Zur Beziehung zwischen Chief Information Officer (CIO) und ...

JOHANNES KEPLER UNIVERSITÄT LINZ

Altenbergerstraße 69 4040 Linz, Österreich

www.jku.at DVR 0093696

Zur Beziehung zwischen Chief Information Officer (CIO) und Chief Executive Officer (CEO): Konzeptionelles Rahmenwerk und Interview-Studie mit Fokus auf partnerschaftliche Beziehung und Vertrauen

DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades

DOKTOR DER SOZIAL- UND WIRTSCHAFTSWISSENSCHAFTEN im Doktoratsstudium der Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften

Eingereicht von Mag. Thomas Arnitz Angefertigt am Institut für Wirtschaftsinforma-tik – Information Engineering Betreuer und Erstbeurteiler Assoz. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. René Riedl Zweitbeurteiler o. Univ.-Prof. em. Mag. Dr. Friedrich Roithmayr Februar 2017

Einleitungsschrift Dissertation Mag. Thomas Arnitz

2

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Ich erkläre an Eides statt, dass ich die vorliegende Dissertation selbständig und ohne

fremde Hilfe verfasst, andere als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel nicht benutzt

bzw. die wörtlich oder sinngemäß entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht

habe. Die vorliegende Dissertation ist mit dem elektronisch übermittelten Textdokument

identisch.

Linz, am 22. Februar 2017 Mag. Thomas Arnitz


3

Danksagung

Ich widme diese Dissertation meiner Gattin Carina, meiner Tochter Sophia, meinem

Bruder OA Dr. Roland Arnitz und insbesondere meinen Eltern Agnes und Dipl.-Ing.

Werner Arnitz, die mich das ganze Studium hindurch unterstützt haben und mir darüber

hinaus in jeder Situation zur Seite gestanden sind. Mein besonderer Dank gilt meinem

Betreuer Assoz. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. René Riedl, der sich bei diversen Fragen stets Zeit

genommen bzw. jederzeit seine Hilfe angeboten hat.

Mag. Thomas Arnitz


4

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1 Einleitung ................................................................................................................. 6

2 Einzelarbeiten der kumulativen Dissertationsschrift ............................................. 11

3 Gegenseitiges Vertrauen ........................................................................................ 13

4 Theoretischer Hintergrund ..................................................................................... 15

4.1 Definition von Vertrauen................................................................................. 15

4.2 Forschungsüberblick ....................................................................................... 16

5 Methodik ................................................................................................................ 20

5.1 Stichprobe ........................................................................................................ 20

5.2 Interview-Design ............................................................................................. 21

5.3 Datensammlung ............................................................................................... 22

5.4 Datenanalyse ................................................................................................... 22

6 Ergebnisse und Diskussion .................................................................................... 23

6.1 Ergebniszusammenfassung ............................................................................. 23

6.2 Diskussion der Ergebnisse in einem größeren theoretischen Kontext ............ 25

6.2.1 Sozialkapitaltheorie .................................................................................. 25

6.2.2 Selbstbestimmungstheorie ........................................................................ 28

6.2.3 Theorie des Netzwerk-Gatekeeping ......................................................... 30

7 Einschränkungen und zukünftige Forschung ......................................................... 32

8 Referenzen .............................................................................................................. 33


5

Sprachliche Gleichbehandlung

Zur besseren Lesbarkeit wird im Text auf eine geschlechtsneutrale Schreibweise ver-

zichtet. Soweit personenbezogene Bezeichnungen nur in männlicher oder weiblicher

Form angeführt sind, beziehen sie sich auf Frauen und Männer in gleicher Weise.


6

1 Einleitung Trotz hoher Investitionskosten in Informations- und Kommunikationssysteme gelingt es

vielen Unternehmen nicht, ihre gesetzten Ziele zu erreichen. Grund dafür ist eine oft

mangelhafte oder gar fehlende Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Chief Information

Officer (CIO) und dem Chief Executive Officer (CEO) [Johnson & Lederer 2010]. An-

gesichts dieser Tatsache werden in der vorliegenden Dissertation die partnerschaftliche

Beziehung zwischen dem CIO und dem CEO und im Besonderen die Wichtigkeit von

Vertrauen als Vorbedingung für den unternehmerischen Erfolg erforscht.

