, coward, child killing, blood lusting, ignorant, wannabe antichrist, corrupt wanker u now have as the president...and yes i do mean bush although one could say the same for cheney and rumsfeld. Bill may have liked a blowbut he was truly a great prez
It's ironic that some of the complaints about
the choice of Clinton fault his use of polls and
spin-doctors, because this discussion reflects
exactly what happens when you don't. Mr.
Rubin was making a perfectly reasonable and
intelligent point which only P. Mercer seemed
to get--I gave up on trying to read all the
posts--and the rest of the respondents were
reacting emotionally to a loaded word. Any
President--and any CIO--who isn't careful
about choices of words and imagesfaces the
same predicament; too many people get hung
up on a noise-level issue and miss what may
be--and is in this case--a compelling
message.
the choice of Clinton fault his use of polls and
spin-doctors, because this discussion reflects
exactly what happens when you don't. Mr.
Rubin was making a perfectly reasonable and
intelligent point which only P. Mercer seemed
to get--I gave up on trying to read all the
posts--and the rest of the respondents were
reacting emotionally to a loaded word. Any
President--and any CIO--who isn't careful
about choices of words and imagesfaces the
same predicament; too many people get hung
up on a noise-level issue and miss what may
be--and is in this case--a compelling
message.
He has a lot to do with leadership Einstein, ho the hell do you think he became the leader of our country.
Regardless of his personal foibles, his heart was in the right place and he essentially was for the underdog of our society and for the environment. Although he, too, had corporate "buddies".
GWB, if he HAS a heart, certainly has his heart (and other parts of his anatomy) so far in corporate pockets it's pathetic! And he and his Republicans cohorts just want to rape the environment for private gain, stick the rest of us with the resultant mess to LIVE IN --- WITH OUR CHILDREN, REMEMBER! And, in the meantime, institute secrecy about how his administration sets energy policy (and who the players were in the decision), even though they were elected to be PUBLIC servants!
Stop with the Clinton bashing! Your civil rights -- and environment -- are slipping away under GWB!
GWB, if he HAS a heart, certainly has his heart (and other parts of his anatomy) so far in corporate pockets it's pathetic! And he and his Republicans cohorts just want to rape the environment for private gain, stick the rest of us with the resultant mess to LIVE IN --- WITH OUR CHILDREN, REMEMBER! And, in the meantime, institute secrecy about how his administration sets energy policy (and who the players were in the decision), even though they were elected to be PUBLIC servants!
Stop with the Clinton bashing! Your civil rights -- and environment -- are slipping away under GWB!
I can tell that your political sensibilities have been stepped on, but that is the price you pay when you try to mix politics with ethics (a.k.a. politics and religion).
The point that most are bringing up was the equating of leadership qualities for a CIO position and certain characters of less-than-exempliary leadership traits. Whether Bill Clinton was overall good or bad for the country is not at issue. The point was in "how" he got the things done that he got done. Having affairs with the staff, treating staff members (e.g., the military) with contempt, and yelling and screaming to get his way are not what make for a good leader. To his credit he was a good public speaker (if you could stomach the lies).
If a CIO were to follow in the same footsteps, they would be in jail within weeks and fired within minutes.
Clinton's "successes" in civil rights and the environment are completely debatable (can you say "Elian", "Waco", "Ruby Ridge", "High Tech sales to China", "Lincoln Bedroom" ...).
George W. may eventually have his soft spots on politics too. However, I would not put George W. up as being a good person to emulate either. He is still writing his history. When he's done we'll see how he did in two areas: Did he accomplish what he set out to do? and Did he arrive at his goal with his honor and the country's honor still intact?
The point that most are bringing up was the equating of leadership qualities for a CIO position and certain characters of less-than-exempliary leadership traits. Whether Bill Clinton was overall good or bad for the country is not at issue. The point was in "how" he got the things done that he got done. Having affairs with the staff, treating staff members (e.g., the military) with contempt, and yelling and screaming to get his way are not what make for a good leader. To his credit he was a good public speaker (if you could stomach the lies).
If a CIO were to follow in the same footsteps, they would be in jail within weeks and fired within minutes.
