IT leadership from a problem solving perspective K. W. Jablokow • A. G. Jablokow • C. T. Seasock
Abstract Information Technology (IT) leadership is a domain in need of investigation and development. Here, we present a general model for problem solving leadership and describe our application of that model to IT organizations, with special attention to the role of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). We tested the real-world value of this model through intensive interviews with 26 senior IT executives of major organizations, from which we identified four key leadership challenges facing CIOs today: (1) bridging cognitive gaps; (2) building and managing problem solving diversity; (3) shifting focus to process; and (4) solving problems and managing change. Integrating problem solving concepts with insights gained from the interviews, we offer practical approaches for aligning IT with business objectives, transforming the image of IT, and managing change, among other recommendations. Keywords Leadership Problem solving Information technology Change management Cognitive diversity
1 Introduction While the literature related to leadership is both extensive and varied in its applications, and there are numerous K. W. Jablokow (&) School of Graduate Professional Studies, Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA 19355, USA e-mail:
[email protected] A. G. Jablokow Deptartment of Mechanical Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA C. T. Seasock CTS Partners, Conshohocken, PA 19428, USA
articles and books devoted to designing and managing the technical aspects of IT systems and the related business processes, the overlap between these two collections is small. For example, works related to IT systems management (e.g., [55, 72]) and business process management (e.g., [78, 79]) may mention the ‘‘human side’’ of these functions (particularly with respect to the need for effective collaboration), but they seldom explore the subject in any great depth. From another perspective, as Karahanna and Watson [42] note, the general leadership literature does not often consider the unique challenges faced by IT executives as they attempt to synthesize their technical expertise with an in-depth understanding of their respective organizations across all of their functions. Focused and meaningful investigations at the intersection of these important domains are still fairly new, and while these early studies of what we will call IT leadership1 have already lead to some interesting results, there is still much work to be done. According to several recent reviews [42, 63], some of the dominant research themes in this area revolve around the roles of different senior executives (both as individuals and collectively) within IT leadership. For example, the nature of the CIO’s role (e.g., duties, expectations, obligations) has been studied in some depth [1, 4, 17, 27, 29, 61, 80], as well as the corresponding roles of the CEO and the ‘‘top management team’’ [16, 40, 42, 56]. Other works have begun to explore the interactions and relationships between these key players, as well as the collective knowledge and expertise they hold [16, 18, 19, 63, 64, 89]. The definition and assessment of CIO effectiveness is another area of interest [4, 11, 77], along with the skills and personal characteristics required for success in this position [4, 20, 50, 89, 90]. Finally, the impact of the 1
It has also been referred to as ‘‘IS strategic leadership’’ [42].
CIO—both in terms of enabling the strategic alignment of IT and the business units [9, 33, 41, 43, 54, 75] and the creation of value for the organization [3, 10, 15, 42]—is another important topic for consideration. Within this context, the general aim of the research presented here is to extend our knowledge about IT leadership by developing a better understanding of the major challenges faced by CIOs in mature IT organizations from a problem solving perspective. In particular, as our primary research question, we want to identify where the greatest leadership challenges lie for CIOs within the problem solving domain, so we can recommend ways to help them function more efficiently and be supported more effectively as problem solving leaders [36, 37, 47]. As noted by Karahanna and Watson ([42]; p. 173), IT leadership ‘‘lies at the intersection of cognitive, political, and social processes’’. Exploring IT leadership from a problem solving standpoint allows us to focus on the cognitive and social factors and processes that form the foundation for many (if not all) of the research themes noted above. We begin (in Sect. 2) with the general framework for problem solving leadership that lies at the heart of our study. In Sect. 3, we set up our application of this framework to IT organizations by describing the scope and methodology for our interviews with 26 senior IT executives, as well as the analysis of the resulting transcripts. In the interviews, we explored these executives’ greatest leadership challenges and other issues related to problem solving and the management of change. Sections 4 through 7 discuss the four top leadership challenges identified by our expert sample—all viewed through the lens of problem solving and the model presented in Sect. 2. Following this exposition, we tie all of the previous threads together in Sect. 8 through a discussion of problem solving leadership from the perspective of the CIO, including requirements for success and recommendations for how other senior Table 1 Previous related research based on AdaptionInnovation theory
executives might make the best use of this valuable human resource in moving an enterprise forward. We close the paper with a brief summary, some practical conclusions, and suggestions for future work in Sect. 9.
