Leadership and the Changing Role of the Chief Information Officer in Higher Education Copyright CAUSE 1994. This paper was presented at the 1993 CAUSE Annual Conference held in San Diego, California, December 7-10, and is part of the conference proceedings published by CAUSE. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, that the CAUSE copyright notice and the title and authors of the publication and its date appear, and that notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information technology in higher education. To copy or disseminate otherwise, or to republish in any form, requires written permission from CAUSE. For further information: CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301; 303449-4430; e-mail info@cause.colorado.edu Leadership and the Changing Role of the Chief Information Officer in Higher Education Gary M. Pitkin Dean of University Libraries University of Northern Colorado Greeley, Colorado This presentation reports on the results of a questionnaire, with an 83 % return rate, designed to obtain information on the leadership role of the Chief Information Officer in higher education. The research instrument facilitated the identification of role, perception of role as compared to the business sector, role in the transformation process, comparison of demographic characteristics and institutional practices to previous studies, and the identification of differences in the leadership role of the CIO according to type of higher education institution. During the Summer of 1992, a questionnaire designed to obtain information on the leadership role of the Chief Information Officer in higher education was sent to 200 individuals identified as serving in that capacity. The return rate was 83 percent. The information provided by the respondents was analyzed descriptively and employed to address the following research questions: 1) What is the role of the CIO in higher education? 2) What do CIOs in higher education perceive their roles to be as compared to roles identified for CIOs in the business sector? 3) What is the role of the CIO in higher education in the process of transformation? 4) Are there differences in the leadership role of the CIO according to type of higher education institution? 5) Are the demographic characteristics and institutional practices identified for CIOs in studies conducted by Woodsworth (1991) in 1986 and by Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) in 1989 continuing today or have they changed consequently affecting the role of the CIO? In examining the Chief Information Officer position, this presentation emphasizes role in terms of higher education, comparision to the business sector, and the transformation process. In terms of demographics, respondents in the current research affirm the trends cited by Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) with regard to CIOs in higher education being 45 to 49 years of age, male, and Caucasian, who do not have academic tenure and primarily come from an administrative background. Respondents in the current study refute the remaining trends and institutional practices cited by Woodsworth (1991) and Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) by reporting that most CIOs in higher education do not refer to themselves as Chief Information Oficers, were previously and remain directors instead of vice presidents or associate vice presidents, do not report to the president of their institution, do not have academic rank, and do not have the doctorate as the highest earned degree. Role of the Chief Information Officer in Higher Education The literature on the role of the Chief Information Officer emphasized executive officer status for the position. Brumm (1989) reported that 73% of the business sector CIOs who responded to her survey had the title of Vice President or higher. Synnott (1987) stated that, in the business sector, the position was effective only if the incumbent had organization-wide authority for information management and the associated technologies. This argument was supported by Rockart (1988) and Gantz (1985). Weiss (1987), Penrod and Dolence (1988), Sherron (1988), Ryland (1989), Dillman and Hicks (1990), and Temares (1991) transferred this argument to higher education by stating that the CIO position could be effective only if an executive officer at the institution-wide level. Executive officer status was defined by these same authors as regularly attending board of trustees/regents meetings, serving as an active participant in those meetings, and being involved in the decision-making process as it affects all aspects of the institution including planning, budgeting, academic issues, human resources, facilities, and curriculum. They concluded that as an exec utive officer responsible for all information units, the Chief Information Officer should have responsibility for academic computing, administrative computing, copying/reprographic services, data communications, institutional research, library services, mail services, media services, planning, printing, television services, and voice communications. These issues were examined in terms of their applicability to the Chief Information Officers contacted for this study. The responses were compared to those received by Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990). As shown in Table 1, the majority (53.6%) of the respondents in the current study do not consider themselves to be executive officers of their respective institutions. This