Clinton's "successes" in civil rights and the environment are completely debatable (can you say "Elian", "Waco", "Ruby Ridge", "High Tech sales to China", "Lincoln Bedroom" ...).
George W. may eventually have his soft spots on politics too. However, I would not put George W. up as being a good person to emulate either. He is still writing his history. When he's done we'll see how he did in two areas: Did he accomplish what he set out to do? and Did he arrive at his goal with his honor and the country's honor still intact?
As much as I disliked Bill Clinton as a president (to put it mildly), he had charisma that pulled people to his side that I could not explain. Some of his charimsa was based on BS, but he could somehow sell it. If I could do that without stepping into the BS, I would CIO by now.
...is another persons sexual harrassment law suit. I'm not sure Clinton would be my fist choice as CIO or any other corporate leader.
I think I know a few CIO's that were like the real Patton -- brash, arrogant, and unwilling to do it any way but his way.
I'm sure there are a few like Clinton too -- liars, cheats, and willing to redefine words to get out of trouble.
If they really thought hard, I'm sure they could have come up with a couple of leaders who exhibited the positive traits they were looking for without picking men with such glaring character flaws.
I'm sure there are a few like Clinton too -- liars, cheats, and willing to redefine words to get out of trouble.
If they really thought hard, I'm sure they could have come up with a couple of leaders who exhibited the positive traits they were looking for without picking men with such glaring character flaws.
My nominee to replace both these icons is George W. Bush (aka "43").
He has become both a resolute Commander-In-Chief that the troops respect and also a cool-under-fire enemy the terrorists appear to fear.
He has authorized himself to accept help and build coalitions, the people who can provide that help respect him enough to offer it, and he appears to have the good sense to sort bad advice from good and to stay the principled course regardless of personal/political assault.
He has become both a resolute Commander-In-Chief that the troops respect and also a cool-under-fire enemy the terrorists appear to fear.
He has authorized himself to accept help and build coalitions, the people who can provide that help respect him enough to offer it, and he appears to have the good sense to sort bad advice from good and to stay the principled course regardless of personal/political assault.
Some comments focused on personalities and ignored how certain qualities and trait can help a CIO.
If CIO's cultivate the good traits mentioned, they (CIO's) can be more effetive and valuable. Avoiding specified counter-productive traits is of significant practical value.
The next step is incorporate these factors into Formal Management Processes of Information Services.
If CIO's cultivate the good traits mentioned, they (CIO's) can be more effetive and valuable. Avoiding specified counter-productive traits is of significant practical value.
The next step is incorporate these factors into Formal Management Processes of Information Services.
If I was to draw parallels with Clinton, Gandhi and Patton I will inevitably draw criticism which will distract us all from the core issues.
I agree with the author that there are some good qualities in those individuals that can be used to illustrate a point. As an IT manager, I find the need to grow out of my mental constraints. A successful IT porject requires a rich mix of skills - technical understanding of architecture, the people skills in communication, discipline and motivation as well as the business instinct to steer a project toward viability and user satisfaction. The time when each Patton or Clinton or Gandhi used to champion his/her way as superior (maybe I should use some female figures as well - how about Maggie Thatcher and Mother Theresa and.... someone help me on that one please).... has come to the end. One of the most difficult things a CIO may find is that he need to evaluate himself by new metrics. In the past it would be how much code or tangible results he/she could churn out for the day. Now it has got to go way, way beyond that into something more intangible. How much vision have you got? How motivated are your staff? How many manhours are you killing in poor communication? And the list goes on ....Think it about it...this may affect your bottom line more than the expertise your team loses by pulling you out from programming. Don't forget, you're giving something up but what you get may be even more gratifying ... give it a try!
I agree with the author that there are some good qualities in those individuals that can be used to illustrate a point. As an IT manager, I find the need to grow out of my mental constraints. A successful IT porject requires a rich mix of skills - technical understanding of architecture, the people skills in communication, discipline and motivation as well as the business instinct to steer a project toward viability and user satisfaction. The time when each Patton or Clinton or Gandhi used to champion his/her way as superior (maybe I should use some female figures as well - how about Maggie Thatcher and Mother Theresa and.... someone help me on that one please).... has come to the end. One of the most difficult things a CIO may find is that he need to evaluate himself by new metrics. In the past it would be how much code or tangible results he/she could churn out for the day. Now it has got to go way, way beyond that into something more intangible. How much vision have you got? How motivated are your staff? How many manhours are you killing in poor communication? And the list goes on ....Think it about it...this may affect your bottom line more than the expertise your team loses by pulling you out from programming. Don't forget, you're giving something up but what you get may be even more gratifying ... give it a try!
