2025-04-29 | WSJ Techfluential by Deloitte | Demystifying the CIO and Board Relationship

CIO与董事会关系的演变及合作实践

媒体详情

上传日期
2025-05-20 10:04
来源
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/sponsored/techfluential-by-deloitte/demystifying-the-cio-and-board-relationship/cd58a261-3698-4eef-a0fc-6958a927b729
处理状态
已完成
转录状态
已完成
Latest LLM Model
gemini-2.5-pro-exp-03-25

转录

下载为TXT
speaker 1: Cios have long been expected to be the technical gurus of the enterprise and service to the business, but today they're visionaries, evangelists and change agents who are the leaders in tech, successfully challenging the status quo and driving transformational change across the business. This is tech fluential, a new podcast series hosted by custom content from wj and Deloitte. I'm Brian kemenetsky, senior editor, custom content from wsj, with our host, Lou de Lorenzo, principal at Deloitte Consulting llp. Lou, it's great to talk with you again. Brian, it's great to be with you. We're into our sixth episode now of tech influential, but I'm sure some people are listening for the first time. So can you explain to us what it means to be tech fluential .
speaker 2: and why it matters? Listen, I don't think there's a better time to be a technology executive than right now. At the heart of every business strategy is a technology strategy. And so helping to make that front and center for people. It's not somebody's job, it's not a department, but it's really understanding how to bring this concept to life and putting in the hands of everybody that works at the company regardless of what they do. To me.
speaker 1: that's what it means to be ential. On the last episode of tech influential, you spoke with rohanammine, chief product officer at chase, and Jamile farshi, evp, cso and cto at equiquefax. Both of them talked about the cyber resiliency conversation at the board level and the ability to bridge the technical and business aspects of the boardroom conversation. How does that influence who's going to be appearing on today's episode?
speaker 2: Brian, I couldn't be more excited to have Sarah Tucker and Jim Fowler on tecfluential. Jim is the evp and Chief Technology Officer at nationwide, and Sarah serves on the board of directors at nationwide and at American Electric Power as well as service corporation international. They're going to talk about the dynamics and the interplay between technology executives and the board, how the board tech agenda is evolving and the things that are top of mind for them. This, in many cases, is a critical step as they look to progress in their career. And so I think there's going to be tremendous insights coming .
speaker 1: out of the conversation. All right, let's get right to it. Here's deloitd's Lou de Lorenzo with Sarah Tucker and Jim Fowler.
speaker 2: Sarah and Jim, thank you so much for being with us here on tech fluential. We're excited to have you here. One of the topics that is top of mind for our listeners, whether they're tech executives or not, is how to develop a more meaningful relationship with a board of directors. And we're thrilled to have you share your perspectives with us over the course of the program today. Happy to be here.
speaker 3: Thanks for having us. Well.
speaker 2: why don't we jump in? So would love to hear from you both a little bit about yourselves and your backgrounds, but more importantly, how long you've been working together as we set the stage here. Sir, would you like to go first?
speaker 4: Sure, Lou. Thank you for that question. Jim and I joined nationwide at the same time, 2018. And I got to know Jim through my assignment on the what was then the business transformation and Technology Committee. Jim came on as our new cio. I came on as a new board member. Our relationship has evolved in two ways. The first is, once I was asked to chair that committee, Jim and I rethought the purpose of the committee. And originally, Jim and I both benefited from the fact that the board had created it to oversee a large capital investment in core systems modernization. And Jim and I were looking at what was happening in the industry at the time with the launch of the insured tax with the fintechand. We sat back and thought, what is it we can do to reimagine the work of the bttc, now renamed the business and innovation and Technology Committee, the bitc? And so we work together, I'd say, Jim henand glove to figure out what is it we need to do? But at the core of our conversation, Lou, was really how do we make sure that technology is integrated with business strategy so that it's not technology for technology sake, but rather, what do investments in technology enable the company to accomplish these a either business results? The second way it's changed is just the way we relate to each other in that time. As we're leading the charge for this, we've become sanity checks for each other. It is important that we keep an eye on what's happening outside our company, inside our company and then figuring out how do we winthrough all of that and make what's relevant come to life in the board meeting at either the committee level or at the board level. And then frankly, I'm a big fan of Jim a. Fowler, and I just want na be a resource for him as he grows professionally and personally within nationwide, but also externally as he takes leadership roles in the industry and outside.
speaker 2: Sarah, thank you. That have that tight coupling between business strategy and technology strategy innovation at the board level is pretty special. Jim, would love to hear a little bit more about your perspective on your relationship with Sarah and how you .
speaker 3: got started together. You know, I think Sarah covered it well. The relationship that we've built over the kind of seven years that we've both been in our roles has been really important for my development. I talk about it as a mentorship sometimes, she says tormentorship, but she keeps me honest and she makes sure that I am talking in terms that matter from a board perspective. She's making sure that I'm bringing a value equation that in a risk discussion that needs to happen at the board level and that I don't get lost in the technology. And again, we can lean on each other as we're going through different initiatives or projects or investments or working with different risk issues that we've got across the company.
speaker 2: You both hit on a core topic that we spent a lot of time here on tecential discussing, and it relates to this notion of how important it is for technology executives to be bilingual. So to be able to have that orientation towards commercial value to business value to business strategy and not get lost in the technology as you described. How do you see the relationship between .
