The CIO Assistant's Blog

This is the third and final post in the series on Staying Relevant to Business. In this post, I will review the types of competency that a CIO needs to develop to ensure predictable IT successes hence positive business perception.

In Part 1, I have highlighted the renewed threat to the survival of the CIO role (and the IT function) and suggested that the U.S. Marine Corps may provide some lessons on how to stay relevant to the business at hand.

In Part 2, I have expanded on the Corps model and drawn the conclusion that its continual relevance is due to 3 interdependent factors: A public perception of predictable and favorable Outcomes based on a track record of consistent wins under a wide range of situations, supported by a set of superior yet difficult-to-master Competencies which could only be developed by a Corps of followers well indoctrinated in the Corps Values.

Competencies are not Skills

Since we are discussing Competencies, let me first make a distinction here between Competencies and Skills. Skills are tasks acquired through learning, training and practicing. Programming, typing, writing, or public speaking are examples of Skills. Competencies, on the other hand, are abilities to act or behave in a certain fashion based on the person/group’s values and attitudes. Managing, problem solving, critical thinking, or trust building are examples of competencies. Competencies are built on top of Skills, usually a combination of several. Meanwhile, a specific Skill exercised with a specific (some say religious) attitude could be viewed as a Competency (e.g. Extreme Programming method which is defined as “a discipline of software development based on values of simplicity, communication, feedback, and courage.”). Courage? I guess so.

Superior CIO Competencies

There are already many articles written about the desirable competencies of an IT Leader. If you recall, in one of my earlier posts, I have said that “there was a laundry list of essential tasks or best practices (so that) you would end up wondering aloud whether you have all the necessary skills or capabilities to make it as the CIO.” One article specifically addressing the CIO Competencies was written in 2006 by Russell Reynolds Associates in which the authors listed 10 competency areas, grouped into 4 leadership categories:

• Strategy
  1. Establishing Vision and Direction
  2. Strategic Thinking
• Team Leadership
  3. Creating a High Performance Climate
  4. Building Talent
• Execution
  5. Data Driven
  6. Results Oriented
  7. Decision-Making
• Influence
  8. Organizational Influence
  9. Communication
  10. Prioritization / Negotiation

I personally find these competencies too generic, in the sense that they are equally applicable to the general management at all levels. There is nothing on this list that makes it a “superior” competency because it is “hard-to-master” by most leaders. I would rather propose certain types of competency more appropriate to the CIO:

Type 1 – Value-related Competencies: This type of competency gears toward making obvious the contributing Values of IT to Business. The competencies can range from the ability to initiate and propose value-creation strategies to that of measuring and communicating realized values to the business. Examples of value-related competencies are Business Case Development and Benchmarking.

Type 2 – Change-related Competencies: This type of competency gears toward demonstrating the uniqueness (and superiority) of IT in leading, managing, or even instigating Change so that they become the de facto “tip of the spear” in any major business changes. Examples are business consolidation after a merger/acquisition or business support for a massive organization restructuring.

Type 3 – Coalition-related Competencies: This type of competency gears toward developing the ability to work in confidence with others. The competencies can range from managing business partners (as both suppliers and competitors) to forming a coalition to pursue a cause. Examples are the ability to create and manage multi-disciplinary task forces to address the impacts of a major legislative change or a business consortium to bid on a customer’s mega-project.

Do you see other relevant competencies?

How large are the gaps between your current competencies and those required to gain trust and respect from your bosses and peers?

Drop me a note and we may start another series of post here.

          business, CIO, coalition, competency, IT, leadership, relevance, value

Note.- Today is the Memorial Day, a day to remember. To those who are skeptical of the CIO future, I want to say upfront that NO, this post is not a commemoration of the fallen CIOs of recent past (1). It is to pay tribute to the U.S. soldiers who died while in military service, especially to those from the U.S. Marine Corps (the Corps) and to its 2 former commanders, Alexander A. Vandergrift and Merritt A. Edson. Fallen and departed Marines, I salute you.

It is no secret to those who know me that I consider the Corps as one of the best organizations in the world and I tried to model the IT organization under my leadership along the same line. There are many management principles of the Corps that prove to be useful in business, but to me the biggest lesson to be learned is HOW TO STAY RELEVANT when external environments constantly change?

Let me start with this introductory question from a book by David H. Freeman, Corps Business:

“…what do the Marines do that justifies the Corps as a separate service?

There are, of course, certain types of missions that have become almost exclusively associated with Marines: beach invasions and the evacuation of American from hostile environments overseas are two obvious examples. But in fact the Army has long been capable of beach invasions; the D-Day Normandy landing, for example, was an army operation. And all three of the larger services are capable of quickly inserting highly trained soldiers into hostile environments to lead civilians to safety.

In truth, there is little the Marine Corps does that couldn’t be seen as redundant with the services performed by the other branches of the military.”