I can't beleive that Clinton has any of the stuff it takes to be a great CIO. Unless of course the company is Penthouse or Playboy, better yet Hustler. But to compare this peice of work to Patton or Gandhi I will not buy. I would not nor would very few people I know would even work for a jerk with his lack of Professionalism and honesty.
OK - BJ's in the CIO office - a little stain on the secretaries dress - oops - what does IS mean - Can we say ENRON...
Clinton a man with no Character - or as we said in the Navy - THE MAN HAS NO HONOR, NO CODE. (Military folks will understand that one).. Clinton and his wife where what can I get - Greed. So maybe thats the type of person a CIO needs to be Greedy - everything for me - Nothing but my ****** for anyone below me.. I am a god..
Now Patton - lets see - my uncle served under his command in WWII - Old Blood and Guts - Their Blood - his Guts.. He didn't care about the little guy - that was a tool to get where he wanted to be. So what if 1,500 died getting it done... so what if 2,000 more died keeping it.. His job was accomplished...
Could they of picked two other people that could of cared less about others - then Bill "Blow Job" Clinton and General "Blood and Guts" Patton..
I stopped reading after the first sentence - I wouldn't want to work for someone that modled themselfs after those two men...
Clinton a man with no Character - or as we said in the Navy - THE MAN HAS NO HONOR, NO CODE. (Military folks will understand that one).. Clinton and his wife where what can I get - Greed. So maybe thats the type of person a CIO needs to be Greedy - everything for me - Nothing but my ****** for anyone below me.. I am a god..
Now Patton - lets see - my uncle served under his command in WWII - Old Blood and Guts - Their Blood - his Guts.. He didn't care about the little guy - that was a tool to get where he wanted to be. So what if 1,500 died getting it done... so what if 2,000 more died keeping it.. His job was accomplished...
Could they of picked two other people that could of cared less about others - then Bill "Blow Job" Clinton and General "Blood and Guts" Patton..
I stopped reading after the first sentence - I wouldn't want to work for someone that modled themselfs after those two men...
I do agree that a successful CIO needs to embody a wide variety of capacities and strengths. Where I take exception with Sobczak is his statement that a huge ego is required. Given he is describing what is required to do his job in terms of great historical figures, well 2 out of 3, it's pretty safe to assume he as all the ego he needs. I have met more CIOs who could have better been described in terms of Larry, Curly and Moe or maybe Larry, Curley and Clinton. If there is one thing a huge ego will facilitate it is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory every time. Strength of will is one thing, ego is another. Unfortunately, Sobczak number among those who don't seem to understand the difference.
I think the use of John Kennedy as an example would have been better than using Clinton. That aside, you hit it right on the head. I would just add that recognition of your subordinates and treating them with dignity and respect would be another quality. Even as CIO you need to lead people to do yours and the firm's bidding.
I agree a CIO has to have many qualities - one is trustworthiness, code and honor, along with all the others. My problem with this article is the men that he selected as role models. I believe the CIO needs some of the femine qualities as well.
But to add - or select - JFK - he also had many character flaws - that I find unacceptable as a leader.
JFK did have the Charisma - Charm - and Bridgebuilding skills that were stated... I will give you that but for inclusiveness - he was forced to handle the race relations issue - he didn't want to meet with MLK or any other black leader. He directed Hoover to wire tap MLK and get dirt on him. So for inclusiveness JFK would be out.. Unless you are talking about women - then he had as many women through the white house bed as Bill Clinton.. if it wasn't for his dad and mob ties he would of lost to Nixon.
I think ML King would be a better choice Charisma, inclusiveness and bridgebuilding than Clinton or JFK.
But that is my Op or 2 cents. and I am sure there are many that would disagree with my statements. But thats what is great we all have our beliefs and Op's - and free to share them...
