Back in the summer, my coach told me to read Never Eat Alone. So I did. It's a great book, it simply spells out how to start, develop and maintain a network through social interaction with the idea of creating that network through generosity and passion which means you not only getting what you want, but you make sure that the people who are important to you get what they want, too. I'd already used some of his techniques to start to expand my network, but recently the author - Keith Ferrazzi - set up an on-line social networking site that enabled people to connect and thus develop the techniques outlined in the book.
Recentl,y, I joined the site and also the newly formed London group. Last night, we went out for our first meal; we met at a bar in Paddington Street and then went on to Hardy's Restaurant. Time passed quickly, conversation swayed this way and that, it felt like we'd known each other for years. Passionate conversation, a mainstay of Keith's book, was very evident and I got to know 5 new people who I want to meet again and I'm sure we'll be able to help each other in the future. This was Keith's book in action, and it was great to see.
Get the book, read it, join the website! Start expanding that network!
Friday 23 January 2009
Tuesday 13 January 2009
CTO Requirements from the CEO
I found the following article on silicon.com incredibly interesting. By coincidence I also had the opportunity to spend some time with a CEO the other day so I had the chance to ask him a couple of fundamental questions: What are your requirements for a CTO? And how does a CTO do well?
Immediately, right at the top of the list was trust. It's so fundamental that if trust isn't there, the relationship's over and the CTO's on his bike. This is the case for the whole C-suite, but in particular for the CTO since they hold sway over a massive area that typically the CEO has little, if any knowledge. Thus trust is key to the on-going relationship. No wonder it's important for a CTO to take the time to build relationships across the whole board if trust is the main reason for a CTO to retain their position!
The CEO then said that the CTO needed to be like a goal-keeper. Typically getting little, if any thanks for keeping a clean sheet, but being able to recover quickly should issues occur, have an explanation for what went wrong, how it was resolved and what needs to be done to ensure it won't happen again in the future. This I fully appreciate, I've always been of the opinion that technology in a company should be like the light-bulb. When you switch the switch, the expectation is that it'll light up and do what it's supposed to do and no more. This is also the expectation that CEOs have for their company's technology infrastructure: Make sure it does what's required and no more and be stable and available. It's up to the CTO to ensure it does.
In addition, high on the list was innovation. However this was not about innovation through new technology, this was innovation that enabled things to happen. Specifically the CTO needs to be able to respond to board-level requests with "Yes, and", not "Yes, but" and certainly never "No, but". CEOs have an on-going need for the CTO to get a quart in a pint-pot. The CEO acknowledged this, but was not prepared to compromise! On top of that, ensuring quality whilst at the same time providing clear value for money was expected. This is a tall order when the technology function is often the largest underlying, but least understood cost. The CEO made it clear that by enabling things to happen was the best way of demonstrating value and gaining that much needed trust and respect.
Probably related to the first point on trust was an expectation that the CTO would be a good communicator. I cannot imagine not being good at communication at the C-Suite level, but the ability to discuss topics from a non-technology perspective with other members of the board is essential. If a CTO is viewed as a technocrat rather than an equal to the other board-members, they'll never get or retain their place on that board.
Finally, the CEO I was with said that it was essential that the CTO came from a technical background, but it didn't matter what type of technical background. In the view of the CEO, the technical background ensures that vendors and internal teams alike won't be able to pull the wool over the CTO's eyes and thus value is more likely to be maintained and innovation is more likely to happen.
In the end though, it is all about money and one of the hardest things for the CEO appears to be understanding why technology costs so much both in terms of capex and opex. If the CEO thinks that the CTO doesn't have a grasp on the techology and why it's being used then the CTO can't know whether the costs are reasonable. If the CTO doesn't know the costs are reasonable, then they themselves can't be trusted. Lack of trust leads to a relationship breaks down and we're back to the first point.
It was a very interesting session, certainly one that has given me a lot of food for thought. I wonder if these views are similar to other large company CEOs out there? I think I'm going to have to find out.
Immediately, right at the top of the list was trust. It's so fundamental that if trust isn't there, the relationship's over and the CTO's on his bike. This is the case for the whole C-suite, but in particular for the CTO since they hold sway over a massive area that typically the CEO has little, if any knowledge. Thus trust is key to the on-going relationship. No wonder it's important for a CTO to take the time to build relationships across the whole board if trust is the main reason for a CTO to retain their position!
The CEO then said that the CTO needed to be like a goal-keeper. Typically getting little, if any thanks for keeping a clean sheet, but being able to recover quickly should issues occur, have an explanation for what went wrong, how it was resolved and what needs to be done to ensure it won't happen again in the future. This I fully appreciate, I've always been of the opinion that technology in a company should be like the light-bulb. When you switch the switch, the expectation is that it'll light up and do what it's supposed to do and no more. This is also the expectation that CEOs have for their company's technology infrastructure: Make sure it does what's required and no more and be stable and available. It's up to the CTO to ensure it does.
In addition, high on the list was innovation. However this was not about innovation through new technology, this was innovation that enabled things to happen. Specifically the CTO needs to be able to respond to board-level requests with "Yes, and", not "Yes, but" and certainly never "No, but". CEOs have an on-going need for the CTO to get a quart in a pint-pot. The CEO acknowledged this, but was not prepared to compromise! On top of that, ensuring quality whilst at the same time providing clear value for money was expected. This is a tall order when the technology function is often the largest underlying, but least understood cost. The CEO made it clear that by enabling things to happen was the best way of demonstrating value and gaining that much needed trust and respect.