Die stetige Durchdringung aller Geschäftsprozesse im Unternehmen hat die Informati-

onstechnologie (IT) zu einem allgegenwärtigen Phänomen in Organisationen gemacht.

Der Nutzungsgrad der IT nimmt in Unternehmen sukzessive zu, eine effektive und effi-

ziente Unterstützung der Geschäftsprozesse durch die IT trägt zur Wertsteigerung der

Unternehmen in großem Maße bei [Heinrich et al. 2014]. Dadurch, dass die IT zu einem

kritischen Erfolgsfaktor im Wettbewerb geworden ist, ist ein bereichsübergreifendes

Management im Unternehmen erforderlich. Einerseits ist bei der Planung von IT-Lö-

sungen und Projekten zur Verbesserung von Geschäftsprozessen in Fachabteilungen

eine intensive Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem CIO und den Fachbereichsleitern not-

wendig, andererseits ist eine regelmäßige Kommunikation zwischen dem CIO und dem

CEO eine wesentliche Grundlage für eine verbesserte IT- und Geschäftsausrichtung

[Chan et al. 2006]. IT-Erfolge sind insbesondere dann möglich, wenn eine enge Koope-

ration und Kommunikation zwischen dem CIO und dem CEO vorliegt [Feeny et al.

1992]. Deshalb ist es unumgänglich, die Ziele der IT-Abteilung mit den Zielen des Un-

ternehmens zu verknüpfen, um so eine gemeinsame IT-Vision zu entwickeln und

dadurch eine Vertrauensbasis zu schaffen [Preston & Karahanna 2009]. Effiziente Kom-

munikation ist dabei der Schlüssel zur Bewältigung großer Herausforderungen. Je bes-

ser die Kommunikation, desto größer das Vertrauen in ein gemeinsames Systemver-

ständnis. CIOs und CEOs haben oftmals ein Kommunikationsproblem, woraus Miss-

verständnisse über die möglichen Rollen der IT im Unternehmen resultieren. CEOs wei-

sen darauf hin, dass CIOs oft die Fähigkeit fehlt, IT-relevante Themen im Business-

Jargon zu kommunizieren [Smaltz et al. 2006].


7

Das nachfolgende konzeptionelle Modell von Hütter, Arnitz und Riedl (vgl. [Hütter et

al. 2013]) beschreibt einen Weg, wie der CIO und der CEO eine strategische Partner-

schaft entwickeln können. Im Folgenden wird das Modell kurz erklärt.

Abbildung 1: Konzeptionelles Modell zur strategischen CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft

Quelle: [Hütter et al. 2013, S. 105]

IT- und Geschäftswissen: Sowohl der CIO als auch der CEO sollten zum Bereich des

jeweils anderen Kenntnisse haben und über Grundwissen verfügen. Der CIO sollte ne-

ben fachlichen IT-Kenntnissen auch Managementfähigkeiten und Know-how in Be-

triebswirtschaftslehre vorweisen können, um Geschäftspotentiale besser zu erkennen.

Gerade die IT-Kenntnisse der CEOs beeinflussen wesentliche Erfolgsfaktoren wie die

Erwartungen an die IT oder den Beitrag der IT zur Unternehmensstrategie [Peppard

2010].

Kommunikation: Um CEOs vom möglichen Erfolg durch IT-Veränderungen zu über-

zeugen, müssen CIOs angemessen und effektiv kommunizieren. Die Kommunikation

spielt bei der Erreichung von Konvergenz in der CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft eine entschei-

dende Rolle [Preston & Karahanna 2004]. Kommunikation ist definiert als Prozess, bei

dem Individuen Informationen erzeugen und teilen, um gegenseitiges Verständnis zu


8

erreichen [Rogers 1983]. Das gegenseitige Verständnis zwischen dem CIO und dem

CEO ist ein wichtiger Faktor, der für das IT- und Business-Alignment entscheidend ist,

was wiederum die IT- und Unternehmensleistung verbessert [Kearns & Sabherwal

2006]. Im umgekehrten Fall kann ein Mangel an gegenseitigem Verständnis dazu füh-

ren, dass der CIO die Unternehmensziele nicht versteht bzw. er nicht weiß, was der CEO

von ihm erwartet und der CEO den Wert der IT nicht versteht bzw. in welchem Ausmaß

der CIO zum Unternehmenserfolg beitragen kann [Johnson & Lederer 2005].