But to add - or select - JFK - he also had many character flaws - that I find unacceptable as a leader.
JFK did have the Charisma - Charm - and Bridgebuilding skills that were stated... I will give you that but for inclusiveness - he was forced to handle the race relations issue - he didn't want to meet with MLK or any other black leader. He directed Hoover to wire tap MLK and get dirt on him. So for inclusiveness JFK would be out.. Unless you are talking about women - then he had as many women through the white house bed as Bill Clinton.. if it wasn't for his dad and mob ties he would of lost to Nixon.
I think ML King would be a better choice Charisma, inclusiveness and bridgebuilding than Clinton or JFK.
But that is my Op or 2 cents. and I am sure there are many that would disagree with my statements. But thats what is great we all have our beliefs and Op's - and free to share them...
The Clinton reference was just one IT leader's opinion of what makes up a good CIO, the article mentions quite a few other character and personality traits offered up by the TR membership. What I find really interesting in this discussion is that there's no mention of Jack Welch, or any other well-known company leader--and in drawing feedback, there was none as well. Is there someone right now leading a corporation that comes close to the type of leader a CIO needs to be for his business unit?Judy Mottl
CIO Community Editor
CIO Community Editor
To address your question - which is an excellent point. Who as a corporate leader today would I say is good module or has qualities I would recommend.
There isn't one CIO/COO/CEO/CFO/CTO/CKO of todays corporation that I could name. At on time I would of said Lee Iacoca (sp?) when he got Chrylser back on its feet. He understood that the only way his dreams could be completed were with the hard work and dedication of 1,000 of men and women. He talked with labor, he talked with the professionals, the secretaries, the managers - and guess what it worked. But then he started to think he was a god. It appeared he believe he was the savor and not the men and women that performed the tasks and lived up to his dream. (I guess thats what happenswith fame - you start to believe your own press).
As he said in his book - he knew how well he was doing when he walked the plant floors - at the beginning he walked the floor daily or weekly at the end he never went down there. It's the common man/women that makes that dreamer a reality.
Today - I couldn't name a single executive .. From what I read, and see in the press they are all out for number 1 - themselfs. I am sure there are many that don't believe it or aren't out for number 1 and understand - and I am not making a generality.
I have been watching the ENRON hearings - and the X-CIO and other executives are dancing around every question - like Bill Clinton did "What is Is". So I guess this article was correct - the Executives of today are using Bill and Patton.. but where is the Gundi part... Enron has cost thousands of people billions of dollars, and why so they could be richer than they already where.. When is enough money enough? I don't mind someone making Billions - but you would think at one point in time - they should stop making it and use it for humanitarian efforts.. even Ted Turner has given a billion away... and even Bill Gates ...
There isn't one CIO/COO/CEO/CFO/CTO/CKO of todays corporation that I could name. At on time I would of said Lee Iacoca (sp?) when he got Chrylser back on its feet. He understood that the only way his dreams could be completed were with the hard work and dedication of 1,000 of men and women. He talked with labor, he talked with the professionals, the secretaries, the managers - and guess what it worked. But then he started to think he was a god. It appeared he believe he was the savor and not the men and women that performed the tasks and lived up to his dream. (I guess thats what happenswith fame - you start to believe your own press).
As he said in his book - he knew how well he was doing when he walked the plant floors - at the beginning he walked the floor daily or weekly at the end he never went down there. It's the common man/women that makes that dreamer a reality.
Today - I couldn't name a single executive .. From what I read, and see in the press they are all out for number 1 - themselfs. I am sure there are many that don't believe it or aren't out for number 1 and understand - and I am not making a generality.
I have been watching the ENRON hearings - and the X-CIO and other executives are dancing around every question - like Bill Clinton did "What is Is". So I guess this article was correct - the Executives of today are using Bill and Patton.. but where is the Gundi part... Enron has cost thousands of people billions of dollars, and why so they could be richer than they already where.. When is enough money enough? I don't mind someone making Billions - but you would think at one point in time - they should stop making it and use it for humanitarian efforts.. even Ted Turner has given a billion away... and even Bill Gates ...