2 A general model for problem solving leadership At the core of our work lies a robust and practical framework for problem solving leadership based on Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory [46, 47], with supporting contributions from other classic scholars such as Guilford [30] and Rhodes [66]. Kirton’s contributions to the domain of problem solving date back to 1976, when he first introduced the Kirton Adaption-Innovation inventory (or KAITM) to assess the different preferences individuals have in solving problems [45]. Since then, over 300 scholarly articles and 100 graduate theses have been published using A-I theory, crossing multiple fields. Table 1 provides a list of some of these works within domains that are most closely related to our topic here. In Fig. 1, we provide a schema that will aid us in the description of our problem solving leadership model. Rhodes [66] identified four basic components of problem solving (sometimes referred to as the ‘‘4Ps’’): Person, Process, Product, and Press (Environment). In our schema, the person is represented by the problem solver(s), who is/ are engaged in a problem solving process, alone or in collaboration, aimed at solving a particular problem (which Kirton calls Problem A) within a given environment. The problem solving process (see, e.g., Guilford [30] or Tuckman and Jensen [87] for standard examples) results in an outcome or product, which may be tangible (e.g., devices, programs) or intangible (e.g., ideas, models). Note that a problem is defined broadly as the gap between an initial state and some desired state [37],
Subject/domain
Authors/references
Cognitive gaps & their management
Chilton and Hardgrave [12], Jablokow and Booth [38], Puccio et al. [65], Rickards and Moger [67]
Entrepreneurship
Buttner and Gryskiewicz [7], Goldsmith and Kerr [28], Rosenfeld et al. [70]
Leadership
Church and Waclawski [13], Hammerschmidt and Jennings [32], Isaksen et al. [34], Jablokow [36, 37], Prato Previde and Rotondi [62], Stum [84]
Management styles and skills
Buttner et al. [8], Clapp [14], Foxall and Hackett [24], Tullett [88]
Project team dynamics
Brodeur [5], Buffinton et al. [6], Hammerschmidt [31], Rickards and Moger [68], Scott [73]
Technical problem solving
Jablokow [35], Loftin [51], Love [53], Lopez-Mesa and Thompson [52], Palmer [59], Rieple [69] Friedel et al. [25], Jablokow [37], Sim and Wright [76]
Science/engineering education Software/IT applications
Chilton and Hardgrave [12], Foxall and Bhate [21–23], Mullany [57, 58], Samuel [71], Stoyanov and Kirschner [82]
Environment Problem Solvers
Problem A (primary aim of the team)
Initial State Person-Problem Cognitive Gaps
Desired State
Problem Solving Process Product
Person-Person Cognitive Gaps
Problem B (manage these gaps)
Cognitive gaps = differences in style, level, motive, and/or opportunity
Fig. 1 A general model for problem solving leadership
making ‘‘problem’’ and ‘‘opportunity’’ virtually synonymous for our purposes. To this basic configuration, we add Kirton’s four fundamental problem solving variables [47]—opportunity, motive, level, and style—which describe both the problem solver and Problem A. Specifically, the environment is the prime source of opportunity (i.e., problems), which each person must perceive and then act upon. To solve a problem successfully, the problem solver must find and maintain sufficient motive (the personal driving force) and apply the levels (i.e., capacities) and styles (i.e., approaches)— either alone or with others—required by the problem. When differences exist between problem solvers and/or between problem solvers and Problem A in terms of any of these variables, we call these differences cognitive gaps. Kirton refers to the management of these differences or gaps as Problem B. Returning to Fig. 1, we see that underlying each double-headed arrow is a potential Problem B, which the problem solvers must manage and resolve in order to succeed in their solution of Problem A. In Kirton’s view, successful teams spend more time and energy on Problem A than on Problem B; the enabling power of effective problem solving leadership is a critical advantage in making this possible. Another contribution of A-I theory is its clear distinction between process, level, and style—which have often been confounded in the past. In particular, Kirton defines a process as a general, idealized ‘‘map’’ with the appropriate stages and feedback loops that describes how some human activity—such as problem solving—occurs [47]. In this context, problem solving level refers to ‘‘by and/or with how much’’ a person solves problems. Examples of level include a person’s innate capacity (such as intelligence or talent), as well as manifest knowledge, experience, status, or skill. Problem solving style describes ‘‘in what way’’
(the preferred manner in which) problem solving is carried out, and there are many dimensions of this variable as well [39, 47, 81]. Kirton has established a clear relationship between problem solving style and a preference for structure within the problem solving process. This preference falls on a bipolar continuum, with strong Adaption on one end and strong Innovation on the other [45, 47]; for large general populations (across cultures), the distribution follows a normal curve. In keeping with the continuous nature of the Adaption-Innovation style spectrum, individuals are not placed into ‘‘types’’ but are more accurately described as more or less adaptive or innovative than others. In general, then, the more adaptive a person is, the more structure he or she prefers when problem solving, with more of it consensually agreed. The more innovative a person is, the less structure he or she prefers when problem solving, and