Um Konvergenz in der CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft zu erreichen, spielen die Häufigkeit der

Kommunikation und die Reichhaltigkeit des Kommunikationskanals eine bedeutsame

Rolle [Johnson & Lederer 2005]. In Bezug auf die Kommunikationshäufigkeit sind un-

terschiedliche Aspekte relevant: Erstens trägt sie dazu bei, dass das IT-Personal und

Benutzer ein gemeinsames Verständnis über die wesentlichen Unternehmensfunktionen

aufbauen können und eine bestmögliche Unterstützung dieser Funktionen durch die IT

verstehen [Lind & Zmud 1991]. Zweitens führt häufige Kommunikation zwischen dem

CIO und dem CEO dazu, dass die IT vermehrt als Wettbewerbsvorteil erkannt und ge-

nutzt wird [Jarvenpaa & Ives 1991]. Drittens wird die Ausrichtung zwischen IT- und

Geschäftsstrategie positiv beeinflusst [Reich & Benbasat 1996].

Die Reichhaltigkeit des Kommunikationskanals bezieht sich hingegen auf das Ausmaß,

in dem Medien fähig sind, mehrdeutige Sachverhalte zu klären und auf diese Weise die

Verständigung zwischen den kommunizierenden Individuen zu erleichtern [Daft & Len-

gel 1986]. Bestimmte Kommunikationsmedien verfügen über ein höheres Leistungsver-

mögen, Verständigung zu fördern, als andere. Die Idee der Anordnung von Medien nach

ihrer Reichhaltigkeit stammt ursprünglich aus der Media Richness Theory. Im Wesent-

lichen besagt diese Theorie, dass Kommunikationsmedien nach ihrer Informationsreich-

haltigkeit geordnet werden können. Informationsreichhaltigkeit ist dabei das Vermögen

von Information, Verständnis innerhalb eines Zeitintervalls zu ändern [Daft & Lengel

1986]. Die Reichhaltigkeit eines Mediums kann man daran messen, wie unmittelbar das

Feedback ist, wie viele Kanäle wie viele Hinweise geben, wie persönlich die Kommu-

nikation ist und wie vielfältig die vermittelte Sprache ist. Die Theorie besagt: Je unklarer

die Informationen sind, die für die Bewältigung der Aufgabe benötigt werden, desto


9

höher sind die Anforderungen an die Reichhaltigkeit des Kommunikationskanals, der

genutzt wird.

Beispiele für Kommunikationsmedien in absteigender Reihenfolge ihrer Reichhaltigkeit

sind (1) Face-to-Face, (2) Telefon, (3) persönliche Dokumente oder (4) unpersönliche

Dokumente [Daft & Lengel 1986].

(1) Face-to-Face: Diese Art der Kommunikation verkörpert jenes Medium mit der

höchsten Informationsreichhaltigkeit. Durch den persönlichen Kontakt können

Aussagen bei Bedarf durch unmittelbares Feedback direkt korrigiert oder ver-

deutlicht werden. Parallele Transferkanäle wie z.B. Mimik, Gestik oder Tonfall

der Stimme erlauben zudem die Vermittlung von Emotionen.

(2) Telefon: Bei Telefongesprächen kann nur der verbale Kanal genützt werden. Es

besteht zwar die Möglichkeit, dem Gegenüber unmittelbar Feedback zu geben,

allerdings liegt eine Einschränkung hinsichtlich der visuellen Kommunikations-

kanäle (Mimik, Gestik) vor.

(3) Persönliche Dokumente: Adressierte bzw. persönliche Dokumente wie Briefe,

Notizen, Memos oder Fax, heutzutage in erster Linie E-Mails, weisen eine relativ

niedrige Informationsreichhaltigkeit im Sinne der Media Richness Theory auf.

Auf Grund der Tatsache, dass die Information ausschließlich auf schriftlichem

Wege übermittelt wird, entfällt die Option des direkten Feedbacks.

(4) Unpersönliche Dokumente: Unadressierte oder unpersönliche Dokumente wie

allgemeine Informationsblätter sind Mittel der Kommunikation mit der niedrigs-

ten Informationsreichhaltigkeit, da sie in der Regel nicht Einzelpersonen, sondern

eine Vielzahl von Empfängern adressieren.

