the article and comment is old, but the content and concept really is current still. this refers to the piece on Carly from HP getting kicked out. But the comment here that really struck me was the following lines:
Fiorina and her ilk care nothing for anything that doesn't have the characteristics of modern business chic. It's got to be sexy, involved, seemingly important, and almost entirely without real value. People in expensive suits, jetting from meeting to meeting, rubbing elbows with "business leaders" and politicians, while dining on corporate credit
The quote, particularly the part about the whole 'chic' concept, is definitely a monstrous problem in corporate America, or anywhere for that matter. My last company had this issue on a few levels. The CIO and CAO were definitely following this mode, where they wanted the IT staff, all of all people, to wear suits. These people are IT workers, not sales staff, not marketing people, not models, not Hollywood drama queens! While the company didn't suffer from layoffs the way HP did, most of the best staff left because they were entirely demoralized by the environment and the fact that the execs were nothing more than this "fad" type, rather than a place where real IT and innovation could be handled.
Some people have told me that people at levels such as director or CIO don't need to know the details of things like IT or engineering or even the business to some degree. I completely disagree with all people who believe this. I think people who are placed in these positions should be allowed to assume control if they deserve it. If you're never in the trenches, how would you learn how to fight? It's like that movie Aliens where you had Gormon, the inexperienced lieutenant, guiding the marines on a bughunt. The conversation went like this:
Ripley: How many drops is this for you, lieutenant?
Gormon: 38. Simulated.
Vasquez: How many combat drops?
Gormon: Uh, 2. Including this one.
Hudson: Oh geeze man.
Being in the position of an executive is like being a general or high up in the chain of command while going to war. You don't suddenly put a civilian running a military campaign just because he's friends with some famous rock star that you like. Similarly, you shouldn't put some character in charge of your business if that person lacks a good track record with the related experience for the position.
In the case of IT, I am of strict opinion that all positions leading to the executive levels of CIO or CTO need to follow people who hold heavily technical backgrounds. That should compliment a general understanding, appreciation and passion towards the business area that they would be leading for their company.
In my past company, I did not see that and it reflected off the morale of the employees. You could easily see the CIO hiding in his room, not talking to anyone except other executives or vendors. And when he did have his chances to speak with other employees, the remarks generally were disparaging. How can any self respecting IT employee with a fair amount of knowledge and those that have committed the time and sacrifice for their profession respond to such a disgraceful individual?
That said, and to be fair, I'm certain that this person outside of this role is a fair chum. The people he had brought with him are like himself: not knowledgable in the field of IT nor finance, but easy to get along with. Still, if you want the position, you really need to study your craft and improve at every opportunity for people to respect you. Cutting corners and making people's lives miserable are the easiest ways to win the least popular contests.
Another interesting comment made in the article described Carly's strong corporate characteristics as being:
Like John Scully at Apple, Ms. Fiorina's two greatest skills seem to have been corporate infighting and self promotion.
Likewise, my previous company had people in high positions like this. The net result was generating a hostile environment that would allow for veteran employees to move (thereby allowing the executives' friends to pop in for key positions) or cause constant bickering between people and groups to the point where some of the corporate slogans became nothing more than branded mockeries. Also, these people's self promotion would naturally allow them the higher bonuses while people working long hours were rewarded with more hours.
After hearing that many of America's MBAs are utilizing these methodologies, I have to wonder, indeed, as did some in the article how America or companies with people in charge like this can survive?
Sphere: Related Content
Trackbacks: (Trackback URL)
No Comments Posted Yet