speaker 4: cios and boards evolving? One of the things that I've seen change over time is it's gone from a Compliance Board function, which is how do we make sure we have sufficient oversight over the risk that's introduced by technology and maybe once a year, checks on how we were doing to a real board appetite for what are we doing to stay abreast of the trends in technology and making sure that we're well versed in it. I think the other thing that's happened though, the more technology gets integrated into the business strategy and the more that cios or cfo's can demonstrate in the boardroom that they can talk about the business problems that are getting addressed, the capabilities that are introduced and then the business results that it turns into, then I think the relationship between the board and the cxo slash cio changes. And so it's that dynamic. And every board that I'm on is on a different level of maturity on that relationship from that oversight of risk towards Res, fully understanding the integration that bilingual that you talked about and the importance of what the cio brings to the table.
speaker 3: Luu, I would add to that discussion that you really have to, as a cio or as a technology leader, make sure you're demonstrating the value of the initiatives. But I'm going to talk about it in three levels because there's really kind of three elements of the discussion that we have with the board. The first is, is operational, and we go in every board meeting with a set of operational metrics. And I got to be honest, that's where I hope to spend the least amount of time because if my team is doing their job well, that's going to show that things are running pretty well. And so for me, spending a lot of time in the boardroom is actually a defect for us if that's where we have to spend our time. But you've got to get that right. The second is really talking about the value of the investments that we're making. One of the things the board wants to make sure is that when we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases on key investments, that we really can demonstrate the value that the business is going na get from those investments. And that's where I hope to spend time convincing the board that they're making good investments and that we've got the best interest of our members and our customers at heart in those investments. And then the third is really around research and development and really giving a forward looking view that's kind of three years, five years, ten years out about where technology is going and the opportunity that that's going na have for the business, for our customers and how we see that evolving the the overall business strategy and the impact it's going to have in those spaces. And so that's the dialogue, those three elements that I feel like you have to be having on a regular basis, and you're hopefully .
speaker 4: wearing it on the second two, not the first one. I would add at the board level, Jim hit the three spot on. There's one element that I wanna make sure gets covered here, which is succession planning in the cxo cio suite. So much happens in this space, making sure that we're developing our executives behind Jim to make sure that we not only have a successor to Jim, but we also have business leaders that can step into the p and l jobs or the larger jobs that we have at the company. So it's important for some portion of the board to understand what talent we have and then what development opportunities are happening for the members of Jim's team.
speaker 3: And to that end, every board meeting is an interview for those candidates. We try to make sure we're putting them in front of the board so that the board becomes comfortable that we've got a good succession plan behind us.
speaker 2: No one ever forgets their first board meeting, right? And hopefully, it's a positive experience. Talk a little bit about how to prepare or how you prepare your teams, especially the first go around that they've got some leading practices or just ways to make them sharp, alert, answer the question, answer the mail and at the same time, manage any anxiety or nerves they might have going into that situation.
speaker 3: I think the first thing that I coach my team is that you have to start from a strategic alignment to business goals. We have with nationwide today three overarching priorities around financial stability, around customer centricity and around operational excellence. And my conversation with my team is every conversation needs to start in one or more of those pillars because technology for technology sake is not value creation. It's when you can show how it's going to impact one of those three business pillars for us. So that's why I tell them to start the conversation, is make sure you're rooting it into the business outcomes and the strategy of the business units that you're supporting. The second is make sure that you can articulate the value that you're bringing to that business and to that strategy. The third is around risk mitigation. I mean, that is part of what the board's responsibility is. So we've got to help them understand how are we managing risks. I will say we've evolved away from this just being a discussion with the board on cybersecurity. It's a more fulsome conversation on risks of resiliency, of cybersecurity, of technology obsolescence, of being beat to the market with technology from a product perspective or from a distribution perspective. And then lastly, you got to be able to talk about the financial implications. You need to be able to understand how your company makes money, how your customers make money and how what you're doing from a technology perspective is helping that part of the process. So making sure that you can really get in and understand the financial implications of what you're doing.
speaker 2: if you don't mind. I mean, you talked about succession planning being critical, and Jim mentioned this could be an interview every time you go in. What do you look for from a talent .
speaker 4: perspective during these conversations? The first thing is something that Jim talked on, which is do they end up getting lost in the capabilities of the technology that's being funded? Or are they able to rise above it and talk to the strategy of what the company is trying to accomplish and hit on what is it that this solution will solve and what is it that this investment will bring in terms of capabilities? And if they could take it to that next level, which is if you invest here, then going forward, you'll have the ability to keep up with technology as it advances because you've got the core modernized enough so that you've got all the connections that you need. So it's that ability to transcend the power of technology into the power of technology. Logies, an enabler of the business strategy. That's number one. Number two, can they be articulate when they talk? Jim, you've heard him every time. Has said, you know there are three things that I want to share with you. Boom, boom, boom. And then let the board or let the committee take you deeper into areas that you want to discuss. And then last but not least is just the ability to relate, think on their feet. If they're going to revert to their presentation anytime a question is asked, I'd like to see someone be able to pivot with the question and then take it into a different direction. So those three .