contrasts with the respondents of the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) research in which the majority (58.6%) were executive officers. Based on these results, Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) claimed that Chief Information Officers were executive officers and indicated that this trend would continue. Table 1 Executive Officer Status of Respondents in All Types of Institutions Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) Pitkin Executive Officer n n % Status % Yes 34 58.6 71 46.4 No 24 41.4 82 53.6 N = 58 N = 153 They also reported that as an executive officer, the Chief Information Officer regularly attended board meetings as an active participant. Tables 2 and 3 provide data on attendance and level of participation. As shown in Table2, 48.3% of the respondents to the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) study attended board meetings. The authors surmised, however, that this would continue. The results of the current study, however, refute this allegation; the majority (63.4%) do not attend board meetings. In addition, as shown in Table 3, a higher number of respondents to the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) study stated that their reason for attending board meetings was to serve as a resource person (17.3%) as opposed to being an active participant (15.5%). Respondents to the current study stated their primary reason for attendance (42.5%) was to be a resource person, meaning that they attended only when called upon for specific information. In examining the responses to the current study, the conclusion can be drawn that the majority of responding Chief Information Officers are not executive officers of their institutions. They do not attend board meetings on a regular basis as active participants. When they do attend, they do so as resource persons. Synnott and Gruber (1981), Gantz (1985), and Synnott (1987) argued that the Chief Information Officer's status as an executive officer is exemplified through involvement in executive decisions at the institution-wide level. Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) substantiated this argument (see Table 4); the majority (65.5%) of their respondents indicated that they were involved in that decision-making process. Somewhat fewer (50.3%) of the respondents in the current study reported to have that level of responsibility. This difference of over 15% in three years indicates that the executive-level responsibility of the Chief Information Officer may be decreasing. Table 2 Board Meeting Attendance of Respondents in All Types of Institutions Penrod, Dolence, Attendance on a and Douglas (1990) Pitkin Regular Basis n % n % No 30 51.7 97 63.4 Yes 28 48.3 56 36.6 N = 58 N = 153 Table 3 Purpose of Board Meeting Attendance of Respondents in All Types of Institutions Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) Pitkin Purpose of n n Attendance % % Do Not Attend 30 51.8 36 23.5 Resource Person 10 17.3 65 42.5 Participant 9 15.5 37 24.2 Combination 6 10.3 0 0 Observer 2 3.4 12 7.8 Did Not Respond 1 1.7 3 2.0 N = 58 N = 153 Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) discussed in their study the Chief Information Officer's role in dealing with information management. Table 5 presents findings for the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) study and the current research. In academic computing, 86.2% of the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) respondents and 80.4% of the current study respondents reported responsibility. For administrative computing, 89.7% of the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) respondents and 91.5% of the current investigation respondents reported responsibility. For data communications, 96.6% of the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) respondents and 92.2% of the current study respondents reported responsibility. For voice communications, 69% of the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) respondents and 62.7% of the current study respondents reported responsibility. Table 4 Participation in Executive Decisions of Respondents in All Types of Institutions Penrod, Dolence, Participation on and Douglas (1990) Pitkin a Regular Basis n % n % Yes 38 65.5 77 50.3 No 20 34.5 76 49.7 N = 58 N = 153 Percentages were much less for Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1991) and the current research for all remaining areas of information management: copying/reprographic services, institutional research, library services, mail services, media services, planning, printing, and television services. This indicates that the level of responsibility has not changed for the Chief Information Officer across units associated with information management. In summary, respondents in the current study indicated that the role of the Chief Information Officer in higher education is not consistent with that reported by Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990). Unlike the respondents in that study, the Chief Information Officers in the current research do not consider themselves to be executive officers of their institutions and they do not regularly attend board meetings. Respondents in the current study (50.3%) reported a decrease, as compared to the Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) respondents (65.5%), in their participation in executive decisions. As reported earlier, however, the respondents in the current study do agree with the respondents in the two previous