Probably related to the first point on trust was an expectation that the CTO would be a good communicator. I cannot imagine not being good at communication at the C-Suite level, but the ability to discuss topics from a non-technology perspective with other members of the board is essential. If a CTO is viewed as a technocrat rather than an equal to the other board-members, they'll never get or retain their place on that board.
Finally, the CEO I was with said that it was essential that the CTO came from a technical background, but it didn't matter what type of technical background. In the view of the CEO, the technical background ensures that vendors and internal teams alike won't be able to pull the wool over the CTO's eyes and thus value is more likely to be maintained and innovation is more likely to happen.
In the end though, it is all about money and one of the hardest things for the CEO appears to be understanding why technology costs so much both in terms of capex and opex. If the CEO thinks that the CTO doesn't have a grasp on the techology and why it's being used then the CTO can't know whether the costs are reasonable. If the CTO doesn't know the costs are reasonable, then they themselves can't be trusted. Lack of trust leads to a relationship breaks down and we're back to the first point.
It was a very interesting session, certainly one that has given me a lot of food for thought. I wonder if these views are similar to other large company CEOs out there? I think I'm going to have to find out.
Friday 9 January 2009
Gordon's missed a broadband trick
Gordon wants to invest in the broadband infrastructure of the UK by getting fibre to the cabinet. According to the CIO Jury, this has a resounding no-vote from the 12 CIOs asked. However, I believe if Gordon changed the way the money could be spent, he'd get double-bubble for his money.
Nearly 1/3 of housholds still don't have internet access let alone broadband. If the money was put in to enabling those households to get broadband internet access, the cash would pass from the government to the new customers and on in to the ISPs where at least a good proportion of the revenue could be used to re-invest in the broadband backbone. The major ISPs (BT, Carphone & Virgin) are already investing in a fibre network, but all would dearly love more customers and with the additional 1/3 of households coming on-line they'd need to beef up call centres, system capacity, back-haul capacity, etc, etc. All this would lead to new jobs, new capex spend and new opex spend, exactly what is required in this time of economic gloom.
So, not only do the government get their investment in the broadband backbone, they get to have the highest on-line percentage of any country to boot! Double bubble!! What's to lose? Am I wrong?!
Nearly 1/3 of housholds still don't have internet access let alone broadband. If the money was put in to enabling those households to get broadband internet access, the cash would pass from the government to the new customers and on in to the ISPs where at least a good proportion of the revenue could be used to re-invest in the broadband backbone. The major ISPs (BT, Carphone & Virgin) are already investing in a fibre network, but all would dearly love more customers and with the additional 1/3 of households coming on-line they'd need to beef up call centres, system capacity, back-haul capacity, etc, etc. All this would lead to new jobs, new capex spend and new opex spend, exactly what is required in this time of economic gloom.
So, not only do the government get their investment in the broadband backbone, they get to have the highest on-line percentage of any country to boot! Double bubble!! What's to lose? Am I wrong?!
Thursday 8 January 2009
Leadership lessons from Pietersen
I can't say that I'm upset by the news that Kevin Pietersen has been forced to step down as captain of England. My last post was in fact about why I felt KP was not the right person to captain the side and I think my view has now been verified. In the metro this morning David Lloyd is quoted as saying
However, I've titled this entry as "Leadership Lessons from Pietersen" because I think Pietersen underdid himself through naivety in his off-field management of his team and those above him and it's a lesson that all new managers should take to heart. KP failed because he failed to manage adequately both downwards and upwards relying on his ego and charisma instead. A quote from Nassar Hussain, again in today's Metro:
Having said all that, KP should never have been captain in the first place, Strauss was always the natural successor to Vaughan. I'm very pleased he's got the opportunity again, let's hope he can hang on to it this time.
"You have a star player in Kevin Peitersen [...] but do you have your best player as captain? I don't think so, Brian Lara, Ian Botham, Geoff Boycott - don't put them anywhere near the captaincy; keep them as your star player"Totally right, I could add Freddie Flintoff to that mix too. Looking back at who the modern-era good captains are, the majority come from the Top 3 or 4 in the order: Vaughan, Atherton, Gooch, Gower, Hussain, Stewart, Gatting and now Strauss. All top order batsmen. The one long-serving captain that doesn't fit the mould is Brearley, but then he was a genius with a cricketing/psychology brain the size of a small planet so it didn't matter that he couldn't really bat or bowl. Why this trend? I think it's because of the type of person you need to be to succeed as a top order batsmen; it's not just brawn, it's brains tied with tactical and strategic thinking. These are also the skills required of the captain, so it's not really surprising that the such a trend exists.
However, I've titled this entry as "Leadership Lessons from Pietersen" because I think Pietersen underdid himself through naivety in his off-field management of his team and those above him and it's a lesson that all new managers should take to heart. KP failed because he failed to manage adequately both downwards and upwards relying on his ego and charisma instead. A quote from Nassar Hussain, again in today's Metro:
"Kevin should have gone about this in a much more professional way. You can't just sit on safari in South Africa and issue ultimatums."I'm sure more detail will come out over time, but at the moment, it appears that KP didn't have the full support of his team for his actions and neither did he have the support of the ECB. Surely as a manager who wants to get things done, those are two things you need and to undertake a strategy that alienates both your workers and your bosses isn't desirable or sustainable. This is where KP could have done with external adivce and guidance from a personal coach where he could have shared concerns and issues in private before airing them in public and be helped with formulating an appropriate strategy. With back-room activities, discussing the issues with individual members of the ECB board and gradually gaining concensus for his opinions would have been far more likely to produce a positive outcome and had he pursued such a strategy he might well have still been holding the captaincy.
Having said all that, KP should never have been captain in the first place, Strauss was always the natural successor to Vaughan. I'm very pleased he's got the opportunity again, let's hope he can hang on to it this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)