speaker 2: things is what I look for. Can we stay on that? How does a cio get best prepared for that exchange? Maybe walk through a little bit of what that exchange can be like and what separates good performance from an opportunity to improve next time.
speaker 4: So I'll say the first thing is the ability to recognize an opportunity. Many times, if you're sitting in the boardroom and you're letting the business leaders describe how they're doing or initiatives that they've got launched, and if you wait for the technology conversation to be raised before you speak up, then you've missed an opportunity because smart cio's, they recognize that a concept is being described. That person can weigh in and say, and remember when you made this investment, this is what it's translating into or remember when we talked about these capabilities, then these capabilities through what's making this possible. So just recognizing opportunity is something for me that good cxs or cios always take advantage of. And the second thing that I would say is it's not always what happens in the boardroom. It is as you take breaks, it is as you have meals. It is as if you have receptions. There is always an opportunity to engage on a different level with board members so that they see you talking about the business and gaining confidence in yourself and your ability to be one of the thought leaders of the company.
speaker 2: Thanks, erijim. Would love to hear your thoughts as you prepare folks on your team for the great opportunity .
speaker 3: to spend time with the board. When you come from a technology background is we've talked about it, you can get lost in the technology. And so I think one of the ways you get prepared for a board discussion is to start to talk about technology, but not in technology words. We've had three priorities within nationwide related to technology to help deliver business strategy. Behind those three concepts, there's 100 different technologies that we believe are emerging in a way that we can provide new products and services, that we can enable new distribution channels, that we can drive productivity in the way we deliver products. I think it starts with us being able to talk about the technologies in terms like that, that everybody understands that they can apply to their product or their process or their service and not get lost in the technology. The second is you've got to get comfortable with metrics and data and be comfortable being transparent about what's working and what's not. I think sometimes you can get into a trap, especially when you're in a bored situation of wanting to paint a rosy picture of everything. And one of the things I do appreciate about our board, they recognize these things are always hard and they don't always go well and that there are hurdles that you have to go over. And so that's the other piece that I always coach people, is while you're gonna to communicate in terms that are understandable to everybody in the room and that are not mired in the technology, be transparent about what's also not working. That actually provides you a lot of credibility. And frankly, what we forget is the board is there to help. They have vast amounts of experiences from other companies and other organizations. And by being transparent, sometimes the answer to your problem is in the room. You've just got to give them a chance to engage with you. So that's what I would add to what Sarah said. I love that answer.
speaker 2: Could be in the room. I think that's a wonderful Turner phrase. Sarah, you both have mentioned how at the core of this conversation, business value is really what's going to unlock support and perspective. In what ways is business value most successfully .
speaker 4: communicated? One of my favorite slides on each section in the materials that Jim's team prepares is we start with the business problem, the current situation, and then we talk about technology capabilities, and then we talk about what will be different for the customer, for the agent, for the associate that has to work with it. And then below that, we actually translate it to increased revenue, reduced cost, reduced cycle time, increased customer satisfaction. So if we start with the business problem, then go into the tech capabilities, then go into how it's going to be different for our end users and then talk about the actual results in either revenues, savings cycle, time satisfaction, those kinds of things.
speaker 2: Jim, has that been a relatively straightforward opportunity with your team in terms of their resonating with that message? And so it allows that to come .
speaker 3: through pretty seamlessly. It is. So one of the things I really am proud of my team is they can articulate the business outcomes about the strategies that business students they support as well as anyone can. So you would be hard pressed in many cases to pick them out as the technology leader in the room if you heard them talking about their business. But the other thing I would say, Lou, that is interesting to me is the technical capabilities of our business leaders are increasing. So I think the other thing that is demonstrating the value of technology is the fact that more and more, it's not the technology leader talking about it, that it is the business leader. The business unit leader is talking about the impact that technology is having on the productivity of the organization or how it's opening up new abilities to launch new products and services that they couldn't launch before. The business unit leaders have, in some cases, taken over the conversation, and the technology team is there to be their Copilot, if you will, on how they're going to deliver. But I think it's actually a really big compliment when you see the value being discussed from the business unit leader.
speaker 4: not the technology leader. We've actually had customers, potential customers say to us, we couldn't tell who was the tech person, who was the business leader, which always to me says, as Jim said, both sides are increasing their bilingualism, as it were. The second, though, which I'm really proud of, the leadership team at nationwide, we actually have had conversations on when do the technology advancements go faster than the human resource development, about the capabilities of the talent of the organization to fully utilize the technology benefits. And we've had some leaders be very Frank with us to talk about the people process needing to be as strong as the technology process are when you launch new ways of doing business. And we've gotten stronger. I think that we're always more mindful now of the processes that have to be developed in parallel to make sure that we have a fully capable associate or end user or agent that is able to take advantage of the capabilities that are being brought forward by these investments.
speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, because at the end of the day, people are going to do work differently than they do it today using these capabilities. And if there's an adoption issue, then the business value won't be realized. Jim, you talked about being in a position to have a more fulsome conversation around risk and really being a lot more strategic as well as making sure that the operations are running smoothly. How should that relationship between the cio and the ciso be portrayed to the board? And your thoughts on the benefits of having the ciso present during those board meetings?
speaker 3: Lou, it's a fantastic question and one that I'm really passionate about. If I didn't feel comfortable having my ciso in the room with the board, then I would say I didn't have the right cso. It is so incredibly important, not just from the cybersecurity angle, but from the overall risk management angle of how technology is enabling the business to have them in the room. When we're talking about fraud, the csos in the room when we're talking about cybersecurity, they're in the room when we're talking about resiliency of business process, they're in the room. We're talking about crisis management. My cso is in the room. And so I think it's incredibly important also, you know there's been this discussion of where should the cso report? And I'm a strong believer they should report to this technology leader. And if there is a concern about that, then I go to the second part, which is then you've got the wrong technology leader. How we've managed that inof nationwide is our cso reports out to the board at every board meeting. He sits in the executive session with the business innovation and Technology Council and I at every board meeting. And if he and I ever disagree, we have a relief valve between our chief legal officer, who I told the cso on day one when he joined, if he and I ever disagree, that's his relief valve to be able to go arbitrate. If there's a decision that he disagrees with what I've made. So I think that's the other part is I have to leave my ego at the door with my cso, and I've got to be really comfortable that they can have an open and transparent dialogue with the board about risk and frankly, with our whole leadership team about how risk .
speaker 4: is playing out inside the company. Yeah. And I would add to that, not at nationwide, but I know some cxs and cios are reticent. They want to be seen as the person. It's actually in their best interest to have the cso in the boardroom or at the committee level. This gives you the opportunity to say, I'm not the cyber guy, I am the business thought leader and I am broader than just cyber. So for any cio or cso that's listening, that's a little reticent about doing it, assuming, as Jim said, that you've got the right cso, this is an opportunity for you to show that you have capabilities beyond that.
speaker 2: Sarah, as you were describing the committee, the evolution of the committee is, again, in my experience, that's a leading practice. Any guidance that you might have on why a committee such as yours is so important to organizsuccess?
speaker 4: So Lou, excellent question. I currently sit on three boards, three prior to this on my current boards. Two have technology committees. One does not. And the first thing I have to say, it is really is dependent on the needs of the business. Every industry is in a different spot. Every business is in a different spot. But the guiding principle for me is, do you have best in class sight of risk? And if you're going to make a decision around making significant investments, one of the companies, as Jim described, the genesis for this committee is there is no other existing committee that can really have oversight of that huge capital spend with the rigor that needs to be taking place. The other company lodged it because of what was happening in the industry and at that company in terms of having to have protection. And so there's always a critical decision that has to be made. The most important thing that a board has to decide is if I'm going to have best in class risk oversight, do my existing committees give me the ability or the bandwidth to have adequate oversight? And at the end, if it's possible, it can stay with the audit committee, if it's possible, it can stay with a risk committee. But at the end, if you're adding bandwidth into an existing committee that's already overstretched, then you really need to think about the wisdom of having a Technology Committee that will take care of not only of the spend, as it were, not only of the operations, as Jim described, but really making sure that you're keeping pace with the innovation and the disruption that's happening, disintermediation that's happening from these technological evolutions. And we haven't talked about it. Covid really changed what end users now are expecting in terms of the reality of having things delivered right away. And so if you're having to rethink your business process, Jim, I'm going to quote you and saying make sure you optimize before you digitize. But if you're already optimized and you're recognizing the value of technology, you have to ask yourself, as a board, do we have best in class risk oversight if we stick it into an .
speaker 2: existing committee? Well said, Jim. You serve on boards as well. And we're seeing more and more technologists, technology executives in board service. And I would say that's a newer trend. Would love to get your your thoughts again. Being in the boardroom, the role that you others like you are having on the discussions and how that's ultimately benefit to the company overall.
speaker 3: I think if you kind of go back a couple of years, why you saw more people with the technology background coming into boards, it was really around the risk management side of how do you manage the resiliency of the organization. But I'd say it's really evolving on the public company that I sit on. We talk about the transformation of the company. We talk about how technology logies driving new channels of distribution that weren't available to all them before. We talk about how technology is providing new products and services that can be launched in the marketplace. We talk about the productivity that we've been able to get with technology and where we believe it's going to go. And as you think about the role that artificial intelligence is increasingly playing, what the future of the workforce is going to look like as digital workers evolve. And so I think that's why you're gonna to see more and more people with the technology background being part of the technical skills maup of a board. It's going to be for those reasons and those transformational elements that require that expertise at the board level.
speaker 2: Well, I'd love to thank you both for being here. Tech influential is all about understanding how to maximize the impact of this capability on customers and commercial results. And again, that bilingual relationship that's critical, and that was on full display here. So as you both know, our show is called tech fluential. And I'd love to get a sense for what that word means to you. Sarah.
speaker 4: why don't you kick us off? Tech proential to me means you can be influential in any environment in describing what needs to happen in the evolution of industry today with the incredible escalation of capabilities that are coming from technology.
speaker 2: Wonderful, Jim.
speaker 3: How about you? The number one skill that I look for when I'm hiring any leader is influence. And so I like to think tech fluential is about how do you take influence and use your influence to help people understand the transformation that can be driven with technology. I tell everybody.
speaker 2: I think there's never been a more exciting time to be a technologist. So while said, and we're seeing it show up in lots of places, especially the boardroom, it was wonderful to see the relationship, the mutual respect between the both of you. And this topic is front of mine for many of our listeners. And so you've really given some outstanding perspectives and food for thought for them as they contemplate what comes next. So thank you both for being here.
speaker 3: Thank you. Lou. Thanks, Lou.
speaker 1: Lou. Thank you. That was great. What were some of the key insights you took away from that conversation?
speaker 2: You know, thanks, Brian. A lot of great insights there. Hard to distill it down, but a few things rose to the top for me. Yet again, we hear how critical it is to be speaking the language of business strategy and commercial value, and again, the need for bilingual capabilities. One of the wonderful turns of phrase that they both touched on, though, was success. Esses, when you can't tell who the technologist in the room is, and they shared some wonderful stories around that. And I think that speaks to sort of the highest level of being tecght .
speaker 1: influential. One of the points that I thought was really interesting was this link between understanding that investments in technology are also investments in people, the need to have the right support structure, the right talent to be able to make that technology deliver value. How easy is it to forget that part of the process and what are the best ways to make sure it doesn't get overlooked?
speaker 2: We do see that, I mean, ultimately, technology is a way to do work differently. And so if there hasn't been thought given to what the work was before, what the work is going to be tomorrow, how you're going to do it and getting people excited and motivated to understand why that's useful to them, there's going to be an adoption problem. And when change management and education becomes a line item on a work plan, rather than at the fiber of what we're doing, which is really transforming the nature of work and helping people understand that work, why it matters and how they're gonna to do it differently and why it's gonna to be interesting and more exciting for them, that's a very different conversation. And so I think it's important to remember that technology is a thing without people using it, it doesn't generate value or the business value or many of the things that we're talking about here. And that's the last mile. It's about who's going to use it and how they're going to use it if it becomes something to do rather than at the heart of what we're trying to accomplish. I think there's a potential that it's gonna .
speaker 1: to be less successful than youlike. One of the themes that I think came through very clearly, and the ability for technology leaders to speak business, business leaders to speak technology, how do leaders work together? What changes about the dynamic when there becomes more overlap in the understanding of what people are doing, when jobs don't seem so specialized? There's a couple of things .
speaker 2: that come to mind, and I think you've probably heard me say this in some context, but some of it starts with language and the perspectives that you have when you use certain language. And so I encourage my clients, my technology executives, to not refer to the business. They're all in the business, right? They work for a company. They all work together. They have different expertise. They have different roles. I think we also heard from both of them that it's important to resist the temptation to get lost in the technology. It's about why we're doing it. And I think when the conversation anchors on why we're doing it, what's going to be different tomorrow, what's going na happen when we're finished, I think everybody understands that. And then, look, we've all got different plays. We're going to run wherever we sit to make that happen. And I trust you, you trust me, and we're going to meet afterwards and talk about how it could have gone better. So I think it's that mindset shift. And I think it is the language, again, that has come up in most of the episodes that we've had a chance to talk to.
speaker 1: Thanks, Lou. Looking forward to episode seven where we'll continue to explore the role of technology leadership and what it means to be tech influential. Thanks to everyone for listening.
speaker 5: The views and opinions expressed by podcast speakers and guests are solely their own and do not reflect the opinions of Deloitte. This podcast provides general and educational information only and is not intended to constitute advice or services of any kind. For additional information about Deloitte, go to Deloitte. Com slash us slash about the information contained in this podcast is for informational purposes only. Custom content from wj is a unit of the wall Street Journal advertising department. The wall Street Journal news organization was not involved in the creation of this content.

最新摘要 (详细摘要)

生成于 2025-05-20 11:42

概览/核心摘要 (Executive Summary)

本播客节目《Techfluential》第六集深入探讨了首席信息官(CIO)/技术高管与董事会之间动态且日益重要的关系。Nationwide的执行副总裁兼首席技术官Jim Fowler和Nationwide董事会成员Sara Tucker作为嘉宾,分享了他们共同工作的经验和见解。核心观点强调,技术高管的角色已从传统的“技术专家”转变为“远见卓识者、布道者和变革推动者”,他们需要具备将技术战略与商业价值紧密结合的“双语能力”。

双方强调,有效的沟通在于将技术投资清晰地阐释为商业成果,例如收入增长、成本降低或客户满意度提升。Jim Fowler提出了与董事会沟通的三个层面:运营层面(希望花费最少时间)、投资价值层面和前瞻性的研发层面。Sara Tucker补充了继任者规划的重要性。双方一致认为,成功的标志是当业务领导者和技术领导者都能流利地讨论对方领域,以至于“无法分辨谁是技术人员,谁是业务领导者”。播客还讨论了为董事会会议做准备的实用建议,包括战略定位、价值阐述、风险管理(已演变为更全面的风险对话,超越网络安全)和财务影响的理解。此外,CISO(首席信息安全官)在董事会会议中的直接参与被认为是提升透明度和CIO战略定位的关键。最后,节目探讨了设立专门的董事会技术委员会的价值,以及技术背景人士在董事会中日益重要的作用,尤其是在推动企业转型和创新方面。“Techfluential”被定义为利用影响力来阐释和推动技术带来的变革。

引言:技术高管与董事会关系的重要性

  • 主持人Brian Kemenetsky和Lou de Lorenzo开启了《Techfluential》第六集,点明本期主题:揭秘CIO与董事会的关系。
  • Lou de Lorenzo观点:现在是成为技术高管的最佳时机,因为“技术战略是每项业务战略的核心 (At the heart of every business strategy is a technology strategy)”。成为“Techfluential”意味着理解如何将技术概念融入企业,并赋予公司中每一位员工力量,无论其职位如何。
  • 上期回顾:Chase的首席产品官Rohan Amin和Equifax的EVP、CSO兼CTO Jamile Farshi讨论了董事会层面的网络弹性对话,以及弥合技术与业务对话鸿沟的能力。

嘉宾介绍与合作背景 (Sara Tucker 与 Jim Fowler)

  • 嘉宾
    • Jim Fowler:Nationwide执行副总裁兼首席技术官 (EVP and Chief Technology Officer)。
    • Sara Tucker:Nationwide董事会成员,同时在American Electric Power和Service Corporation International担任董事。
  • 合作起点与演变
    • Sara Tucker和Jim Fowler于2018年同时加入Nationwide。Sara Tucker最初通过其在当时的“业务转型与技术委员会 (Business Transformation and Technology Committee, BTTC)”的任职认识了新任CIO Jim Fowler。
    • 委员会重塑:当Sara Tucker被任命为主席后,她与Jim Fowler共同重新思考了该委员会的宗旨。Sara Tucker提到,他们回顾了当时行业内随着保险科技(InsurTech,转录文本中为 'insured tax')和金融科技(Fintech)的推出所发生的一切 (“Jim and I were looking at what was happening in the industry at the time with the launch of the insured tax with the fintechand”),这促使他们将委员会更名为“业务与创新及技术委员会 (Business and Innovation and Technology Committee, BITC)”。
      • 核心目标:确保技术与业务战略相结合,避免“为技术而技术 (technology for technology sake)”,而是关注“技术投资能为公司带来怎样的业务成果 (what do investments in technology enable the company to accomplish vis-a-vis business results)”。
    • 个人关系
      • 双方互为“理智的检验者 (sanity checks)”,关注内外部动态,并决定如何在董事会层面呈现相关内容。
      • Sara Tucker表示希望成为Jim Fowler在Nationwide内外职业和个人成长过程中的资源。
      • Jim Fowler视Sara Tucker为导师(戏称为“折磨导师 tormentorship”),认为她帮助自己确保以董事会关心的语言沟通,关注价值和风险,避免迷失在技术细节中。

CIO与董事会关系的演变

  • Sara Tucker观点
    • CIO与董事会的关系已从过去的“合规性董事会职能 (Compliance Board function)”(主要关注技术引入的风险监督,每年检查一次)转变为董事会对“我们正在做什么以紧跟技术趋势并确保我们精通技术 (what are we doing to stay abreast of the trends in technology and making sure that we're well versed in it)”的真正渴求。
    • 当技术更多地融入业务战略,CIO或CFO能在董事会中讨论正在解决的业务问题、引入的能力以及由此产生的业务成果时,董事会与CXO/CIO的关系就会改变。她强调,关键在于关注“技术投资能为公司带来怎样的业务成果 (what do investments in technology enable the company to accomplish vis-a-vis business results)”。
    • 她所参与的每个董事会在这种关系的成熟度上都处于不同水平,从风险监督到充分理解整合(即Lou提及的“双语能力”)以及CIO带来的价值。

技术高管与董事会沟通的核心要素

  • Jim Fowler提出的沟通三层面
    1. 运营层面 (Operational):通过一系列运营指标展示,Jim Fowler希望“在这上面花费的时间最少 (hope to spend the least amount of time)”,因为如果团队工作出色,运营应表现良好。在此花费过多时间被视为缺陷。
    2. 投资价值层面 (Value of the investments):花费时间说服董事会他们正在进行的是明智的投资,并且这些投资符合成员和客户的最佳利益。
    3. 研发与前瞻层面 (Research and development):提供未来3年、5年、10年的技术发展方向及其对业务、客户的潜在机会和影响的展望。
  • Sara Tucker补充的第四个要素
    • 继任者规划 (Succession planning):在CXO/CIO层面,确保不仅为Jim Fowler培养继任者,还要培养能够胜任P&L职位或公司内更高级别职位的业务领导者。董事会部分成员需要了解现有的人才储备和Jim Fowler团队成员的发展机会。
    • Jim Fowler对此回应:“每一次董事会会议都是对这些候选人的一次面试 (every board meeting is an interview for those candidates)”,并努力让他们在董事会面前展示,以使董事会对继任计划感到放心。

为董事会会议做准备:策略与技巧

  • Jim Fowler对其团队的指导
    1. 始于与业务目标的战略对齐 (Strategic alignment to business goals):以Nationwide的三大优先事项为例(财务稳定、客户中心、卓越运营),强调“每一次对话都需要从这些支柱中的一个或多个开始,因为为技术而技术并非价值创造 (every conversation needs to start in one or more of those pillars because technology for technology sake is not value creation)”。
    2. 清晰阐述价值 (Articulate the value):能够说明为业务和战略带来的价值。
    3. 风险缓解 (Risk mitigation):帮助董事会理解如何管理风险。这已从单纯的网络安全讨论演变为更全面的风险对话,包括“弹性风险、网络安全风险、技术过时风险、产品或分销方面因技术落后于市场而被击败的风险 (risks of resiliency, of cybersecurity, of technology obsolescence, of being beat to the market with technology from a product perspective or from a distribution perspective)”。
    4. 财务影响 (Financial implications):理解公司如何盈利,客户如何盈利,以及技术如何帮助这一过程。
  • Sara Tucker在董事会中对人才的评估标准
    1. 战略高度:是否能超越技术能力本身,讨论公司试图实现的战略、解决方案将解决的问题以及投资带来的能力。更进一步,能否说明核心系统现代化后,未来能跟上技术进步。即“将技术的力量转化为技术作为业务战略赋能者的力量 (transcend the power of technology into the power of technology. Logies [sic, 很有可能指 'technology is'] an enabler of the business strategy)”。
    2. 表达清晰 (Articulate):例如,像Jim Fowler那样,“我想与大家分享三件事,一、二、三 (you know there are three things that I want to share with you. Boom, boom, boom)”,然后让董事会深入探讨。
    3. 应变能力 (Relate, think on their feet):当被提问时,能够灵活应变,而不是总是回到演示文稿。
  • Sara Tucker对CIO如何最佳准备的建议
    1. 识别机会 (Recognize an opportunity):在业务领导者讨论业绩或项目时,CIO应主动介入,指出之前的技术投资如何促成当前成果,而不是等待技术话题被专门提出。
    2. 利用非正式场合 (Informal settings):在会议间歇、用餐、招待会等场合,与董事会成员进行不同层面的交流,让他们看到CIO讨论业务并建立对其作为公司思想领袖之一的信心。
  • Jim Fowler补充的准备建议
    1. 用业务语言谈论技术:避免使用技术术语,而是用每个人都能理解并应用于其产品、流程或服务的语言来描述技术。
    2. 坦诚透明 (Transparent):对有效和无效的方面都保持透明,这能建立信誉。董事会成员拥有丰富的经验,坦诚沟通可能“问题的答案就在房间里 (the answer to your problem is in the room)”,他们可以提供帮助。

有效沟通商业价值

  • Sara Tucker描述的理想演示结构 (她的“最爱幻灯片”之一)
    1. 业务问题 (Business problem),当前状况。
    2. 技术能力 (Technology capabilities)
    3. 对客户/代理人/员工的不同之处 (What will be different for the customer, for the agent, for the associate)
    4. 转化为实际成果 (Actual results):如收入增加、成本降低、周期缩短、客户满意度提高等。
  • Jim Fowler对其团队的评价:团队成员能像任何人一样清晰地阐述其支持的业务部门的业务成果。在很多情况下,听他们谈论业务时,很难分辨出谁是技术领导者。
  • 业务领导者技术素养的提升
    • Jim Fowler观察:越来越多时候,是业务部门领导者在谈论技术的影响,技术团队则扮演“副驾驶 (Copilot)”的角色。他认为“当看到业务部门领导者讨论价值时,这实际上是一个巨大的赞美 (it's actually a really big compliment when you see the value being discussed from the business unit leader)”。
    • Sara Tucker的经历:曾有潜在客户表示“我们分不清谁是技术人员,谁是业务领导者 (we couldn't tell who was the tech person, who was the business leader)”,这表明双方都在提升“双语能力”。
    • Sara Tucker强调的人才与流程同步:Nationwide领导团队已讨论过技术进步速度超过人力资源发展(组织人才充分利用技术效益的能力)的情况。现在更加注重开发与技术并行的流程,以确保员工具备充分利用新技术投资所带来能力。

CIO与CISO(首席信息安全官)的关系及董事会互动

  • Jim Fowler的观点 (非常热衷于此话题)
    • 如果他对让CISO进入董事会会议室感到不自在,那么“要么是没有合适的CISO,要么是没有合适的技术领导者 (I didn't have the right cso... then you've got the wrong technology leader)”。
    • CISO的参与至关重要,不仅在网络安全方面,还在整体技术风险管理方面,如欺诈、业务流程弹性、危机管理等。
    • 坚信CISO应向技术领导者汇报。
    • Nationwide的实践:其CISO在每次董事会会议上向董事会报告,并与Jim Fowler一同参加业务创新与技术委员会的执行会议。如果CISO与Jim Fowler意见不合,可以通过首席法务官作为“解压阀 (relief valve)”进行仲裁。
    • CIO必须“把自我放在门外 (leave my ego at the door)”,并确保CISO能与董事会就风险进行开放透明的对话。
  • Sara Tucker的观点
    • CIO让CISO参与董事会会议符合其自身最佳利益。这使CIO有机会展示自己“不仅仅是网络安全专家,而是业务思想领袖,视野更广阔 (I'm not the cyber guy, I am the business thought leader and I am broader than just cyber)”。

董事会技术委员会的重要性

  • Sara Tucker的经验与见解
    • 她目前任职的三个董事会中,有两个设有技术委员会。设立与否“取决于业务需求 (dependent on the needs of the business)”。
    • 指导原则:“是否拥有最佳的风险洞察能力 (Do you have best in class sight of risk?)”。
    • 成立动因:通常是因为需要对巨额资本支出进行严格监督,而现有委员会无法承担,或是行业动态和公司面临的保护需求。
    • 决策考量:如果现有委员会(如审计委员会、风险委员会)已有足够能力和带宽进行充分监督,则可以不设。但如果将此任务加入已不堪重负的现有委员会,则应考虑设立专门的技术委员会,以负责支出、运营,并确保跟上创新、颠覆和技术演进的步伐。
    • COVID-19的影响:改变了终端用户对即时交付的期望。
    • 引用Jim Fowler的话:“在数字化之前先优化 (make sure you optimize before you digitize)”。如果已优化并认识到技术价值,董事会需自问,若将技术监督塞入现有委员会,是否仍能实现最佳风险洞察。

技术背景人士在董事会中的作用

  • Jim Fowler的观察 (他本人也担任其他公司董事)
    • 几年前,技术背景人士进入董事会主要是为了风险管理和组织弹性。
    • 现在,这一角色正在演变。在他担任董事的上市公司,讨论内容包括:
      • 公司转型。
      • 技术如何驱动新的分销渠道。
      • 技术如何催生新的产品和服务。
      • 技术带来的生产力提升及其未来潜力。
      • 人工智能日益重要的作用,以及数字化员工演进带来的未来劳动力形态。
    • 因此,将有越来越多技术背景的人士因这些转型要素和所需专业知识而成为董事会技术技能构成的一部分。

“Techfluential”的定义

  • Sara Tucker:“Techfluential对我而言,意味着在当今行业因技术能力急剧提升而不断演进的环境中,你能够在任何场合都有影响力地描述需要发生什么 (Techfluential to me means you can be influential in any environment in describing what needs to happen in the evolution of industry today with the incredible escalation of capabilities that are coming from technology)。”
  • Jim Fowler:“我在招聘任何领导者时首要寻找的技能就是影响力。所以我认为Techfluential是关于如何运用你的影响力,帮助人们理解技术可以驱动的转型 (The number one skill that I look for when I'm hiring any leader is influence. And so I like to think tech fluential is about how do you take influence and use your influence to help people understand the transformation that can be driven with technology)。”

主持人总结与关键启示

  • Lou de Lorenzo的总结
    • 再次强调说业务战略和商业价值的语言(“双语能力”)至关重要。
    • 一个精彩的转折点是,双方都提到,成功的标志是“当你分不清房间里谁是技术专家时 (when you can't tell who the technologist in the room is)”。
  • Brian Kemenetsky与Lou de Lorenzo的讨论
    • 技术投资与人的投资:理解技术投资也是对人的投资,需要正确的支持结构和人才来实现技术价值。如果变革管理和教育只是工作计划中的一个条目,而不是核心,就可能出现采纳问题。“技术本身只是一个东西,没有人的使用,它不会产生价值 (technology is a thing without people using it, it doesn't generate value)”。
    • 领导者协同工作
      • 语言很重要,鼓励技术高管不要将业务部门称为“业务方 (the business)”,因为大家都在一个公司,只是专业和角色不同。
      • 抵制沉迷于技术本身的诱惑,关注“为什么做 (why we're doing it)”。
      • 这是一种思维模式的转变。

结论

CIO与董事会的关系正经历深刻转型,从传统的风险监督转向战略合作伙伴关系。技术高管需要具备卓越的“双语”沟通能力,将技术举措与明确的商业价值和成果联系起来。通过坦诚沟通、战略协同以及对人才和流程的并重关注,技术领导者可以在董事会层面发挥关键影响力,推动企业实现真正的转型和持续成功。CISO的直接参与和专门技术委员会的设立,进一步强化了技术在现代企业治理中的核心地位。