investigations concerning areas of information management over which they have responsibility. Table 5 Areas of Responsibility of Respondents in All Types of Institutions Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas (1990) Pitkin Area of n % n Responsibility % Academic Computing 50 86.2 123 80.4 Administrative 52 89.7 140 91.5 Computing Copying/Reprograph 10 17.2 23 15.1 ic Services Data 56 96.6 141 92.2 Communications Institutional 11 19 34 22.2 Research Library Services 9 15.5 17 11.1 Mail Services 10 17.2 22 14.4 Media Services 9 25.5 29 19 Planning 19 32.8 29 19 Printing 10 17.2 20 13.1 Television 16 27.6 42 27.5 Services Voice 40 69 96 62.7 Communications N=58 N=153 Synnott and Gruber's (1981) Roles of the Chief Information Officer in the Business Sector In writing about the Chief Information Officer concept in the business sector, Synnott and Gruber (1981) stated that "EDP [Electronic Data Processing] managers are . . . taking on new and broader responsibilities" (p. 45). As Chief Information Officers in executive-level positions, they are "responsible for establishing corporate information policies, standards and procedures" through providing "centralized management and control over information processing and utilization, even though it may be distributed geographically and functionally throughout the organization." (pp. 66-68) Synnott and Gruber (1981) identified nine roles of the Chief Information Officer as essential for the position to be effective as an executive officer at the organization- wide level. These roles are strategic planner, change agent, proactivist, politician, integrator, information controller, staff professional, manager, and futurist. The roles were confirmed in studies of the Chief Information Officer in the business sector by Passino and Severance (1988), Brumm (1989), and Adler and Ferdows (1990). In addition to identifying the prevalence of these role characteristics, these authors further agreed that the CIO is an executive officer with institution-wide decision- making authority. The research instrument was configured to help identify whether the Chief Information Officer in higher education carries out responsibilities identified by Synnott and Gruber (1981) for the CIO in the business sector. The Chief Information Officers who received the research instrument were asked to indicate the level of Synnott and Gruber's (1981) roles as being incorporated into their responsibilities. Of the nine roles only three are "always" present: manager (74.5%), futurist (61.4%), and strategic planner (54.2%). Synnott and Gruber (1981) claimed that for the Chief Information Officer to be effective as an executive officer involved with the management of the entire organization, all nine roles must operate at the "always" level. The respondents indicated the remaining six roles (change agent, proactivist, politician, integrator, information controller, staff professional) are less than "always" present. Chief Information Officers in higher education do not consistently carry out two-thirds of the roles identified by Synnott and Gruber (1981) as being necessary to be effective in that position. Since Synnott and Gruber (1981) argued that their roles were a necessary facet of the executive- level role, and of the identification of organization-wide responsibility, the conclusion can be drawn that the Chief Information Officer in higher education is not an executive officer and does not have institution-wide responsibilities. This conclusion is consistent with the responses that indicate that the Chief Information Officer in higher education does not refer to himself or herself as a Chief Information Officer, does not have an executive-level title, does not consider himself or herself to be an executive officer, is not involved in making executive decisions, and does not have responsibility for most units associated with information management (see prior discussion). In summary, Chief Information Officers in higher education, as represented by respondents in the current study, emulate the CIO in the business sector in that they are strategic planners, managers, and futurists. They do not, however, carry out the remaining six roles identified by Synnott and Gruber (1981) as necessary to be effective as an executive officer of the organization. The conclusion is consequently drawn that most of the respondents to the current study do not emulate the CIO in the business sector, and, as concluded earlier, do not function as executive officers. The Transformation Process and the Role of the Chief Information Officer Several authors (Hopper, 1990; McFarlan, 1990; Penrod & Dolence, 1990,1991; Peterson, 1990) argued that the Chief Information Officer position in both the business sector and higher education is exemplary of the transformation process. Theorists of organizational structure and change (Kanter, 1983, Morgan, 1989; 1989; Peters, 1987; Waterman, 1987) referred to the period of time during which the Chief Information Officer position was created in the business sector as the era of transformation. The characteristics needed for success in transformation are similar to the roles required of the Chief Information Officer as identified by Synnott and Gruber (1981). Nolan (1990) and Penrod and Dolence (1991) stated that transformation must take place in higher education institutions. They emphasized, as did Hopper (1990) and Hammer (1990), that information technology as directed by a Chief Information Officer, is the driving