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?

Not all companies, however, have a culture that can or will support such a radical approach to work. One problem is that many companies don’t even have a system to measure what their employees do, except at the most basic job levels. So-called knowledge workers are often measured by the number of hours they spend in the office, the number of meetings they attend, the number of emails they write, the number of PowerPoint presentations they run…well, you get my point. Since there is no objective yardstick of productivity for these workers, some folks are destined to always feel like they can never do enough and others will get by fine with doing nothing at all. It’s all a matter of perception and not results (and I could go on about this topic, but I’ll leave it for another day).

I’m hoping that this experiment will succeed and will encourage other companies to give it a try. Best Buy has even formed a consulting service, CultureRx, to help other companies implement the program. Nonetheless, I think that it’s a good idea to try it out on a small-scale at first. Why not see if you can get this going within your department? Drop us post if you’ve want to share any success (or failure) stories. Finally, this Business Week article makes reference to the ROWE 13 Commandments, but only mentions three of them. I’d love to hear from anyone who has a copy of all thirteen.

Indeed, you’ve been recently informed that your team must innovate. Finding ways to innovate is now part of your mid-year objectives and everything in your organization is in place to receive your suggestions, assess your ideas and rate the capacity of your team to innovate via a so-called innovation process.
But it’s ok, plenty ideas you have, and there’s always one or two brave members of your team that will actively submit some flat ideas until they get rewarded by a financial incentive of some kind.

So here it is, after a month or two, you’ve got a dozen of suggestions (including your own ones) and you decide to submit each of them to an innovation review committee. And to do so, your first step is to fill an innovation request form.

Let’s get started. First section: “Author/Originator”. Hmmm, first entry – first issue. Actually, the idea doesn’t really come from “one” person… It originally came-up from a need that many identified, so it really doesn’t make a lot of sense to attribute the thought to one person in particular… But you’re thinking “right, let’s play the game anyway. I will attribute the idea to guy X”. You like this guy, and you want your team to look good, so you better find someone credible for “PR” purposes.

Now, second section: Enter here a short synopsis of the proposed Innovation. Ok, that’s quite easy… at this rate you’ll be done with this form in less than five minutes.

So, third and last section: “How much money will it save for the company?” [...] You have to re-read this one a couple of times. No, you’re not dreaming. Horrified, you start to realize that all ideas you’ll submit will get stripped-off based on a couple of attributes; the prevalent one being about COST-SAVINGS.

Wait a minute. None of your pile of “bright ideas” can be translated in immediate monetary terms… and the more you think of it, the more it sounds horribly wrong. You’re thinking: “It can’t always be about cost-savings or economies of scale right?”, “What about adding value?!”.

You’re unfortunately not the only one of our beloved readers in this case. Like for all of us, you’ll discover that once “the hype” is over, such “pseudo-innovation” processes never go very far anyway. It takes more than a “process” to bring innovation to the doorsteps of any organization.

“innovation is not on-demand”

Before the whole thing eventually sinks, you’ll see several “innovation consultants” coming to the rescue, scheduling informal “employee interviews”, thanking you warmly for the profusion of ideas you came-up with. Their mission? Who knows… Maybe genuinely looking to drag the best ideas out to the surface and display them in front of some “upper-management” bench… Or it may be about finding “innovative ways” to draw cash from your company. All the same, these guys generally speak of an home-grown ‘methodology’ or refer to some outstanding piece of consulting aiming to get your place to innovate. Each ‘methodology’ is more enigmatic and believable than the other… but the vast majority of them are not going anywhere fast. And you would not mind too much about it, only if you, dear middle-manager, didn’t remain with the hell of a mid-year objective to fulfill: getting your team to innovate.

The problem is that innovation is not on-demand. Innovation can’t be engineered. Innovation can exist because ideas exist. Ideas cannot be engineered. Ideas exist because you let your People the space (the time, the place) to express their point-of-view, to share their interests. Innovation exists because you empower your People inviting them to make things better than what they are; because you foster in your People the “will” of making things better than what they are. Innovation exists at all levels of your organization. Innovation often exists in the corridors of your organization. Innovation hides in many negative conversations, and often follows the sharing of frustrations. Innovation is by nature chaotic, unexpected, a risky business, an experiment and let’s face it, sounds crazy at first.

You don’t do innovation, you tempt innovation to come in your camp, and once there, you give innovation what it needs to stay there. In other words, Innovation comes as a natural consequence of the way you, middle-managers, design your organization, manage your people, communicate your intentions for the future and foster a ‘bold’ culture thriving on change.

And yes, Innovation likes Fun and this will be no surprise to you… they’re good friends, but don’t say it to anybody.

Who knows? In time, your team may even come-up with innovations presenting some tangible cost-benefits! Just be aware that it takes lots of experimentation, patience and also a good dose of tolerance. Allow your people (and yourself) to make mistakes along the way. Like many things in life, you often learn good lessons from bad experiences. Doing so, you’re likely to get better and better at ‘innovating’.