the less that person is concerned about consensus [47]. Here, it is important to note our adoption of Kirton’s definition of ‘‘innovation’’—namely, as one possible approach to problem solving with its attendant advantages and disadvantages relative to each specific problem, rather than an ‘‘ideal’’ problem solving approach that should be applied as often as possible. The latter, biased, view is perpetuated in much of the popular management and creativity literature today. For further details on the Adaption-Innovation style continuum and its associated psychometric measure, KAITM, see [45, 47]. Adaption-Innovation theory also asserts (and validating research shows—see, e.g., [8, 31]) that process, level and style are independent—that is, any level and any style can be applied in any stage of a process [39, 47]. This is an important distinction, as level and style are often confused, with style being the more frequently misunderstood. As humans, we often misinterpret differences in style as
‘‘grew up’’ with information technology) seem to understand better the value of the CIO and IT to the business. However, even these younger organizations and aspiring CIOs—complete with their technical savvy and shrewdness—would be wise to remember that problem solving leadership and managing change effectively is still more about people and relationships than it is about the technology, despite the fact that a high level of knowledge and skill in technology is also critically important. The best use of a CIO who: (a) understands the business (how the organization makes money), (b) can articulate how technology can make a positive impact on the business, and (c) understands problem solving leadership as described in this paper—is as a partner with the CEO and Board of Directors [42]. Our recommendation is to involve the CIO as early as possible in the problem solving process in order to gain better understanding of how new technology initiatives relate to the existing environment. This includes their timing, business benefits, project definition, project management, and understanding options, as well as the implementation or rollout of projects, architecture, governance, security, compliance regulations, and other programs with the potential to change the organizational culture. (As one of our experts remarked: ‘‘Culture eats strategy for lunch!’’) The best use of the CIO by the lines of business is as a collaborator in the pursuit of ideas for improving the business process, while the line of business maintains responsibility for interpretation and judgment of the data. With a close partnership and proper support in place, we suggest that the skilled and enlightened CIO can assist the CEO and Board of Directors in the following critical ways: 1.
2.
3.
4. 5.
Help senior executives create a framework for the problem solving process that includes project definition, accountability, decision-making, and organization for the project cycle. Help manage change across the enterprise, including technology use, design and modification of business processes, adoption of new technologies, and the relationship of organizational culture to its changing aims. Provide insight for prediction and decision-making (e.g., the different ways in which people perceive change and how teams work together to solve problems). Leverage IT for the competitive advantage of the organization, while simultaneously reducing costs. Increase productivity by providing ideas for continuous improvement, as well as collaboration, morale, commitment, and ownership of change and vision.
Using these opportunities as a backdrop (and returning to Fig. 1), it is clear that as a problem solving leader, the CIO can have tremendous impact on all four main elements of the problem solving framework we have discussed here:
i.e., the person, the process, the product, and the environment. First, in terms of the person/problem solver, the CIO’s influence reaches every individual in the organization—from the senior executives to the technical personnel to the secretarial staff—either directly or through the pervading information infrastructure the CIO helps to create, manage, and maintain. Second, in terms of the problem solving process, the CIO can play a pivotal role in establishing the fact that such a process exists, as well as its definition, communication, and implementation throughout the organization, including the role of IT within it. Third, as a person who sees the business from end to end, the CIO is in a prime position to track the products of organizational problem solving (i.e., the changes produced) relative to the vision provided by the CEO and CFO, and to provide insights on how change might be managed more effectively. Finally, these three forms of influence, coupled with the power inherent in an executive position, help to define the problem solving environment (i.e., the catalysts for and barriers to problem solving)—both within the IT team and within the organization as a whole. With such considerable potential and opportunity for influence, it is imperative that the CIO exercise this power well in return. As Kirton notes, one quality of a good leader is asking for minimum coping behaviour (i.e., behaviour not in accord with personal preference) in good times. Such a leader is more likely to be offered maximum coping, as needed, when times are not so good [47]. Such an aim, in conjunction with the need to balance the diverse preferences and capacities of the individuals involved in the solution of a problem against the requirements of that problem, along with the management of the additional resources of time, money, and supporting technologies required for its resolution, is the crowning obligation of the CIO.