force behind the transformation process. They contended that transformation cannot take place without the application of information technologies. Morgan (1989), Kanter (1983, 1989), Peters (1987), and Waterman (1987) contended that the organization must be entrepreneurial, incorporate transformation into its overall organizational goals, and conduct change through the transformation process for positions like the Chief Information Officer to be effective. The research instrument obtained perceptions about the level of transformation taking place at the institutions represented by the respondents. To obtain information on the level of transformation taking place at institutions of higher education, Chief Information Officers receiving the research instrument were asked to identify the stage of progress which best depicted their institution's movement toward transformation. Five stages, based on the continuum of achievement developed by Rogers (1971), were defined for respondents. These stages are: "awareness," having knowledge of transformation; "interest," actively seeking additional information; "evaluation," deciding whether or not to implement transformation; "trial," applying transformation on a small scale for analysis purposes; and "adoption," applying transformation throughout the institution as a matter of policy. Respondents were first directed to apply this continuum to define the stage of transformation taking place at their institution. The definition of transformation, "new ways of perceiving, thinking, and behaving by all members of the organization," was based on the definition of corporate transformation compiled by Kilmann and Covin (1988). Respondents' reports indicated that the transformation process is not dominant at any stage along the continuum from "awareness" through "adoption". The responses also indicated a bimodal distribution in that 47% of the respondents are at the early stages of "awareness" and "interest" and that 42% are at the advanced stages of "trial" and "adoption." Within the definition of transformation, Beckhard (1988) identified four types of activities that are transformational. These are change from a product-driven mission to a market-driven mission; change from a centralized to a decentralized management structure; change from low-technology to high-technology approaches to accomplishing responsibilities; and changes in organizational culture from traditional to creative structures. Respondents to the research instrument indicated at what stage, using Rogers' (1971) continuum, their institutions were with each transformation activity. The responses are similar to those received concerning the stage of achievement for the definition of transformation. No stage, "awareness" through "adoption," reached the majority level (50.0% or higher) for any of the four transformation activities. There was no commonly identified stage along the continuum for the transformation activities concerning mission and management structure. In fact, the range of percentage from the top rated stage to the lowest was only 12.5% for mission and 9.1% for management structure. The responses for those two transformation activities were spread somewhat evenly across the stages of progression. This is not the case, however, in changes concerning technology and organizational culture. "Adoption," the most advanced level of achievement along the continuum, was the most prevalent stage (48.3%) in the change from low- to high- technology approaches to accomplishing responsibilities. "Awareness," the first stage of transformation, was the most prevalent (40.5%) in the movement from traditional to creative organizational structures. These higher education institutions appear to be at an advanced point in only one area of transformation activity (technology) identified by Beckhard (1988). Respondents were also asked to indicate which one of six decision-making/communication processes best described his/her institution. The six processes, or models, were originally identified by Morgan (1989). He contended that organizations in the process of transformation were migrating from Model 1 to Model 6. Respondents would consequently provide a good indication of their institution's progress in the transformation process by indicating which model was prevalent. In the progression from Model 1 toward Model 6, respondents indicated that the common models are the second and third. Manager to subordinates with the flexibility of being authoritarian or participative was identified most often (40.5%). The involvement of project teams with decisions still made at the top of the organization received the second highest number of responses (30.0%). The remaining four models, or processes, were not identified frequently (ranging from 16.3% to 0.0%). The indication here is that the decision-making/communication process still reflects a high level of bureaucracy in that decisions are still made at the top of the organization. This conclusion is consistent with the responses received concerning the definition of transformation and the level of achievement in transformational activities. The institutions represented by the respondents appear not to be actively involved in the process of transformation. Types of Institutions An exception to the general conclusion that that the Chief Information Officer is not an executive officer, does not emulate the CIO in the business sector and is not involved in management processes that support the transformation