I’m using the term “KISS” more frequently of late. I’m not sure if my mental capacity is degrading or if we’re in an environment where people want to add their spin on things for unneeded complexity (and maybe some silliness). Is “new and different” always better? I’ll be the first to say it’s often worth trying, but it isn’t always better (it’s called learning by trial and error)
It’s not necessarily the right time of year to discuss pet peeves, but I will. Two items of note have come to my attention. I’ve seen a proliferation of senior roles (yes, C-suite) in organizations. Secondly, I see the splitting of hairs when defining key business metrics. I’ll save the latter one for another day.
Recently, I’ve read about the need for more C-suite roles in companies. It’s almost like every unique discipline or department is now clamouring for one. I remember early in my working career, the CEO, COO, and CFO were the extent of it. Sales had a VP title, as did HR and maybe Legal, and other roles aligned appropriately, often still to the CEO – though not at “the” table.
Gradually, I saw the CIO (IT) role added (more prominently in the 90s), as I did the CMO (Marketing) and CRO (Revenue). I could partially get there with those roles. Sales often seemed missing to me.
Today, things feel like a complete free-for-all. What has transpired in the last ~10-15 years? A quick Google search of C-suite titles leads to this (and I’ve shortened the list as there are multiple entries for some):
CEO
CFO
COO
CIO
CCO
CHRO
CSO
CGO
CAO
CMO
CRO
CDO
CTO
CPO
CKO
CHO
CVO
CQO
Can anyone put the correct middle letter against all of these without searching? <groan> We’re running out of letters in the alphabet.
My observations are not an anti-leadership or an anti-executive rant. Quite the contrary. I’ve worked with many senior leaders and I see the value they bring to an organization. Hopefully, some would say I have as well. Many of these leaders exemplified humility and drive and eventually moved into CEO roles of international companies – I can think of 3 direct leaders I’ve had who are in such a role now. They were servant leaders, supporting others and the business and not worried about their image or personal gain. One of these leaders was notorious for not introducing himself with a title; he would proclaim he was “here to help” and immediately did so.
However, as leaders, we’re also responsible for continuous improvement and eliminating “waste” where we can. We focus on processes, and while people can benefit and be disadvantaged by that analysis, isn’t it reasonable to look within as well? I’ve always led with the motto – “to first fix one’s own house before looking at others.” Should the CEO and Board be making wiser decisions on what roles are required at the table? They must realize any new CxO or EVP/VP will be seen throughout the organization (initially) in a skeptical light and cast dispersions on the value and integrity of leadership. Another “suit”. I’ve heard it many times from leaders. I know there isn’t a one-size-fits-all, but just as with any process waste, we must look at role waste at all levels of the organization.
I know I’m talking generalities and rules of thumb, but I have seen it up close. Working in companies of less than 100 people and under $25M in revenue, with four or more C-suite roles, I can’t help but chuckle. Where was the need for those titles? Do the individuals realize they’re not performing a C-suite role? Many of these people spent most of their day on tactical issues with limited ability to lead or strategize. All were great individuals and people to work with, but not aligned with the title. I’ve worked with mid-sized companies (say 250-500 people, $100M+ revenue) and they maintained a CEO plus directors reporting to them. That felt right. Maybe I’m biased by my background with large corporations, where having 6-10 CxO roles seemed appropriate; the span of control, be it people, process, product, market, and the complexity so vast that it only made sense.
In my career, I’ve advocated for having more senior leaders at the table based on the organization’s size. I believe a healthy number is 6-8 individuals, preferably with unique backgrounds and personalities, in mid-sized companies. It promotes healthy dialogue and debate to foster new ideas and a clear direction. As much as having only 2-3 people can be too limiting, having 10+ feels like it could become quicksand and everything gets bogged down. However, a senior leader does not need to have a CxO title.
I’ve seen Directors and Managers sit at the senior leadership table and it was appropriate. Based on the scope and complexity of the role, a CxO title was not justified. When I see the list of titles above, I ask why some aren’t VP or Director roles reporting to a CxO. Why is a C-suite title needed? What purpose would these many roles serve? In many organizations, the scope isn’t big enough, the organization mature enough, or strategically aligned to such a role.
Although the Chief Happiness Officer (aka everyone) and Chief Strategy Officer (aka CEO) are roles that jump out to me and cause an eye-roll, I can’t let the world of Technology get a pass. When I read about organizations (potentially) needing a Chief Information Officer, a Chief Technology Officer, and a Chief Data Officer, it seems overkill. As someone who started in IT and fully supports and believes Technology will continue to transform the future, I can’t fathom having three C-suite roles. I’d be surprised if the scope of each role is on the same scale as a CFO, CRO, or COO. Why haven’t I seen some large manufacturing organizations with 5+ COO roles, one for each product line? Cohesiveness, simplicity, and alignment all come to mind. Data vs Information? C’mon. Semantics. At a quick blush, I’d keep the CTO role and have a VP or Director of infrastructure, systems and security, and a similar role for data, analytics, and possibly development. Based on what the scope of the role is. VP, Director, Manager, only the organization knows what is right. Again, the senior leadership structure depends on the size, complexity, purpose and strategy.
My advice? Keep the executive or senior leadership team to a reasonable number based on the organization’s size. Align titles to the true scope of the role, not to appease people. Occasionally inviting others to share their wisdom and expertise allows a development forum to enable future advancement. But respect the title and the need. A CEO needs to do what is right for the business, not any one person.