9 Summary, conclusions, and future work In this paper, we synthesized the observations of 26 IT executives from medium-to-large organizations in order to identify some of the major leadership challenges they face in their positions from a problem solving perspective. We discussed four of these challenges in depth relative to a problem solving leadership model based on Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory [47] and Rhodes’ basic problem solving elements [66]. This combination provides a deceptively simple yet powerful framework for understanding and communicating the core concepts of problem solving, as well as the fundamental skills required for its effective facilitation. A sound understanding of the problem solving concepts discussed here can help a CIO meet the four leadership challenges we highlighted in several practical ways. First,
by eliminating confusion between problem solving level and style, CIOs will be able to assess cognitive differences between individuals more accurately, enabling them to build and balance the diverse abilities and preferred styles of problem solvers with respect to prevailing problems with more confidence and greater chances of success. Second, the framework presented in this paper supports the process-oriented view of organizational problem solving (and IT’s role within it) espoused by our sample, and provides them with language to communicate and support this view as they work to transform the image of IT to reflect its true function and value within the enterprise. Third, through an understanding of cognitive gap (in its many forms) and its impact on collaborations between IT and the business units, CIOs can approach those collaborations with greater insight, better prepared to disarm any potential Problem Bs that may arise. Finally, this model helps explain the different responses of individuals to change—including the changes introduced by IT throughout the stages of the problem solving process. With enhanced understanding of how and why people respond to change differently, the ‘‘tracking’’ and solution of complex problems—while never a simple task—becomes more manageable for the CIO and all others concerned. Even with these benefits, the need for further research in the area of IT leadership is clear. As noted by other researchers (e.g., [42]), there is still much to be learned about the nature of the CIO’s role, the definition and assessment of CIO effectiveness, the relationship between the CIO and other top executives, and the impact of the CIO on strategic business alignment and organizational performance, among other topics. Based on the current research, we suggest that the impact of cognitive diversity within the IT-business alignment process should be investigated more closely as well, including the CIO’s role as a problem solving leader in the facilitation of that process. As an example, one might explore the impact of cognitive style on the various stages of the alignment process (e.g., requirements gathering, problem definition, system development and deployment, testing, training, rollout, and post-analysis), as well as its influence within project management in general. In addition, there are some minor limitations that relate to the particular sample with which we worked. For example, it would be useful to compare the experiences of CIOs in less mature IT organizations, as they may face somewhat different incarnations of the same general problem solving challenges faced by those interviewed here. A follow up survey study with a larger sample size is also called for to pinpoint specific problematic areas and effective solutions within the four leadership challenges we discussed here. In conclusion, we have shown that the CIO’s main challenges are representative of those experienced by all
problem solving leaders; the approach and resources required to meet those challenges are representative as well. As a problem solving leader, the CIO needs to understand the prevailing problems of the organization (in all their complexity), the problem solver (as a prime human resource), and the problem solving process (with special attention to the relationships between that process and the other key variables of problem solving). With such breadth and depth of understanding in hand, the CIO can serve as a powerful partner to the CEO, the Board of Directors, and other senior executives, as they work together to manage change within and through the organization to the mutual benefit of all. Acknowledgments We extend our sincere thanks to all the participants in this study for sharing their time, experience, and insights with us so generously. We also gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments of M. J. Kirton and four anonymous reviewers in the completion and revision of this manuscript.