proces appears to be the private undergraduate institutions. Respondents from those institutions have the second highest frequency of reported executive officer status (50.0%), the highest frequency of reported board meeting attendance (62.5% ) at the "always" level, the highest frequency of reported attendance at board meetings as an active participant (37.5%), and the highest frequency of reported participation in executive decisions (75%) at the "always" and "often" levels. Within the executive decision-making process, they have the highest frequency of reported participation in every category: planning (87.5%), budgeting (87.5%), academic issues (50.0%), human resources (50.0%), facilities (87.5%), and curriculum issues (25.0%). They also have the highest frequency of reported responsibility in areas associated with information management: copying/reprographic services (37.5%), mail services (37.5%), institutional research (62.5%), planning (50%), and printing services (25.0%). The private undergraduate respondents come closest to emulating the business sector CIO. They most often reported Synnott and Gruber's (1981) role characteristics at the "always" and "often" levels for change agent (100.0%), proactivist (100.0%), politician (100.0%), integrator (100.0%), information controller (75.0%), and staff professional (75.0%). More respondents on a percentage basis from the private undergraduate institutions (37.5%) reached the fourth level (project teams with leaders involved in final decisions) of Morgan's (1989) models of decision-making/communication processes, than from any other type of institution. References Adler, P. S., & Ferdows, K. (1990). The chief technology officer. California Management Review, 32(3), 55-62. Beckhard, R. (1988). The executive management of transformational change. In R. H. Kilmann & T. J. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organizations for a competitive world (pp. 89-101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brumm, E. K. (1989). Chief information officers in service and industrial organizations. Unpublished manuscript. Dillman, H. L., & Hicks, M. A. (1990). Reorganizing for information technology management on campus. Cause/Effect, 13(3), 4-6. Gantz, J. (1985, October). Telecommunications management: Who's in charge? Telecommunication Products + Technology, pp. 17-37. Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don't automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104-112. Hopper, M. D. (1990). Rattling SABRE--new ways to compete on information. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 118-124. Kanter, R, M. (1983). The change masters. NY: Simon and Schuster. Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. NY: Simon and Schuster. Kilmann, R. H., & Covin, T. J. (1988). Preface. In R. H. Kilmann & T. J. Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organizations for a competitive world (pp. xiii-xviii). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McFarlan, F. W. (1990). Letter to the editor. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 176. Morgan, G. (1989). Creative organization theory: A resourcebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Nolan, R. L. (1990). Too many executives today just don't get it! Cause/Effect, 13(4), 5-11. Passino, J. H., & Severance, D. G. (1988). The changing role of the chief information officer. Planning Review, 16(5), 38-42. Penrod, J. I., & Dolence, M. G. (1988). IRM a short lived concept? Proceedings of the 1987 CAUSE National Conference, 173-183. Penrod, J. I., & Dolence, M. G. (1990). Managing information technology: Facing the issues. Proceedings of the 1989 CAUSE National Conference, 71-81. Penrod, J. I., & Dolence, M. G. (1991). Concepts for reengineering in higher education. Cause/Effect, 14(2), 10-17. Penrod, J. I., Dolence, M. G., & Douglas, J. V. (1990). The chief information officer in higher education (Professional Paper Series No. 4). Boulder, CO: CAUSE. Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Peterson, D. J. (1990). Letter to the editor. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 180-181. Rockart, J. F. (1988). The line takes the leadership--IS management in a wired society. Sloan Management Review, 29(4), 57-64. Rogers, E. M. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross-cultural Approach (2nd ed.). NY: Free Press. Ryland, J. (1989). Organizing and managing information technology in higher education: A historical perspective. In B. L. Hawkins (Ed.), Organizing and managing information resources on campus (pp. 17-32). McKinney, TX: Academic Computing Publications. Sherron, G. T. (1988). Organizing to manage information resources. Proceedings of the 1987 CAUSE National Conference, 185-195. Synnott, W. R. (1987). The information weapon: Winning customers and markets with technology. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Synnott, W. R., & Gruber, W. H. (1981). Information resource management: Opportunities and strategies for the 1980s. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Temares, M. L. (1991). Future directions in higher education: A CIO's perspective. Proceedings of the 1990 CAUSE National Conference, 47-57. Waterman, R. H. (1987). The renewal factor: How the best get and keep the competitive edge. NY: Bantam. Weiss, M. (1987, September/October). Transformers. CIO Magazine, pp. 37-41. Woodsworth, A. (1991). Patterns and options for managing information technology on campus. Chicago: American Library Association.