It seems to me that there are two principle reasons for the emergence of peculiar C-level titles such as Chief Information Technology Officer, Chief Knowledge Officer, Chief People Officer, and the like: mollification and obfuscation. Neither bode well for the organization.
The first is an effort to underscore a company’s emphasis on a particular area, in order to impress or mollify a specific audience or constituency. “Chief People Officer” is a particularly inane way to do this, attempting to convince staff that they are seen as real human individuals and not inanimate resources. This is a grossly paternalistic and manipulative maneuver that is more often than not uncomfortably recognized as such by the “people” who are its target.
Another version of this (mollification) category is the restructuring of more traditional functions into a new mixture designed to promote a trendy management fad. An example is the “Chief Performance Officer,” which is supposed to combine the functions of the CFO and Chief Information Officer into one person responsible for gathering organizational metrics. And that approach brings us to the next category:
Some of these titles simply reflect the desire of a CEO to appear to be meaningfully and seriously addressing the latest hot management trends. Chief Knowledge Officer and even Chief Information Technology Officer fall into this category. It can be compared to the President appointing a ‘Czar‘ in charge of this or that. It is designed to deflect demand for action from observers with pointed opinions at the same time that it deflects responsibility for performance in those areas onto the person appointed into these new positions. In general, this sort of approach reflects poorly thought out positions, ill-discipline, and a blurring of unity of command and of organizational clarity on the part of the CEO.
As a rule, the proliferation of such titles suggests less – rather than greater – clarity of thought and effort, and less – rather than greater – focus and integration of organizational action. Without a compelling reason based on a comprehensive and serious review of organizational strategy and design, recourse to such patchwork solutions should be avoided.
—
If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!
Technorati Tags: C-level titles, Chief Information Technology Officer, Chief Knowledge Officer, Chief People Officer, management fad, Chief Performance Officer, CFO, Chief Information Officer, CEO, management trend, President, Czar, unity of command, strategy
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
Jim, you have a very thoughtful review here of what titles really mean relative to an organization. Your first analysis “This is a grossly paternalistic and manipulative maneuver that is more often than not uncomfortably recognized as such by the “people” who are its target,” shows that designating new job titles can be very manipulative – to serve the purposes of a top down organization.
You also show that titles can be used to combine two positions into one and sometimes for the mere show that an organization is following trends.
Jim, there’s certainly more to titles than might meet the eye. Thanks for your in-depth analysis.
My question would be, if I am a manager in a similar organization to the ones you depict, “What strategies work best for my personal success on my first day when I sport the new title?” or
“Does this organization offer what I need for fulfillment in my work, and if not, what are some that do?” Either way, a person working within such a system must be savvy and find how they best fit within all of this – especially if it’s blatantly manipulative.
Thanks for spelling out how title inflation’s a “sign” for employees to reflect to reposition in a way that also to serve themselves best at the same time.
Chief IT Officer seems reasonable for large organizations managing their own IT… It’s quite a responsibility. I’m not sure what a Chief People Officer is… Director of Human Resources, maybe? Or does it have something to do with managing relationships with clients or consumers?
Jim,
I think Cam is probably on solid ground with IT when it comes to large organizations.
The small and medium sized companies that do the Chief IT Officer thing have, in my personal experience, sometimes unwittingly created a power base rather than a service function that truly serves. I’ve watched more than a few “Chief IT” folks wield their jargon to the un-annointed as a way of “explaining” all of the things that they could NOT do. I’m pretty tech-savvy and have had to lean over and tell more than one exec that their “guy” was full of baloney.
As for the other “Chief” titles: I’ve found myself subconsciously not acknowledging their validity. Really. If I’m in a company and someone says “This is our Chief Marketing Officer” I usually ask them, kindly, how that is different than being a VP of Marketing. The honest answer is usually “we wanted to stress the importance of marketing.”
That’s honest. But I haven’t yet found an instance where it has actually improved marketing performance. It has, however, increased the size and salary overhead of the corporate officer ranks.
Robyn – you provide a terrific way to assess this situation (and others): imagining how it looks from the perspective of the people affected by it – even those who, perhaps, are being made the unwitting or unwilling instruments of this sort of subterfuge. Excellent idea generally, not to mention as a thought project for such individuals.
Cam and Steve, I understand your reservations about including IT in this category. I will say that, on the one hand, I have difficulty with making this position a C-level one, any more than I would have the buildings and grounds group elevated to this height. I still think it’s a whitewash. However, on the other hand, I understand the point both of you make about its possible utility in large organizations, and I will say that if I were a CEO of one and had that recommendation energetically made to me, I would probably accept it.
Cam, I think you hit the nail right on the head with your “what was that again?” approach to being confronted with such a title. And Steve, your response to being confronted with one is terrific. Perhaps we should combine them for a one-two punch: “What’s that mean?” . . . “Nonsense.” (kindly, of course.)
Thanks, all, for your insights and visits!