Hi Joe, I was thinking about a follow-up which comes down to the structure of top leadership teams and how they *may* not be fit for purpose.
Consider that the modern company was incubated by the British East India Company in the 18th century and still has many of the trappings of that time (for example where did the idea of a Board of Directors originate.). And is still heavily influenced by 20th century industrial thinking (concept of management as a supervision activity). Is that really fit for purpose in the 21st century knowledge economy?
Why do we end up with roles like Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Data Officer, Chief Transformation Officer, Chief Innovation Officer, etc? Perhaps we are trying to shoehorn all the complexity of a modern business into an 18th century structure?
Think how an agile product team delivers ... they take responsibility for both development and operations, they own design, product. Hell, if they are working in the data mesh paradigm they may even take care of analytical data !! There should be better organisation models for us to follow.
BTW the exploration of this is what I mean by socio-technical systems thinking
I am also a bit cynical on all the added CxO level roles (Chief Data Officer, Chief Sustainability Officer, Chief Innovation Officer, Chief Analytics Officer ... the list goes on). On one level I get the idea that data is important but it can become a meaningless race to useless titles unless managed well. The significant trend these new roles create is the concept of creating leadership teams as true collaborative teams, over the more traditional view as CxO/VP roles as "master of their domain" (sexist pun intended).
I'm a fan of socio-technical systems and this modern-day challenge in leadership teams is a very real example of how the "mirroring hypothesis" has many unintended consequences.
I’ve been thinking of that too. The whole area needs a rethink especially at the C Level. The titles created lots of confusion and to start will be to go back to first principles. :)
Hi Joe, I was thinking about a follow-up which comes down to the structure of top leadership teams and how they *may* not be fit for purpose.
Consider that the modern company was incubated by the British East India Company in the 18th century and still has many of the trappings of that time (for example where did the idea of a Board of Directors originate.). And is still heavily influenced by 20th century industrial thinking (concept of management as a supervision activity). Is that really fit for purpose in the 21st century knowledge economy?
Why do we end up with roles like Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Data Officer, Chief Transformation Officer, Chief Innovation Officer, etc? Perhaps we are trying to shoehorn all the complexity of a modern business into an 18th century structure?
Think how an agile product team delivers ... they take responsibility for both development and operations, they own design, product. Hell, if they are working in the data mesh paradigm they may even take care of analytical data !! There should be better organisation models for us to follow.
BTW the exploration of this is what I mean by socio-technical systems thinking
I definitely agree that the basic constructs of business need a rethink.
Hey Joe, really good piece and worth a debate/discussion. I'm guessing that you are not the only one puzzled with how to proceed.
My 2c worth ... Marketing and Strategy are very closely related (see https://rogermartin.medium.com/its-time-to-accept-that-marketing-and-strategy-are-one-discipline-17f0140521c9) and since most CEOs will have an interest/ownership of strategy then it is not surprising the roles overlap. I'd say this would be a good test of the leadership team ... to see how best they can collaborate when there are overlapping roles!
I am also a bit cynical on all the added CxO level roles (Chief Data Officer, Chief Sustainability Officer, Chief Innovation Officer, Chief Analytics Officer ... the list goes on). On one level I get the idea that data is important but it can become a meaningless race to useless titles unless managed well. The significant trend these new roles create is the concept of creating leadership teams as true collaborative teams, over the more traditional view as CxO/VP roles as "master of their domain" (sexist pun intended).
I'm a fan of socio-technical systems and this modern-day challenge in leadership teams is a very real example of how the "mirroring hypothesis" has many unintended consequences.
Agreed. Great insights Martin
I’ve been thinking of that too. The whole area needs a rethink especially at the C Level. The titles created lots of confusion and to start will be to go back to first principles. :)