Uncovering and testing archetypes of effective public sector CIOs

Abstract

Given the importance of public sector CIOs to government performance and citizens' faith in democracy as an efficient provider of services, it is important to understand what makes some government CIOs more effective than others. Q Method is used to uncover five archetypes of public sector CIOs which are shown to be reliable across two Q sorts. These archetypes include politically-oriented CIO, savvy negotiator, technology optimizer, and skillful communicator. Further analysis using a tournament scoring approach indicates that business-oriented CIOs are the most effective. Applying a stakeholder perspective to interpret the results, it is proposed that business-oriented CIOs understand the value in tracking closely to an organization's business leaders and strategically ignoring other stakeholders in their environment, even politically powerful ones. The development and comparison of archetypes provide a new focus of CIO research by extending from the individual level of the attribute to a combination of attributes (archetypes).

References

1. Akerlof, G. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and market mechanisms. Quart. J. Econom. 84, 488--500.
2. Baker, R. 2003. Guidance to operating units on CIO roles and responsibilities. www.osec.doc.gov/cio/guideCIO.html.
3. Barua, A., Konana, P., and Whinston, A. 2004. An empirical investigation on net-enabled business value. MIS Quart. 28, 4, 585--620.
4. Bommer, W., Johnson, J., Rich, G., Podsakoff, P., and Mackenzie, S. 1995. On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta analysis. Person. Psychol. 48, 3, 587--605.
5. Bowie, N. 1988. The moral obligations of multinational corporations. In Problems of International Justice, S. Luper-Foy Ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
6. Broadbent, M. and Kitzis, E. 2004. The new CIO leader: Setting the agenda and delivering results. Tech. rep., Harvard Business School.
7. Brown, S. R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
8. Caudle, S., Gorr, W., and Newcomer, K. 1991. Key information systems management issues for the public sector. MIS Quart., 171--188.
9. Chang, J. and King, W. R. 2005. Measuring the performance of information systems: A functional scorecard. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 22, 1, 85--115.
10. Dawson, G. and Watson, R. T. 2006. All effective CIOs are strategic, right? Disagreement among experts in defining public sector CIO effectiveness. In Proceedings of the Academy of Management Conference.
11. de Haes, S. and van Grembergen, W. 2005. IT governance structures, processes and relational mechanisms: Achieving IT/business alignment in a major Belgian financial group. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
12. Durning, D. 1999. The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 18, 3.
13. Durning, D. and Osuna, W. 1994. Policy analysts' roles and value orientation: An empirical investigation using Q methodology. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 13, 4.
14. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., and Sivakumar, D. 2001. Rank aggregation methods for the Web. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the World Wide Web.
15. Earl, M. J. and Feeny, D. F. 2000. Opinion: How to be a CEO for the information age. Sloan Manag. Rev. 41, 2, 11--23.
16. Fiedler, F. E. 1964. A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Academic Press, New York.
17. Freeman, R. and Evan, W. M. 1990. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. J. Behav. Econom. 19, 337--359.
18. Freeman, R. and Reed, D. 1983. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance.Calif. Manag. Rev. 25, 3, 93--94.
19. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston, MA.
20. Garets, D. A. R. and Redman, B. 1998. The five personalities of the healthcare CIO. Res. note KA-04-4931. Gartner Group.
21. GARTNER. 2003. CIOs: How your fellow executives see you. http://www.kenstott.com/Links/CIOs-How%20your%20fellow%20executives%see%20you.pdf
22. Gottschalk, P., Karlsen, J., and Anderson, E. 2002. Information technology management roles: A comparison of IT executives and IT project managers. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences.
23. Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. R. 1993. Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Acad. Manag. J. 36, 5, 1052--1081.
24. Grover, V., Seung-Ryul, J., Kettinger, W. J., and Lee, C. C. 1993. The chief information officer: A study of managerial roles. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.10, 2, 107--130.
25. Heijden, H. 2004. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quart. 28, 4, 695--704.
26. Henderson, J. C. and Venkatraman, N. 1999. Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Syst. J. 32, 1, 472--484.
