en-us http://www.keithwatanabe.net/index.php Keith Watanabe's Website http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2007/12/8/4b2f04709ce4c5384cec7e798c0f3f14.html
In a way, this also implies that companies like Buy.com, Amazon, TigersDirect, etc. will face less competition from the brick-n-mortar world while validating the notion that ecommerce will slowly take over these types of areas. I kinda find the whole dot com bubble burst sad in that the real issue had been getting people to move online. It's taken a while just not the short period that analysts had originally predicted.]]> Sat, 08 Dec 2007 07:09:24 -0700 http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2007/12/8/4b2f04709ce4c5384cec7e798c0f3f14.html http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/2/23/338bd782601c0502d547ad5ac4d5459f.html CIO magazine has a great article on "How to Identify A Bad CIO." The article goes on to describe nearly spot on every characteristic of the current CIO. Of course, I've known from the beginning after observing him for a trial period of three months, right to when he made his first announcement. Also, I had been in a similar position several years back at Nikko Citigroup, where another barbaric IT director had pushed out all the good technology managers and installed his yes-men. Even at USSearch.com, I heard a story about how all the senior management were installed as a result of a coup. All were of South African background (think colonial types). While they weren't that bad, people did find the situation unsettling at times.
The main problem I saw was that in these situations, the key executives hired their yes-men. The sad part is that this is a common practice in IT. Probably in more industries than you can count. But I'm going to limit the discussion strictly to IT, since it's where I've observed and felt it most.

I think that there should be a standard or legal practice in IT hiring (or perhaps all of hiring) where people in key positions cannot hire any previous people for at least 2-3 years. A key position would be any senior executive type of position. In a typical IT company, this would be a CTO, CIO or director. In securities, it would be senior vice president, director, managing director and whatever is above that. I know some companies employ a non-poaching agreement for about one year. However, I'm beginning to believe that this agreement should be longer. Also, the other thing is that this rule would apply to recent executive hires.

I don't think this rule should apply to anything lower because usually in those cases, people are just trying to help one or two friends out. But in the case of executives, the whole thing is about how they can use/demonstrate their strategy for turning a company around. If an executive isn't groomed into a position (i.e. meaning they're recruited for that position), they need to prove themselves. I feel that they should be given a term of at most 3 years. If we apply my rule, they should have some clause in their contract where they must achieve a certain level of success within the first year. As part of that, they must demonstrate the leadership to do so without depending on their "buddies" for advice or tricking other senior management members into getting buy-ins for their views of what a success is.

I don't make apologies for writing this type of article up and directing my fury against a particular individual. He should realize (which I'm certain he does) what he's done and the company in question should also realize that they've made a critical mistake in hiring this person. A friend of mine who likewise was affected by a similar situation in the past had once stated that he questions whether or not the people who employ such underhanded tactics realize that they're affecting lives in a very negative way. In some cases, the people do so maliciously. Of course, later on they'll get their justice. However, if people like this are unwitting enough to not realize how they've hurt people, they should remedy their actions immediately.]]> Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:25:49 -0700 http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/2/23/338bd782601c0502d547ad5ac4d5459f.html http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/2/23/a42abc6c8eb6e21fd1acad201d2b3825.html
Now, one of the biggest things I think that was made was not letting the non-executives get a chance to meet the new executive and provide some form of feedback. I think companies make huge mistakes by not forcing executives to go through a round of drilling from regular staff. The reason why I think this is good is to see whether or not the staff themselves trust the new executive. I mean, he/she will be their boss after all and people should care about who's on top.

Another problem is that most of the staff are made powerless to do anything against the CIO. He's the CIO for godsake's! Call me a Marxist or socialists, but this is the primary reason why I think a union should be created for IT. While executives have the primary responsibility for leadership, it's usually the staff that do all the real work and true leading. I think that the staff should be able to collectively protest the actions of the CIO without repercussion. If there's one thing is probably stereotypical of most geeks, it's the fact that most are selfish, self-preserving and too individualistic. Ask them to take a stance with others and they'll just back away fast. If the numbers of geeks out there had stood up to Hollywood, MPAA, RIAA, the loss of jobs, the dot-com bust, etc. things certainly would be a lot different.

Part of the prevention should be a feedback system that forces HR to evaluate executives on a regular basis. Companies say that they have these feedback systems but it's rare to see any company take action and satisfy the demands of the workers. I mean, it's silly seeing long time, highly valued employees leave because of draconian measures employed by an incoming IT executive.

Also, contracts for these CIO/CTOs types should be pretty well spelled out. There should be certain key goals in place that are measurable within a time limit. You can't just let people waltz in over promise and under deliver. Part of the contract should involve a penalty if those goals are not satisfied. I mean, being an executive should mean more than earning a high salary. These days public companies enforce rules over CEOs and CFOs in terms of strict financial disclosure. CIOs and CTOs should equally be penalized either in terms of salary, the inability to work for a similar position within a specified time frame (which happen but it's more industry specific) or something. In other words, a CTO/CIO position should mean more than money, but responsibility to the organization and shareholders alike. Without this level of accountability, anyone can get into such a position and it's just plain unfair for everyone else. So you need to discourage this behavior and seek people who earnestly want to achieve something for the organization rather than pad their wallets.

Unfortunately, I'm beginning to believe that the cause of bad CIOs/CTOs is not completely because of the CIO/CTO. Instead, this behavior is the result of the company's organizational behavior in encouraging such people in participating. Good companies tend to focus on the key issues and getting the right people. A standard, rigorous interview would prevent scenarios like this from occurring. Companies where you bear witness to such situations more than likely have low standards, which allow people to sneak through the back door.

So in closing, the last piece of advice in preventing a bad CIO/CTO is simply not to work for one. Figure out if a company is good or not even before stepping one foot inside.]]> Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:50:48 -0700 http://www.keithwatanabe.net/blogs/2008/2/23/a42abc6c8eb6e21fd1acad201d2b3825.html