Im Gegensatz zur Media Richness Theory aus den 1980er Jahren schlägt Kock mit der

Media Naturalness Theory eine Alternative vor [Kock 2005]. Laut dieser Theorie ist die

Face-to-Face-Kommunikation evolutionsbedingt das natürlichste Kommunikationsmit-

tel. Natürliche Sprache, Kopräsenz und Synchronität sind zentrale Merkmale dieses Me-

diums. Medien, die von diesem natürlichstem Medium der Face-to-Face-Kommunika-

tion abweichen, haben zunächst keinen direkten Einfluss auf die Effizienz oder Qualität


10

der Kommunikation, sondern auf die kognitive Anstrengung, die Mehrdeutigkeit der

Kommunikation und die physiologische Erregtheit (englisch: Arousal; Begriff aus der

Psychologie und der Physiologie, welcher den allgemeinen Grad der Aktivierung des

Nervensystems beim Menschen bezeichnet, dessen charakteristische Merkmale Auf-

merksamkeit, Wachheit und Reaktionsbereitschaft sind) [Kock 2005]. CIOs und CEOs,

die natürliche Kanäle nutzen, um über IT-Themen zu kommunizieren, erreichen bei Be-

rücksichtigung der Prognosen, die sich aus der Media Naturalness Theory ergeben, mit

hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit einen ausgeprägten Grad an gemeinsamem Verständnis über

die Rolle der IT in ihrem Unternehmen.

IT-Vision: Der Aufbau einer gemeinsamen IT-Vision zwischen CIO und CEO ist ein

wichtiger unternehmerischer Erfolgsfaktor [Al-Taie et al. 2014]. Eine Verknüpfung der

Ziele der Unternehmensführung mit jenen der IT ist zwingend notwendig und Grund-

lage für den Erfolg. Durch eine Reihe von Maßnahmen, die der CIO ergreifen kann, soll

ein besseres IT-Verständnis geschaffen werden. Beispiele dafür sind Schulungen für

Manager, Seminare oder regelmäßige Präsentationen [Feeny et al. 1992]. Aber auch der

CEO sollte den CIO in wirtschaftliche Planungs- und Entscheidungsprozesse einbezie-

hen, insbesondere deshalb, weil damit sichergestellt wird, dass die gesetzten Maßnah-

men auch mit der IT-Vision harmonieren [Stemberger et al. 2011].

Aus der Fachliteratur lässt sich daraus schließen, dass eine gemeinsame Auffassung zur

Rolle der IT in einer Organisation der Schlüssel zu einer exzellenten Partnerschaft zwi-

schen CIO und CEO ist [Feeny et al. 1992]. Darüber hinaus wurde erforscht, dass jene

CIOs, die auf einer höheren Berichtsebene angesiedelt sind, einen größeren Einfluss da-

rauf haben, in welchem Ausmaß die IT-Strategie umgesetzt wird [Gottschalk 1999].

Weitere Evidenz zeigt, dass die strukturelle Macht in einer positiven Verbindung zur

strategischen Entscheidungskompetenz des CIO steht [Preston et al. 2008]. Die struktu-

relle Macht bezieht sich auf die hierarchische Position in einer Organisation. Darüber

hinaus wurde ein signifikanter Zusammenhang zwischen der Position des CIO in der

Unternehmenshierarchie und der strategischen IT-Ausrichtung festgestellt [Rag-

hunathan & Raghunathan 1989], die darauf hinweist, dass die Position des CIO mit dem


11

Stellenwert der IT in der Organisation korreliert. Je höher die Position, desto höher der

Stellenwert [Riedl et al. 2008].

Vertrauensbasis: Ein Faktor, der ebenfalls für die Unternehmensleistung ausschlagge-

bend ist, ist das gegenseitige Vertrauen zwischen dem CIO und anderen Topmanagern,

speziell dem CEO. Die Forschung hat diesbezüglich gezeigt, dass das gegenseitige Ver-

trauen zwischen dem leitenden IT-Personal und den Führungskräften anderer Fachbe-

reiche die Leistung des Informationssystems positiv beeinflusst, wobei dieser Effekt

durch den Wissensaustausch (definiert als „das unter den IT-Managern und Fachbe-

reichsleitern herrschende Verständnis und die Wertschätzung bezüglich der Technolo-

gien und Prozesse, die ihre gemeinsame Leistung beeinflussen“, S. 411) vermittelt wird

[Nelson & Cooprider 1996]. Dieses Ergebnis legt nahe, dass das gegenseitige Vertrauen

zwischen CIO und CEO einen maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die Unternehmensleistung ha-

ben kann.

Allerdings ist das gegenseitige Vertrauen zwischen dem CIO und anderen Top-Füh-

rungskräften, insbesondere dem CEO, ein bislang nicht ausreichend erforschtes The-

mengebiet. Das ist problematisch, da es eine bekannte Tatsache ist, dass Vertrauen die

Basis für alle Formen des partnerschaftlichen Verhaltens darstellt, welches wiederum

den Erfolg von Gruppen und Organisationen beeinflusst. Vor dem Hintergrund dieses

bedeutenden Forschungsdefizites berichtet diese Dissertation insbesondere über eine ex-

plorative Interviewstudie, bei der die Interaktionsmuster zwischen mit CEO und dem

CIO untersucht wurden. Es wird über vertrauensspezifische Ergebnisse berichtet, basie-

rend auf N=24 Interviews, in denen jeweils der CIO und der CEO in zwölf österreichi-

schen Organisationen befragt wurden. Die Ergebnisse zeigen Mechanismen, aus denen

gegenseitiges Vertrauen (bzw. Misstrauen) in CIO/CEO Interaktionen hervorgeht.

2 Einzelarbeiten der kumulativen Dissertationsschrift Vor dem Hintergrund der in der Einleitung beschriebenen Ausgangssituation wurden im

Rahmen dieser Dissertation mehrere Arbeiten angefertigt. Die Arbeiten sind:

• A1: Hütter, A.; Arnitz, T.; Riedl, R.: Die CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft als Schlüssel

zum IT-Erfolg. HMD – Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik 293, 2013, S. 103-111.


12

• A2: Hütter, A.; Arnitz, T.; Riedl, R.: Effective CIO/CEO Communication. Ta-

gungsband der Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI), 2016, Universi-

tätsverlag Ilmenau, S. 1523-1534.

• A3: Hütter, A.; Arnitz, T.; Riedl, R.: On the Nature of Effective CIO/CEO Com-

munication: Evidence from an Interview Study. Becker, J. (Ed.): SpringerBriefs

in Information Systems, 2017, S. 1-51.

• A4: Arnitz, T.; Hütter, A., Riedl, R.: Mutual Trust between the Chief Information

Officer (CIO) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO): Insights from an Exploratory

Interview Study. Aktueller Status: Das Paper wurde am 11. Februar 2017 zur

Veröffentlichung in der Fachzeitschrift „Journal of Information Technology The-

ory and Application“ (JITTA) angenommen und befand sich zum Zeitpunkt der

Einreichung dieser kumulativen Dissertation im Druck. Die Vorabversion ist die-

ser Dissertation beigelegt.

Die Dissertation ist Teil eines größeren Forschungsprojekts, das von zwei Doktoranden

bearbeitet wurde: Mag. Thomas Arnitz und Mag. Alexander Hütter. Generelles Ziel die-

ses größeren Projekts war die Erforschung der Interaktion von CIO und CEO und damit

in Zusammenhang stehende Faktoren. In Tabelle 1 sind die Contributions der Autoren

dargestellt.

Arbeit Idee

Lit

erat

ur-

rech

erch

e

Lit

erat

uran

a-ly

se

The

oret

isch

es

Mod

ell

Ent

wic

klun

g E

rheb

ungs

in-

stru

men

te

Dat

ener

he-

bung

Dat

enan

alys

e

Sch

reib

en

Ers

tdra

ft

Rev

isio

n un

d Ü

bera

rbei

-tu

ng

Bet

reuu

ng /

S

teue

rung

A1 AH, RR AH TA, AH, RR

TA, AH, RR

n.a. n.a. n.a. AH TA, RR RR

A2 TA, AH, RR

TA, AH TA, AH, RR

TA, AH, RR

n.a. n.a. n.a. AH TA, RR RR

A3 TA, AH, RR

TA, AH TA, AH, RR

TA, AH, RR

TA, AH TA AH, RR TA, AH TA, AH, RR

RR

A4 TA, RR TA TA, AH, RR

TA, RR TA, AH TA TA, RR TA AH, RR RR

Anmerkungen: TA: Thomas Arnitz, AH: Alexander Hütter, RR: René Riedl (Anordnung in alphabetischer Reihenfolge nach Familienname).

n.a. = nicht anwendbar (keine empirischen Arbeiten).