 The last statement was also the view held by many people in power, especially in post-war time. They didn’t see the need for an expensive strike force. In fact, there were at least 3 attempts to disband the Corps or integrate it with the Army between 1945 and 1950, condoned and even spearheaded by the U.S. President, Harry Truman, himself:

1. In 1946, a bill – S.2044 – was introduced to place the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) under Navy control. Its practical effect was to reduce the Marine Corps to the status of a Navy branch. The Corps Commandant, General Alexander A. Vandergrift, saved the day for the Corps by making an impassionate speech before Congress in May 1946; 
2. In 1947, the same bill was re-introduced again, this time accompanied by a directive prohibiting comments by any serving officers. Marine Brigadier General Merritt A. Edson resigned at the peak of his career in order to make the round of Capitol Hill lobbying for the Corps as a civilian. He succeeded in having the bill defeated and the status of the Corps confirmed with the National Security Act of 1947; 
3. During this 1946-1949 period, the Corps was systematically dismantled and reduced from a 485,000-strength troop at the end of the World War II to a 2-division structure of about 10,000 effectives;
4. In June 1950, Truman administration announced its plan to reduce the Corps budget for 1951 to 6 battalions (around 5,000 troops). The plan was thwarted soon by the event of June 25, 1950, when North Korea invaded the South and triggered the Korean War. The first U.S. soldiers called to action were the Marines … and the rest is history (2).

Fast forward now to the business world of today. Does the Corps story sound familiar to you? Do you hear already other corporate executives pondering aloud:

• Can we reduce the IT budget by another 10% this year?
• What do IT people do anyway that justifies IT as a separate service, with a Chief Officer in command? 
• Why shouldn’t we disband IT and relocate its people among the divisions/departments? 
• Why shouldn’t we outsource IT services and place its governance under Finance & Administration?
• Why shouldn’t we create a separate Business Intelligence (BI) or a Business Continuity (BC) unit independent of IT?

Indeed, these questions have been answered in the affirmative by many companies. More than ever before, the IT organization and your role as its commander-in-chief are threatened with irrelevance. How do you stay relevant today? What lesson can you learn from the Corps?

Stay tuned …

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 (1) If you follow the CIO press or the CIO LinkedIn Forum, you will find alarming information about CIO’s being let go without replacement during the last 6 months. More troubling is the alleged view of the CEO as depicted in this article by a CIO himself: Prove It’s Business Value to Your CEO – Or Else, by Bob Evans, InformationWeek, April 22, 2009.

 (2) The story of the U.S. Marine Corps during the post-war time of 1945-1950 is a fascinating read. Some of the key sources are:

• The US Marine Corps since 1945 by Lee E. Russell
• Firsts to Fight by Lt. Gen. Victor H. Krulak USMC (Ret.)
   

          business, CIO, IT, leadership, Marines, relevance, the Corps

Did you have early last year a plan for (how to deal with) the economic downturn? And this month, do you have a plan for its return to growth? In short, do you have a plan for different market scenarios? If you ask the CIOs, the most likely answer is NO. Few would be able to say:

“Yes, we have anticipated the downturn and here is our Plan A to deal with it. By the way, we also anticipate its return to growth x months after and here is our Plan B. Just in case the downturn gets prolonged for another y months, here is our Plan C.”

The sad truth is that the majority of us don’t plan for every eventualities. We don’t have the habit or practice to do so. We don’t have the time to do, so we say. We are good at developing the annual IT plan (mostly a budget, with perhaps a list of projects to do). We are also good at developing topical and ad hoc ones (e.g. Influenza A Pandemic Action Plan). We have plans for every IT aspects: operating plans, project plans, audit plans, disaster recovery plans … We have plans for every business functions: financial plans, human resources plan, marketing plans, engineering plans … We have plans for every time frames: annual plans, monthly plans, daily plans … However, we build plans to response to something instead of to anticipate something. And when we do build plans in anticipation (we call them strategic plans), we put them in the context of a large time horizon (3-5 years). These long-range plans are worse than having no plans at all, they are the albatross around our neck, forcing us to follow through for example with a 3-year implementation of a unified Enterprise Resources Planning system across all divisional units when the business itself undergoes changes at all levels. There is no built-in mechanism to adjust these plans on-the-fly, only an annual revision process. And when the revised version looks drastically different from the original one, we ditch the old strategic plan and introduce a new one, with the same time horizon moving forward by another year.

Is it the way to lead the business nowadays? I think not.

Looking back through the history, I see that there existed a model for effective planning: The General Staff organization of the Prussian empire (1808 – 1871) which is recognized as the most advanced warfare planning institution and one that was subsequently studied and imitated by virtually all other military powers (British, French, Russian and American included). The Prussian General Staff was largely responsible for the success of the Prussian army throughout this period (1) and beyond:

“Prussian and German military victories would often be credited professionally to the Chief of Staff, rather than to the nominal commander of an army. Often the commander of an army was himself a member of the General Staff, but it was now institutionally recognized that not only was command leadership important, but effective staff work was a significant key to success in both pre-war planning and in wartime operations.”[Source: Wikipedia]

One reason for its success can be attributed to its legendary level of preparedness:

“As early as 1843, when Europe had been largely at peace for nearly thirty years and most major nations had no plans for war, observers noted sheaves of orders at the Prussian War Ministry, already made out to cover all foreseeable contingencies and requiring only a signature and a date stamp to be put into effect.”[ibid]

Modern CIOs, do you think that you can benefit from the thinking and teaching of these historical Chiefs of Prussian General Staff?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 (1) I purposely make the reference to the Prussian army in this particular period in order to avoid any debate about the German General Staff organization and its role in the World War II. Consult this Wikipedia page for more information on the role of Chief of General Staff in various countries and time lines.

          CIO, General Staff, leadership, planning