27. Hill, C. and Jones, T. 1992. Stakeholder-Agency theory. J. Manag. Studies 29, 2, 159--172.
28. Johnson, A. M. and Lederer, A. L. 2005. The effect of communication frequency and channel richness on the convergence between chief executive and chief information officers. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 22, 2, 227--252.
29. Karahanna, E. and Chen, D. 2006. High performing CIOs and firm performance: Give your CIO time. IEEE Comm. Mag.
30. Kendall, J. E. and Kendall, K. E. 1993. Metaphors and methodologies: Living beyond the systems machine. MIS Quart. 17, 2, 149--171.
31. Kingstrom, P. and Mainstone, L. 1985. An investigation of the rater-ratee acquaintance and rater bias. Acad. Manag. J. 28, 3, 641--653.
32. Kost, J. and Nunno, T. 2005. Private-Turned-Public CIOs must acquire different political and interpersonal skills. Res. note G00127518. Gartner Group.
33. McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. 1988. Q Methodology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
34. Mintzberg, H. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper and Row, New York.
35. Mitchell, R. 1997. CIOs increase their value to the organization. In Proceedings of the ADVANCE Conference for Health Information Executives. 37--40.
36. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., and Wood, D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22, 4, 853--886.
37. Nasi, J. 1995. What is stakeholder thinking? A snapshot of a social theory of the firm. Res. rep., Helsinki.
38. ONET. 2006. Details report for: 11-1011.01. Government Service Executives.
39. Popovich, K. and Popovich, M. 2000. Use of Q methodology for hospital strategic planning: A case study. J. Healthcare Manag. 45, 6, 405--414.
40. Preston, D. S., Chen, D., and Leidner, D. 2008. Examining the antecedents and consequences of CIO strategic decision-making authority. Decis. Sci. 39, 4, 605--642.
41. Preston, D. S. and Karahanna, E. 2009. Antecedents of IS strategic alignment: A nomological network. Inf. Syst. Res. 20, 2, 159--179.
42. Preston, D. S., Karahanna, E., and Rowe, F. 2006. Development of shared understanding between the chief information officer and top management team in U.S. and French organizations: A cross-cultural comparison. IEEE Trans. Engin. Manag. 53, 2.
43. Reich, B. H. and Benbasat, I. 2000. Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives.MIS Quart. 24, 1, 81--113.
44. Ross, J. W. and Feeny, D. (Eds). 2000. The Evolving Role of the CIO. Pinn Flex, Cincinnati, OH.
45. Smaltz, D. H., Sambamurthy, V., and Agarwal, R. 2006. The antecedents of CIO role effectiveness in organizations: An empirical study in the healthcare sector. IEEE Trans. Engin. Manag. 53, 2.
46. Spence, M. 1973. Job market signaling. Quart. J. Econom. 87, 3, 355--374.
47. Steelman, T. and Maguire, L. 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Q-Methodology in national forest management. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 18, 3.
48. Stephens, C., Ledbetter, W., Mitra, A., and Ford, F. 1992. Executive or functional manager? The nature of the CIO's job.MIS Quart.16, 4, 449--467.
49. Stephenson, W. 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
50. Tallon, P. P., Kraemer, K. L., and Gurbaxani, V. 2000. Executives' perceptions of the business value of information technology: A process-oriented approach. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 16, 4, 145--174.
51. Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., and Benbasat, I. 2003. Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quart. 27, 1, 19--49.
52. Thomas, D. M. and Watson, R. T. 2002. Q-Sorting and MIS research: A primer. Comm. AIS 8, 141--156.
53. Tractinksy, N. and Jarvenpaa, S. L. 1995. Information systems design decisions in global versus domestic context. MIS Quart. 19, 4.
54. Wall, T., Michie, J., Patterson, M., and Wood, S. 2004. On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Person. Psychol. 57, 1, 95--118.
55. Watson, R. T., Akselsen, S., Cummings, J., Grõnlund, Å., and Parent, M. 2001. Is Internet technology likely to make government matter more or less? Res. rep., Academy of Management, Washington, DC. C116.
56. Webler, T., Danielson, S., and Tuler, S. 2009. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. SERI rep. 09-001, Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield, MA.
57. Webler, T., Tuler, S., and Krueger, R. 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Envir. Manag. 27, 3.
58. Wright, C. and Mechling, G. 2002. The importance of operations management problems in service organizations. Omega: Int. J. Manag. Sci. 30.
59. Wright, C., Riggle, C. G., and Wright, B. 1998. Technique for pre-implementation assessment in total quality programs. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 15, 4--5.
60. www.silicon.com. 2004. CIOs not as important as they think they are. www.silicon.com

Index Terms

• Information systems