I think there may be a reason there are no active role models, but I don't think it is because there are none with current potential. In order to evaluate a role model's worthiness, we need to know at least two things -- the outcome and the process. If we only know the outcome, we have nothing to emulate except to say that the "results were impressive." If we know the process without an outcome, then we can't tell if it is something we want to pattern ourselves after. A good process that leads to a lousy outcome is one that I try to avoid.
So, I don't know if it is possible to have an "active player" be a role model. Time will tell. Maybe George W. will become someone worthy of following. The book isn't written and I'm willing to wait before I'd judge his process as good. The same goes for the many CIOs that are out there.
There is also the most important ingredient too -- fame. I can't look to a person who I don't know. My suspicion is that there is not a large market for books on CIO's that "done good."
And that may be a blessing all by itself.
So, I don't know if it is possible to have an "active player" be a role model. Time will tell. Maybe George W. will become someone worthy of following. The book isn't written and I'm willing to wait before I'd judge his process as good. The same goes for the many CIOs that are out there.
There is also the most important ingredient too -- fame. I can't look to a person who I don't know. My suspicion is that there is not a large market for books on CIO's that "done good."
And that may be a blessing all by itself.
I realize that TechRepublic is a site that's free to us readers/members. But I am finding the new format of ads make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for me to concentrate on the articles I'm trying to read! In fact, I find myself decreasingly interested in even going to TechRepublic because the ads are so LARGE, distracting even if you turn "play" off, and placed right next to the text I'm trying to understand.
Does any one else find them as distracting?
Does any one else find them as distracting?
I have 3 suggestions for leaders to emulate, all from the same company (or its spinoff.) They are Bill Hewlitt, Dave Packer and Ned Barnholt (who?)
Bill and Dave are gone now, but they practically invented the idea of MBWA - management by walking around. Ned is the current head of Agilent, the true heir of Bill and Dave. All of these leaders are technically savvy enough to avoid being snowed, but also realize the true strength of any company is in the people who do the work. They each embody the characteristics that this article tried to encourage. And as a bonus suggestion, how about Bill Belichek, the New England Patriot's head coach? He took a team that was laughable at the beginning of the season and helped them become champions. Remember at the Super Bowl when they took the field as a team, instead of individually? Who else but a leader could get an athlete like Drew Bledsoe to play backup to an untested, but effective, player like Tom Brady?
Who says there are no role models?!?
Bill and Dave are gone now, but they practically invented the idea of MBWA - management by walking around. Ned is the current head of Agilent, the true heir of Bill and Dave. All of these leaders are technically savvy enough to avoid being snowed, but also realize the true strength of any company is in the people who do the work. They each embody the characteristics that this article tried to encourage. And as a bonus suggestion, how about Bill Belichek, the New England Patriot's head coach? He took a team that was laughable at the beginning of the season and helped them become champions. Remember at the Super Bowl when they took the field as a team, instead of individually? Who else but a leader could get an athlete like Drew Bledsoe to play backup to an untested, but effective, player like Tom Brady?
Who says there are no role models?!?
So let's say that a person has all three qualities mentioned in the article, but has never been in a CIO role before. What does it take to make the jump from an IT Director/Manager position to a CIO position other than past experience?
Curious.
Curious.
You are asking a question that I found myself asking as well.
As a CIO, the hardest aspect is getting support from your internal team, others within the company and especially the C-Level executives. Most people have a negative outlook on IT because of our capital expenses. Most excutive see IT as a drain on corporate resources.
The CIO needs to get on am equal level with the other C-level executives and explain how IT works from a finanical point of use. They do not want to hear any IT jargon, the end of the day it is essentiall the P&L.
Once the CIO can get the support of everyone, then their job of transforming a business is much easier. So, to anwser your question, someone that has the energy, experience and vision for such a change.
Ray
As a CIO, the hardest aspect is getting support from your internal team, others within the company and especially the C-Level executives. Most people have a negative outlook on IT because of our capital expenses. Most excutive see IT as a drain on corporate resources.
The CIO needs to get on am equal level with the other C-level executives and explain how IT works from a finanical point of use. They do not want to hear any IT jargon, the end of the day it is essentiall the P&L.
Once the CIO can get the support of everyone, then their job of transforming a business is much easier. So, to anwser your question, someone that has the energy, experience and vision for such a change.
Ray
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
