Technology has the capability to significantly benefit companies. Process simplification and efficiency in product design, development, and manufacturing can both reduce costs and improve cash flow.
While these benefits are palpable, there is always the danger of losing the human element in business; this will always be a drawcard for consumers.
I recently read an article on the Harvard Business Review (HBR) website that explains why companies should consider automating some of the roles within the C-suite.
Rise of the supertech leader
What skills should a combined tech leader should have? The article points out that participants to an industry survey named overall leadership and senior executive relationships (85%) and business strategy and vision (82%) as most important. Technology strategy and vision (72%) was somewhat less important. Skills involving managing the employees of the combined technology function (38%) and technology execution skills (35%) were viewed as substantially less important. In other words, SuperTech leaders should be heavily business-oriented, with a technical underpinning.
The executives who hold multiple technology roles that we interviewed for this report reinforced this view. They talk and think as business people first and tech people second in their day-to-day experience of these roles.
For example, Shamin Mohammad, who is both chief information and technology officer at CarMax, told us: “To be effective as a technology leader, I have to be a business leader. I am working side-by-side with the CMO, the COO — we are joined at the hip — and then the CFO, the CEO, and the board. Execution is table stakes. You have to deliver — it’s not even up for discussion. It is more important for a technology leader to be a business leader, to understand what’s happening in the industry, and to envision where the industry is going so you can enable that with technology and bring the rest of the organization on board.” Topics like “Keeping the lights on,” renewing technical infrastructure, or dealing with cybersecurity threats are important, but not his primary focus; his direct reports ensure they are taken care of.
The article adds that, Sean McCormack, a SuperTech leader at school busing company First Student, noted, “If you are not a value- and innovation-oriented IT executive, it won’t work to oversee technology innovation, analytics and AI, and that sort of activity. If all you’ve done is package implementations, you will not succeed in a broader role.” Sebastian Klapdor, until recently the head of technology, data, and analytics at marketing services company Vista, said that a strong business value orientation is key to being asked to lead multiple technology and data-related functions. When he was head of data and analytics for the company, he focused heavily on achieving measurable value through successful data products. He mentioned in an interview that he believes this was a key factor in his being asked to also assume the CTO role as well.
The article points out that, in the survey, respondents minimized “managing down” skills and technical execution skills, but the SuperTech leaders interviewed suggested they shouldn’t be discounted. Several mentioned the importance of hiring strong specialists in each area reporting to them. Sastry Durvasula, whose title at TIAA is chief information and client services officer, leads all technology functions at TIAA, and has direct reports dealing with data and AI, client services, and shared services, as well as chief information and technology officers for TIAA’s different business lines. In each area he seeks out people who have the relevant technology skills, but who also understand how to transform an organization. He reports to the company’s CEO, and said he still codes on occasion as well. Klapdor, who worked at Vista, said that he doesn’t think of himself as highly technical, but he did create a small Arduino-based device for capturing sensor data from printing equipment. Understanding the technology helps him lead those who do it for a living. Both of these leaders have at least some degree of technology execution skills.
The broad survey of data and tech leaders suggests that many different groups within the organization are involved in overseeing or coordinating the introduction and use of generative AI. Chief data officers, chief information officers, chief technology officers, chief digital officers, and chief AI officers (in order of their perceived involvement in generative AI strategy and execution) all play a role. While this probably indicates that the potential value of the technology is viewed as high, it may be inefficient or confusing for so many groups to be involved and to have contention around the leadership roles for generative AI. This is another argument for consolidation of tech and data leadership.
Dissenters from this model
The article adds that not all technology and data executives believe that an integrated organization and SuperTech leader is a good idea. In interviews we heard some objections that were based on individual attributes of leaders, and some that were more principle-based.
Several data leaders told us that they would not be interested in reporting to a chief information officer who is primarily focused on infrastructure and “keeping the lights on,” as opposed to bringing about substantial business change. Other leaders had different concerns with an integrated role. Scott Hallworth, the chief data and analytics officer at Hewlett Packard had been interim co-CIO at HP for much of 2023. His concerns about a fully integrated role — particularly the combination of chief digital and chief information officer roles — is that combining the roles would eliminate a check on important decisions within a company.
Of course, the strengths and weaknesses of organizational structures are specific to individual companies and the people who hold roles within them. It’s possible that a particular structure and leader for technology and data would work better or worse depending on the organizational circumstances and the individuals involved.
Actions for the future
The article points out that the most obvious action that organizations can take to address these issues is to create an integrated technology and data leadership role with an effective, business-oriented executive occupying it. Judging from our interviews, many organizations have already taken that step and appear to have been successful with it.
If for some reason that isn’t possible, there are other ways that some of the issues raised in this study can be addressed. One, for example, is to create greater role clarity for C-level tech and data leaders and make the role distinctions known to internal customers. Another is to foster more collaboration among tech and data leaders, which can lead to joint projects and higher levels of success in delivering them.
The article adds that there are a variety of technologies and applications in use within organizations today, both familiar and emerging. There are times when specialists in particular technologies or management issues with them are needed. However, the trend toward specialized technology and data leaders has, we feel, gone too far. Greater coordination and integration is needed, and SuperTech leaders with a strong connection to the business can help make information technology a more effective business resource.
A measured approach is preferable
As with all technology-related decisions, moderation must be at the conversation’s centre.
There cannot be a wholesale conversion/gravitation towards technology. This will dehumanise companies. While the C suite is important in terms of strategic decisions, workers and mid-level managers often know much more about the systems and processes that make the company’s daily running effective.
A clear pathway for integrating technology needs to come from the top and filter down into the company.