In the last "CIO Chronicles" ("Don't Survive, Thrive," March2007), we talked about what stands between a CIO and thepossibility of greater accomplishments. As always, our goal was tokeep it simple and pragmatic. There, we focused on some criticalelements of CIO leadership in their own right. Judging by thefeedback, we seem to have struck a chord with quite a few CIOsamong midsize carriers.

Of course, ours is not the only opinion out there. For quitesome time now, experts at large have been musing about and dishingout advice to the beleaguered insurance CIO. Certain things such as"alignment of business and IT," "bridging the gap between businessand technology," and "improving relationships with the CEO and therest of the C suite, other VPs, etc." are mere table stakes.

The professed Holy Grail is this: "What makes a great CIO?" Andthat's the point at which things get interesting and imaginationsrun wild. Some go so far as to recommend CIOs must know aboutbusiness generally and understand "the" business in particular atleast as well as–if not better than–CEOs. The premise for such anabsurdly tall order for CIO greatness is IT "touches" every singleaspect of business. Even if that's necessarily true, so what? DoCIOs really have to excel to such a high degree to meet theirchallenges? Given the pervasive predicament of business-ITrelations, anyone with the qualities and skills so many companiesseem to be insisting on today for the CIO job likely would bebetter off seeking fame and fortune somewhere else.

In his article "The CIO and the CEO," George Colony, presidentof Forrester Research Inc., summarizes the results of a recentForrester survey of 75 CEOs globally. According to Forrester, "60percent of CEOs are satisfied with the overall performance of IT/BT[business technology]." In addition, only 28 percent of thesurveyed CEOs see IT as proactive leaders in innovation, while just30 percent think of IT as being proactive in process improvement.If you find this particular combination of results confounding, sodo we. But for now, we'll focus on only the 60 percent"satisfaction" level.

Colony correctly concludes these results are by no means goodnews but rather bad. In a direct comparison, now with the CFO inthe limelight, he easily shows why by offering a telling parallel:If no more than 60 percent of a company's executives were satisfiedwith the performance of the CFO, that indeed would be an alarmingsignal.

The Forrester survey was cross-industry. However, even though wedon't have the stats to prove it, experience tells us theperception in the insurance world is at best the same but morelikely much worse.

There's no question CIOs operating in environments in whichthere are serious disconnects from the business could and should domore to improve the situation. We've certainly argued as much manytimes in the past. But making CIOs responsible for IT earning itsplace at the board level makes for poor business management andless-than-strategic leadership.

Instead of treading the beaten path, let's take the prevailingpremise–IT touches every single aspect of business–and turn itaround for a change. Let's put this statement forward instead:"Every single aspect of business touches IT." It's the sameargument, of course, but this wording suggests the issue can beviewed from a completely different perspective.

The question now becomes: "What makes a successful VP of claims,an indispensable CFO, or a great CEO?" Do we still think IT wouldmake the list of top-10 requisite qualities and skills? Not likely.And yet, can an IT-illiterate VP of claims truly be successful? No.How about a less-than-IT-savvy CFO? Of course not! Finally, cantruly great CEOs afford to ignore the strategic impact of IT ontheir businesses? You bet they can't.

The simple truth is most executives are just good enough attheir respective jobs. From a corporate perspective, that also isgood enough. How many great executives do you actually know? Thereally great ones are few and far between. The same is true forCIOs: Those who are genuine leaders will lead, the smart majoritywill follow, and those who can't do either just will have to getout of the way. The point is, in search for such "greatness," wetend to overlook the real causes and the more obvioussolutions.

Why is it not enough for CIOs to be just good enough likeeveryone else? We're inclined to think it's because others are notdoing their jobs as "good enough" as it may seem.

So, let's extend this inverse line of thinking a bit further.For the sake of argument, let's assume a capable, experienced,business-savvy CIO is struggling at 60 percent of performanceexpectations while all others are performing at 90 percent in theirrespective executive roles. Now that's quite a shortfall. Does itall belong to the CIO? We certainly don't think so.

Even though that example may seem extreme, it is not uncommon inthe real world. We've seen it many times–too many times, in fact.In most such cases, it was the CIO's tenure that was cut short.However, deeper analysis reveals nine out of 10 times, the real"culprit" was lurking in the low level of technology appreciationand knowledge among senior business executives. And yet that, too,somehow ends up being a shortcoming of the CIO.

The responsibility for bridging the business-IT gap isn't justthe CIO's. It is shared by each and every business executive.Decades ago, it may have been the CIO's job to educate the businesson IT–but not anymore. The forward-thinking CIO must come to theexecutive table well prepared to contribute to business innovationand process change.

The CIO also must be prepared to work and often wrestle with theCEO and the rest of the executive team to bridge the gaps createdby lingering misconceptions and misrepresentations as well as pastor present dissatisfaction with IT. But let us no longer ignore thesame degree of common sense must apply to all other businessexecutives at that table. They, too, must come to the table withthe requisite awareness, aptitude, and motivation to applytechnology, strategically and tactically, to their areas ofresponsibility and to the business as a whole.

Unfortunately, nothing ever happens just because it should.Someone has to make it happen, and responsibility for that residessquarely at the top: It sits with the CEO. Is it possible, in whatcan be described only as desperation, that the insurance industryhas reached a point at which recommending the CIO become more of aCEO seems logical? If so–and inverting that logic as we didearlier–isn't it more logical (not to mention more efficient andstrategically more effective) for the CEO to demand of hisexecutives and of himself that they bridge their part of the gap bymoving closer to the CIO? To demand that they expand their ownknowledge and understanding of technology?

It's not that hard. The first step is education. To the CEO:Educate yourself and your CIO first. Don't send your CIO to CIOconferences and yourself to CEO gatherings. Mix it up and sharethese experiences. Then educate the business executives. Again,don't make technology education the responsibility of the CIO. Makeit an ongoing, corporatewide effort that's shared with the CIO.Hire outside help to provide that education. Trying to provide itinternally just will reintroduce, if not amplify, the root problemsand disagreements. Outsiders will have a broader, independentperspective; the experience to zoom in on the key issues andopportunities; and the courage to call it as they see it.

The second step is to make sure the use of technology andcollaboration with IT becomes part of everyone's quarterly businessand P&L reports. Have them come with relevant, realistic,measurable ideas and suggestions ready.

The third step is: Mean it!

As an aside, maybe we all could take a hint from those who wereamong the less fortunate in the 1970s and '80s: those from theemerging markets of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Over the pastcouple of years, we've had the good fortune and great experience ofhelping several carriers from that part of the world reorganize andrestructure their businesses to perform like North Americancompanies and to meet the demands of EU legislation. IT was but oneof the issues with which we had to deal.

Perhaps because their perception of the infamous "gap" was moreakin to what settlers felt when they first stumbled on the GrandCanyon, top-level executives from CEE, though full of doubts andfears, tend to be more pragmatic in a shared, collective way thantheir western counterparts. They are keen on accumulating as muchindustry intelligence and practical know-how as possible. Becauseof our multifaceted involvement, we were asked to create a "CEEInsurance Technology Board" to serve as the "intelligence-gatheringand information-sharing watering hole" for carrier CEOs, COOs,CFOs, CIOs, and business VPs alike. As a result, we presently areassessing interest in a similar board for the North Americanmarket. We will keep you posted. TD