When situations go awry in an organization, there’s a tendency to create new, executive-level positions by establishing the classic “one throat to choke” policy if problems persist. For example, if tacit knowledge is leaving the organization without being captured, an organization might be compelled to establish a chief knowledge officer (CKO) position. If an organization fails to implement a meaningful strategy, a chief strategy officer (CSO) position is sometimes established. If an effective marketing strategy isn’t in place or the marketing strategy fails, perhaps a chief marketing officer (CMO) will solve the problem. Or when an organization encounters an oversight in a technology decision, they might create a chief technology officer (CTO) position.
Although there is value in the growing number of C-suite positions, my main concern is the unrealistic expectations that are often associated with desired results. One memorable quote that I come back to when I ponder this topic: “We don’t need more opinions, we need more hands!”
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 established the federal CIO positon and area of responsibility. Still, theFederal Chief Financial Officer Act often empowered CFOs to perform tasks that ran counter to the CIO’s area of responsibility. The CTO position emerged as perceptions grew that CIOs often lacked the skills needed to lead the technical direction of an organization. Consequently, CIOs were essentially in figure-head roles because they lacked line and budget authority over staff who contributed to, or negatively impacted, their areas of responsibility. As more CxO positions were created in the technical realm (CTOs, CISOs), areas of responsibility became more fragmented. It’s a paradoxical situation for CxOs to be ultimately responsible for tasks over which they do not have line authority; albeit not uncommon.
For the full article click here
from cyber security caucus http://ift.tt/1NzBVWi
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment