I would agree with David. What I've seen is that the hiring manager creates a list of "must haves" for the potential candidates. These critera never anticpates a person's skills or aptitudes just "have they ever done x". Having crossed industry sectors, technology is technology and if you want someone who has done only "x" then that's all you get. The real answer at the CIO/CTO level is who is this person from a business perspective and can they learn the new business. At this level cross breeding industry experience is generally a good thing, that is unless all you want is what you've had in the past with a different face.

For years IT executives have stressed the need for strengthening their business acumen and you are now seeing CIO's who consider this among their primary skills/capabilities. Unfortunately, there has not been a reciprocal push to get business executives to gain a better understanding of the basic fundamentals of technology leadership. They do not understand the real potential value of IT or what to look for in a CIO who may be able to deliver it. Just ask the executive recruiters who spend more time trying to educate the executives who will be doing the interviews than preping the actual candidates.

Meridith,

It is always nice to see some of your insight on here and this post is no exception.

To answer your question, I think that many enterprises still don’t really grasp what the role of a CIO is within their organization, which will almost always lead to a failed (or inadequate) candidate search.

I think most Enterprises approach the position of CIO with the same attitude as they would when dealing with the help-desk geek that fixes their Word issue on their laptop. Not to disparage help-desk geeks (having been one myself in a former life) but I can’t count the number of places where the criteria seems to be those same job requirements on steroids.

Several years ago I got to witness a situation where a CEO filled an I.T. Director position and conducted no interviews, instead pursuing the local help-desk person from another competitor because this person had provided support for his desktop issues in a former job. Since there was a non-compete involved, permission had to be asked from the I.T. head of the other organization if this person could be interviewed and hired for the position. No one seemed to find it curious that this person was released from his non-compete and allowed to leave immediately. Later in discussing the situation with the new I.T. Directors former boss, the answer I got (about why he was cut loose so easily) was that his skill sets were mediocre but he was very good at telling a joke and was relentless in his attempts to resolve an executive end-user issue, often taking days working to resolve the problem, frequently when the problem should have taken only minutes to fix. In other words, the feeling was that despite having worked in a closely related operation, no cared if this particular person left because he just wasn’t that good. But the APPEARANCE of competency and the still-existent perception by many CxO’s that I.T. is still a pocket-protector crowd leads to the perception that this is what a CIO should be.

Good CIO’s really are homogeneous beasts. While not necessarily needing to excel at all, I find that the skills I need to lean on almost daily not only involve playing the role of interface to the I.T. Geeks (both Hardware and Software) but communicating with the Legal Geeks, The Finance Geeks, the Compliance Geeks, and whatever specialty Geeks your vertical market has.

Yet too often when one sees a listing or description of the job requirements for a CIO level position, it looks like a SPAM “word-salad” posting. Got an advanced degree? Check, know obscure code? Check, can diagnose/repair/replace hardware? Check. Understand all ISO standards? Check? Can cite the specifics for the last 12 SOX legal actions and their ramifications of your vertical market? Check. Can recite SunTzu quotations from memory? Check.

Assuming that one is fortunate enough to create a resume that matches what appears to be the random questionnaire job-listing, then one can frequently find oneself facing a job interview that could even challenge the Oracle at Delphi, with H.R. or Officers in the company presenting one with questions that often seem cryptic in nature and seem to beg an ambiguous response.

For anyone who has risen to a level in which one would even be considered for a CIO position, they should have a verifiable track record of accomplishments and a rich list of references. Certainly cultural fit and personality mesh with other high-level leadership are a crucial part as well but I think that really, really good CIOs can both adapt to the culture of their new employer as well as bring new culture to I.T..

Both the joy and the frustration of a CIO is that the role is still one that is largely defined by the CIO himself/herself. I recently had the chance to spend a few days surrounded by some of the more notable CIO’s out there and the one thing that still impresses itself upon me is the rather diverse backgrounds and root-skill sets each person had. The one common thread that seemed to exist was a real passion for the technology that they deploy and use within their organization. Good companies to work for are going to recognize that fact and will look for a potential CIO that will provide that fit and that passion.

As for the companies that really don’t get it, one should ask themselves. Would you really want to work there considering the circumstances and environment of the interview? The CIO position is challenging enough as it is; adding a whole level of frustration in which the senior leadership doesn’t even really know that they want from a leader to me would seem like a recipe for disaster.

Overall I do think that companies are getting better at interviewing CIO’s and I.T. leadership. Certainly it is better that what I’ve experienced a decade ago. But sometimes you still have to kiss a lot of frogs…

Wouldn't it be nice if Business Leaders would just 'fess up and say "I'm looking for a glorified Project Manager," and let the candidates who can bring change and the power of I/T to bear, look elsewhere.

I think using a consultant is a great idea, but, ultimately, the CEO needs to know what he wants his CIO to do, and how he wants the CIO integrated into the Executive team. I can't blame execs for not knowing, because over the years, we have done such a rotten job ourselves selling I/T and what we bring to the business.

I/T certainly can have a big impact on cost reduction, but I/T can also help the business understand what the impacts of new/emerging technologies are, and can be a tremendous change agent through the power of process and control of design and implementation of systems. For CEO's who are looking to change their organizations, the CIO can and should be, their best friend.

Still, I worry that the problem lies with us, too. Many in senior I/T positions actually see themselves as little more than glorified project managers, and think all they need to do is shave costs. Those are important and valuable roles, but, they're not game changing, and they do little than to reinforce I/T's position somewhere south of Finance in the corporate pecking order.

Yes the points in the article are worth noting. I have seen advertisements for CIO expecting to know C++.,JSP etc. or with high sounding words -things like strong leadership, visionary etc. Also the business people do not want to give equal status to CIO as his business counter parts & so CIOs are generally recruited for junior posts.
Also the HRD men seems to believe any person beyond 15 years is no good in IT & expect a person with less experience to know anything and every thing. Well a person may be good technically but cannot be techno-functional in a short period and CIO’s role is not that of technical geek or sales man. It is down to earth if required. The ability to get to details is very much required for a CIO. He should be able to separate grain from hash and should not get fooled by vendors. He should be committed to give good service to users but at the same time ensure that his staff are not exploited by users. He should be a mentor for users but ensure that they are held answerable & accountable. He need to how of all technology but know what all technical options available with relative advantages and also check ‘is it really required for the organization ? ‘. He should keep a good balance of relationship with employees, consultants & staff on contract. Finally he needs have persistence and perseverance in actions to show results