13

3 Gegenseitiges Vertrauen Gegenseitiges Vertrauen zwischen dem CIO und dem CEO kann einen maßgeblichen

Einfluss auf die Unternehmensleistung haben. Aktuelle Studien deuten darauf hin, dass

dieser Einfluss – zumindest teilweise – durch verbesserte Business- und IT-Ausrichtung

auf einer strategischen Ebene beeinflusst wird [Karahanna & Preston 2013].

[Luftman 2000] wies darauf hin, dass das Erreichen einer Business- und IT-Ausrichtung

(neben anderen Faktoren) „einer guten Zusammenarbeit“ und des „Vertrauens“ (S. 2)

bedarf. Darüber hinaus untermauert eine Reihe von Aussagen, die in Fachartikeln ver-

öffentlicht wurden, die Wichtigkeit von gegenseitigem Vertrauen zwischen dem CIO

und anderen Spitzenmanagern wie beispielsweise dem CEO. [Spitze & Lee 2012] argu-

mentieren zum Beispiel, dass „ein vertrauensvoller und vertrauenswürdiger Charakter”

ein äußerst wichtiges Soft Skill (S. 84) von CIOs in ihrer Interaktion mit anderen Top-

managern ist.

Zusätzlich zu diesen Berichten untermauern auch verschiedene andere Forschungser-

gebnisse die Auffassung, dass Forschung zum Vertrauen zwischen CIO und CEO ein

wichtiges Thema darstellt, da Vertrauen eine Vorbedingung für entscheidende Unter-

nehmensergebnisse ist. So legen Untersuchungen erstens nahe, dass gegenseitiges Ver-

trauen zwischen den Mitgliedern des Topmanagement-Teams die Entscheidungsqualität

positiv beeinflusst [Carmeli et al. 2011]. Zweitens weisen Studien nach, dass das Ver-

trauen innerhalb von Gruppen in einem Topmanagement-Team Konfliktprozesse positiv

beeinflusst [Simons & Peterson 2000], wobei speziell diese Forschungsarbeit von Si-

mons und Peterson aufzeigt, dass das Vertrauen in einem Topmanagement-Team in po-

sitivem Zusammenhang mit Arbeitskonflikten (definiert als „Wahrnehmung von Mei-

nungsverschiedenheiten zwischen Gruppenmitgliedern über den Inhalt ihrer Entschei-

dungen, in denen Differenzen hinsichtlich ihrer Standpunkte, Ideen und Meinungen mit-

spielen“, S. 102) steht und in einem negativen Zusammenhang mit Beziehungskonflik-

ten (definiert als „Wahrnehmung interpersoneller Inkompatibilität, typischerweise unter

Einschluss von Spannungen, Ärger und Feindseligkeit zwischen den Gruppenmitglie-


14

dern“, S. 102). Da Arbeitskonflikte die Qualität und die affektive Akzeptanz von Grup-

penentscheidungen prognostizieren, während Beziehungskonflikte die Gruppenzufrie-

denheit, das Gruppenengagement und die Qualität von Gruppenentscheidungen negativ

beeinflussen (für den empirischen Nachweis hierfür, siehe die Quellen, die in [Simons

& Peterson 2000] zitiert werden), ist das Vertrauen innerhalb des Topmanagement-

Teams eine entscheidende Vorbedingung für verschiedene wichtige Ergebnisvariablen.

So hat eine Studie von [Rau 2005] bestätigt, dass ein niedriger Grad an Beziehungskon-

flikten in einem Topmanagement-Team die Leistung des Teams positiv beeinflusst.

