Cam and Steve, I understand your reservations about including IT in this category. I will say that, on the one hand, I have difficulty with making this position a C-level one, any more than I would have the buildings and grounds group elevated to this height. I still think it’s a whitewash. However, on the other hand, I understand the point both of you make about its possible utility in large organizations, and I will say that if I were a CEO of one and had that recommendation energetically made to me, I would probably accept it.

Cam, I think you hit the nail right on the head with your “what was that again?” approach to being confronted with such a title. And Steve, your response to being confronted with one is terrific. Perhaps we should combine them for a one-two punch: “What’s that mean?” . . . “Nonsense.” (kindly, of course.)

Thanks, all, for your insights and visits!

I think Cam is probably on solid ground with IT when it comes to large organizations.

The small and medium sized companies that do the Chief IT Officer thing have, in my personal experience, sometimes unwittingly created a power base rather than a service function that truly serves. I’ve watched more than a few “Chief IT” folks wield their jargon to the un-annointed as a way of “explaining” all of the things that they could NOT do. I’m pretty tech-savvy and have had to lean over and tell more than one exec that their “guy” was full of baloney.

As for the other “Chief” titles: I’ve found myself subconsciously not acknowledging their validity. Really. If I’m in a company and someone says “This is our Chief Marketing Officer” I usually ask them, kindly, how that is different than being a VP of Marketing. The honest answer is usually “we wanted to stress the importance of marketing.”

That’s honest. But I haven’t yet found an instance where it has actually improved marketing performance. It has, however, increased the size and salary overhead of the corporate officer ranks.

You also show that titles can be used to combine two positions into one and sometimes for the mere show that an organization is following trends.

Jim, there’s certainly more to titles than might meet the eye. Thanks for your in-depth analysis.

My question would be, if I am a manager in a similar organization to the ones you depict, “What strategies work best for my personal success on my first day when I sport the new title?” or
“Does this organization offer what I need for fulfillment in my work, and if not, what are some that do?” Either way, a person working within such a system must be savvy and find how they best fit within all of this – especially if it’s blatantly manipulative.

Thanks for spelling out how title inflation’s a “sign” for employees to reflect to reposition in a way that also to serve themselves best at the same time.