References 1. Applegate LM, Elam JJ (1992) New information systems leaders: a changing role in a changing world. MIS Q 16(4):460–489 2. Bass BM (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. Free Press, New York, NY 3. Boynton AC, Zmud RW, Jacobs GC (1994) The influence of IT management practice on IT use in large organizations. MIS Q 18(3):299–315 4. Broadbent M, Kitzis ES (2005) The new CIO leader: setting the agenda and delivering results. Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 5. Brodeur CW (2007) Measuring team performance: using changing theory to improve problem solving outcomes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida 6. Buffington KW, Jablokow KW, Martin KA (2002) Project team dynamics and cognitive style. Eng Manage J 14(3):25–32 7. Buttner EH, Gryskiewicz N (1993) Entrepreneurs’ problemsolving styles: an empirical study using the Kirton adaption/ innovation theory. J Small Bus Manag 31(1):22–31 8. Buttner EH, Gryskiewicz N, Hidore SC (1999) The relationship between styles of creativity and management skills assessment. Br J Manag 10:228–238 9. Byrd TA, Davidson NW (2006) An empirical examination of a process-oriented IT business success model. Inf Technol Manage 7:55–69 10. Chatterjee D, Richardson VJ, Zmud RW (2001) Examining the shareholder wealth effects of announcements of newly created CIO positions. MIS Q 25(1):43–70 11. Chen DQ, David SP (2007) Understanding CIO role effectiveness: the antecedents and consequents. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences, p 237a 12. Chilton MA, Hardgrave WC (2005) Person-job cognitive style fit for software developers. J Inf Manage Syst 22(2):193–226 13. Church AH, Waclawski J (1998) The relationship between individual personality orientation and executive leadership behaviour. J Occup Organ Psychol 71:99–125 14. Clapp RG (1990) The fate of ideas that aim to stimulate change in a large organization. Teorie Vedy (Theory of Science) 1(2):53–60 15. Earl MJ, Feeny DF (1994) Is your CIO adding value? Sloan Manage Rev 35(3):11–20
67. Rickards T, Moger S (1994) Felix and oscar revisited: an exploration of the dynamics of a real-life odd couple work relationship. J Appl Behav Sci 30(1):108–131 68. Rickards T, Moger S (2000) Creative leadership processes in project team development: an alternative to Tuckman’s stage model. Br J Manag 11:273–283 69. Rieple A (2004) Understanding why your new design ideas get blocked. Design Manage Rev 15(1):36–42 70. Rosenfeld RB, Winger-Bearskin M, Marcic D, Braun CL (1993) Delineating entrepreneurs’ styles: application of adaption-innovation subscales. Psychol Rep 72:287–298 71. Samuel R (2010) Trust in technology and cognitive style: a study of a mandated information system in contact centers. Ph.D. Thesis, Robert Morris University 72. Schiesser R, IT Systems Management (2001) Designing, implementing, and managing world-class infrastructures. Prentice Hall, New York, NY 73. Scott S (2007) Team performance and the problem solving approach. J Ind Technol 23(4):1–7 74. Shields PM (2003) A pragmatic teaching philosophy. J Public Aff Educ 9(1):7–12 75. Silvius AJG (2009) Business and IT alignment: what we know and what we don’t know. In: Proceedings of 2009 international conference on information management and engineering, IEEE computer society. pp 558–563 76. Sim ER, Wright G (2002) A comparison of adaption-innovation styles between information science majors and computer science majors. J Inf Syst Educ 13(1):29–35 77. Smaltz DH, Sambamurthy V, Agarwal R (2006) The antecedents of CIO role effectiveness in organizations: an empirical study in the healthcare sector. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 53(2):207–222 78. Smith H, Peter F (2002) Business process management: the third wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa, FL
79. Spanyi A (2003) Business process management is a team sport: play it to win! Anclote Press, Anclote Keys, FL 80. Stephens CS, Ledbetter WN, Mitra A, Ford FN (1992) Executive or functional manager? The nature of the CIO’s job. MIS Q 16(4):449–467 81. Sternberg RJ, Elena LG (2001) A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In: Sternberg RJ, Zhang L-F (eds) Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Routledge, London, United Kingdom, pp 1–22 82. Stoyanov S, Kirschner P (2007) Effect of problem solving support and cognitive style on idea generation: implications for technology-enhanced learning. J Res Technol Educ 40(1):49–63 83. Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications, London, United Kingdom 84. Stum J (2009) Kirton’s adaption-innovation theory: managing cognitive styles in times of diversity and change. Emerging Leadersh Journeys 2(1):66–78 85. Tan FB, Brent Gallupe R (2006) Aligning business and information systems thinking: a cognitive approach. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 53(2):223–237 86. Travers M (2001) Qualitative research through case studies. Sage Publications, London, United Kingdom 87. Tuckman BW, Mary Ann CJ (1977) Stages of small group development revisited. Group Organ Stud 2:419–427 88. Tullett AD (1996) The thinking style of the managers of multiple projects: implications for problem solving and decision making when managing change. Int J Project Manage 14:281–287 89. Watson RT (1990) Influences on information systems managers’ perceptions of key issues: information scanning and relationship with the CEO. MIS Q 14(2):217–231 90. Weiss JW, Anderson D Jr (2004) CIOs and IT professionals as change agents, risk and stakeholder managers: a field study. Eng Manage J 16(2):13–18
