digital divide network - article database

What is the agreement on a CIO’s role in the C-suite? That may sound a simple question, but has a very complex social reality underneath it.  It will require a deeper and very sincere reflections to arrive at the right perspectives.

We very regularly hear that some CMOs are procuring their applications without involving the CIO or other CxOs are not involving the CIO in key IT related decisions. All such assertions indicate the disagreement on a CIO’s role, the difference between how different individuals see the role as.

That’s an important point to understand as the degree of agreement has deeper impacts on a CIO’s role effectiveness.  This can be one single construct, which can tell a CIO where the source of trouble is? The agreement on the role emanates from the issues of what should a CIO do? how should be do it? and who should he report into? The understanding of these issues shall unveil the intricacies of the web of perceptions, values, relations, self interests, actions, behavior and resources.

Different individuals represent different versions of the role due to difference in their personal frame of looking at the situation.  The individual frame to look at the situation is a result of both their past experience as well as the way they experience the given situation. This combination of ‘personal experience’ and the ‘situated experience’ has personal interest underneath- the need for self enhancement, self preservation and self efficacy, in short self interest. Self interest is a big motivator, people follow rules and they also break rules, depending on what serves their self interest.

How does the agreement (or lack of it) impact a CIO’s role effectiveness? Well, it does that in two ways, objectively and subjectively, both of them equally potent.

Let’s take the objective one first, which is built on the instrumentality logic. CIO's role effectiveness is determined by the level of resources he or she can garner. And the resources are embedded in social ties with others. The agreement with others means availability of more resources (like support, knowledge, budgets, access etc.) for the CIO. For example the agreement between a CIO and the HR head indicates that they align on their personal values or goals, see their self interest in working together and do not experience each other as threat. The HR head makes and even creates resources for the CIO to leverage for playing his role. A lack of agreement would mean lack of the related resources.

The agreement between the two is built and further strengthened or weakened by their individual actions and the meanings they make out of them. Ask yourself as a CIO, who all disagree with your role and why? Is there a certain meaning they are making out of your actions? And what meanings are you attributing to their actions? An SBU head I know was in disagreement with the CIOs role due to the latter’s proximity to the CFO, with whom the SBU head did not enjoy a good working relation. Moreover, the CIO spent very little time with the SBU head discussing various issues, which made the SBU head attribute the meaning of ‘rivalry’ to the actions taken by the CIO. The irony was that the CIO was not even aware of the phenomenon.

The second way in which the ‘role agreement’ impacts role effectiveness is the subjective assessment of the role effectiveness done by others, which is built upon the constructionist logic. Social actors create their reality by constructing it subjectively. End of the day, what is role effectiveness? It’s the personal assessment done by the C-level peers of the CIO. And personal assessments are subjective and influenced by their ‘situated experience’. If someone likes a person, he or she would not mind ignoring certain shortcomings and if someone does not like a person, would highlight even the slightest shortcoming. Isn't that human and all c-level executives are human too.

And the relative power of the personal agreeing or disagreeing further weighs the impact.

If a CIO is facing difficulty in the job, he or she should reflect on the level of ‘agreement’ on the role and where is the disagreement (or agreement) emanating from? How is it impacted by one’s individual actions and behavior?

And it’s through awareness and appropriate actions and behavior that one can build high level of role agreement.