It’s likely that CIOs themselves are partly to blame for the bad reputation. As a group, they don’t have a great track record for managing expenses or expectations. Consequently, CEOs are tired of hearing CFOs complain about rising technology costs and COOs complain that they don’t have the technology they need to run the business. So, why not let them handle it themselves? But here’s where it gets interesting. Give it to the CFO and you’re likely to control costs and stifle innovation. Give it to the COO and you’ll likely get, and pay for, every bell and whistle they can dream up.

I could be wrong, but I thought the CIO was meant to be the voice of reason, the voice of an expert capable of communicating and implementing an IT strategy that balances many opposing factors such as cost and innovation, consistency and flexibility, security and freedom, in a way that aligns with the overall objectives of the organization. This approach will almost always entail difficult tradeoffs to be made, some of which will be unpopular, but necessary. Who wants to hear that they need to spend ten percent of the annual IT budget on desktop and network security? IT is not all about the latest toys and gadgets, and the CIO is not likely to win a popularity contest.

Nonetheless, some companies are so tired of the hassle and expense of IT that they will go to any lengths to outsource as much of it as they can. And there is no shortage of vendors offering to solve all their problems. However, while I agree that there are many opportunities for outsourcing both business (BPO) and IT (ITO) functions, I don’t think many CEOs would seriously consider outsourcing their entire business, so why do they think they could outsource all of IT? Would they seriously expect a vendor, or a group of vendors, to be looking out for the best interest of the organization?

I have no doubt that the CIO role needs to evolve to meet both the changing landscape of IT services and the growing expectations of a tech-savvy workforce. However, I believe that this new role, properly defined, will be more challenging, more exciting, and more necessary than ever. Please let me know what you think.

So, why do we have such a bad reputation? In recent times, part of the problem traces back to the early 80s when a strong demand for new managers drove ambitious college grads to head to B-school with very little or no business experience. Companies recruited  these newly minted MBAs with huge sign-on bonuses and ridiculous salaries. And for some years, a strong economy may have masked the fact that many of these bright, but inexperienced, kids didn’t actually know much about the practical aspects of management. Some learned on the job and excelled, while others floundered and became disillusioned with the realities of corporate america.

Consequently, we learned that formal education without practical experience doesn’t always produce the best managers. On the other hand, too many people have been have been promoted into management because they were the only person on their team who wanted to manage or, even worse, they chose management because they figured they could make more money while not having to do any “real” work. The problem with this approach is that some people just aren’t cut out to manage people and others have potential but may need some additional coaching, mentoring, and education. Only a very small percentage of workers are “natural” managers and even they could use a bit of help now and then.

I would argue that there is not nearly enough investment developing and nurturing this essential part of the workforce. As middle managers, we are in the best position to connect the dots between the reality of what’s happening on the ground and the larger goals of the company. From this vantage point, we can also be a key driver of change and innovation. However, doing so requires the support, and even encouragement, of senior management if we are to make any significant progress. Most of the middle managers I know do not get this support. They fight to be heard, sometimes for years, until, frustrated and disengaged, they either leave to start something on their own, or they join the ranks of the walking dead shuffling their way from meeting to meeting.

Some of the latter won’t wake up again until they are laid off during their company’s next downsizing. A friend of mine is a counselor who has been hired by corporations to work with recently laid off employees. In his experience, at least two-thirds of those affected experience, at least initially, a sense of relief: the company has done for them what they were not willing to for themselves. Of course, not everyone wants to wake up. For some, falling asleep at the wheel is an easy way to pass the time between breakfast and dinner, or between graduation and retirement. These managers don’t make it easy for the rest of us to break the stereotype of middle managers as lazy and incompetent, the bloat and scourge of corporations everywhere.

But I would argue that we matter now more than ever. The past two decades have brought huge advances in technology, psychology, information science and many other disciplines that we haven’t even begun to incorporate into how we run organizations. Middle managers are the key to bringing real innovation to large organizations: they are more open to change than top management and they have a better understanding how to implement change than most frontline workers. However, the question remains whether they will get the support they need or whether history will repeat itself and they will be scapegoated yet again.

Are you a middle manager? Do you feel that you are getting the support that you need to be a great manager and to lead change within your organization? If not, what do you think needs to be done? Where should we begin?