From time to time CEOs do create new C level roles and titles. Trends break out and copying happens. Some of this is very real and important – but some of it is entirely imagined. In today’s online ‘news’ world, it is perfectly possible for any bright spark to coin a new C-level job title idea speculatively and blog it. Before you know it, that idea gets repeated and for a while people think the job might be real even if nobody has ever actually held that title.
This week I was struck by two stories, one about a short report on new c-leader titles from the executive search company Spencer Stuart, the other a minor news report mentioning the idea of a chief IoT officer. The value difference between these, was starkly contrasting.
The Spencer Stuart report is sharp and insightful. It points out that from time to time, new C-leader titles do become necessary. This makes sense. There were almost no CMOs in the 1950s and no CIOs in the 1970s – these jobs were invented at some point in time; management is an evolving discipline. So we could reasonably believe there might be a few more to come. But as Spencer Stuart point out – there has to be a practical limit to the number of direct reports a CEO can have. They say it has risen over the last couple of decades. All managers know that once they get past about 15, things become unwieldy – particularly if you need the group to make coherent and disciplined committee decisions. Spencer Stuart point out that some C-leader titles exist for a while, during a period where a big new kind of issue needs to be dealt with. Recent decade examples of this episodic need might be a major regulation or environmental sustainability. Sometimes, new persistent C-leader roles emerge, but they are niche and only a minority of companies adopt them. Chief Customer Officer is an example.
I see 4 types of new C-leader role:
1) Enduring – a role that is needed, as a source of continuing governance in the majority of businesses and will persist for many years or decades.
We place Chief Data Officer in that category, though it will be a long time before the majority of companies has one (currently < 20%).
2) Transitional – a role that is needed in many businesses as a strategic transformation agent, to introduce a new capability, but will disappear within a decade.
We see Chief Digital Officer as mostly in this category, like heads of e-business circa 1998-2003. However, some might stick.
3) Niche – a persistent or repeating role that is needed, but only by a minority of companies at any one time.
I place Chief Innovation Officer and Chief Strategy Officer this category.
4) Unicorn – a mythical role that either never existed, or fewer than 10 people ever managed to get it on their business card as a full time job.
I place Chief IoT Officer in this category, at least for now. As I’ve said before, the internet of things is an internet of products – so I believe that responsibility will fall substantially into product management and other existing areas – it is not a distinct need. But if you want a more evidence-based view why not to believe in the IoT Officer yet – here is it:
Even Chief Fun Officer is more ‘real’ than IoT officer.
Read Complimentary Relevant Research
Predicts 2017: Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence is changing the way in which organizations innovate and communicate their processes, products and services. Practical...
View Relevant Webinars
Gartner Hype Cycles 2016: Major Trends and Emerging Technologies
Gartner Hype Cycles are designed to empower CIOs and IT leaders to make more impactful investment decisions, and reduce the risks of...
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.