Drittens haben Studien eine Reihe von vertrauensrelevanten Verhaltensweisen mit po-

sitiver Wirkung identifiziert, wie etwa Kooperation, Informationsaustausch oder die Re-

duzierung von Kontrolle [McKnight & Chervany 2001], die darauf hinweisen, dass ein

hoher Grad an gegenseitigem Vertrauen zwischen Topmanagern – wie zwischen CIO

und CEO – vermutlich diese Verhaltensweisen positiv beeinflusst. Viertens legen Stu-

dien den Schluss nahe, dass die Effizienz des Management-by-Objectives-Ansatzes –

ein wesentlicher Managementansatz in modernen Organisationen [z. B. Wehrlin 2012]

– in wesentlichem Zusammenhang mit dem Vertrauen der handelnden Protagonisten

[z.B. Scott 1980], wie etwa dem CEO und dem CIO, steht. Daraus resultiert, dass ein

moderner Managementansatz, wie das Management by Objectives, auf gegenseitigem

Vertrauen aufbaut. Fünftens ist das unternehmensinterne Vertrauen für den Erfolg von

IT-Projekten entscheidend [Jetu & Riedl 2012]. Sechstens ist es eine bekannte Tatsache,

dass Vertrauen grundlegend für alle Formen des kooperativen Verhaltens ist [Luhmann

1979, Riedl & Javor 2012, Rousseau et al. 1998], welches wiederum den Erfolg von

Gruppen und Organisationen bestimmt [Jones & George 1998, Mayer et al. 1995].

Trotz seiner offensichtlichen Wichtigkeit ist das Vertrauen zwischen CIO und CEO wie

erwähnt ein viel zu wenig erforschtes Thema. Dieser Mangel an Forschung zum Ver-

trauen zwischen CIO und CEO ist problematisch, und zwar sowohl aus theoretischer als

auch aus praktischer Sicht. In dieser Dissertation wird über eine explorative Inter-

viewstudie berichtet, bei der die Interaktionsmuster zwischen CIO und CEO untersucht

werden. Die vertrauensspezifischen Ergebnisse dieser Interviewstudie, die in zwölf ös-


15

terreichischen Unternehmen geführt wurden, stehen hier im Fokus. Dabei kann festge-

halten werden, dass die Ergebnisse dieser explorativen Studie zentrale Mechanismen

offengelegen, durch die Vertrauen in Interaktionen zwischen CIO und CEO entsteht.

Auf diese Weise liefert diese qualitative Studie sowohl einen theoretischen als auch ei-

nen praktischen Beitrag.

Aus theoretischer Sicht ist die Identifizierung von Vertrauensmechanismen der wich-

tigste Beitrag. Aus praktischer Sicht verschafft das Verstehen dieser Mechanismen den

CIOs und CEOs die Möglichkeit, bestimmte Verhaltensweisen aktiv zu kontrollieren

und zu deuten, um so das Vertrauen positiv zu beeinflussen. Da das Vertrauen zwischen

CIO und CEO entscheidend für die Business- und IT-Ausrichtung ist [Karahanna &

Preston 2013], die ihrerseits die Unternehmensleistung beeinflusst [Gerow et al. 2014],

ist die Untersuchung von Vertrauen aus Sicht des IT-Managements entscheidend [Guil-

lemette & Paré 2012].

4 Theoretischer Hintergrund

4.1 Definition von Vertrauen

Trotz der Vielfalt an Wissenschaftsbereichen, die bereits das Phänomen “Vertrauen”

über viele Jahrzehnte hinweg untersucht haben, gibt es eine überraschende Übereinstim-

mung hinsichtlich der grundlegenden Konzeptionalisierung von Vertrauen [McKnight

& Chervany 2001, Rousseau et al. 1998].

In dieser Dissertation wird eine Definition verwendet, die von [Rousseau et al. 1998, S.

395] eingeführt wurde. Diese lautet: „Vertrauen ist ein psychologischer Zustand, der die

Intention umfasst, auf der Grundlage positiver Erwartungen hinsichtlich der Absichten

oder des Verhaltens eines Anderen Verletzlichkeit zuzulassen“. Andere Wissenschaftler

beschreiben Vertrauen auch als ein Verhalten, das die eine Partei, den Vertrauenden,

gegenüber den Handlungen der anderen Partei, d.h. die, in die Vertrauen gesetzt wird

[Fehr 2009], verletzlich macht. Diese Konzeptionalisierung wurde auch in der IS-For-

schung übernommen [Riedl et al. 2014].

Vertrauensbezogene Verhaltensweisen sind zum Beispiel Kooperation, Informations-

austausch oder die Reduzierung von Kontrolle [McKnight & Chervany 2001]. Dieses


16

Verhalten eines Vertrauenden wird von seiner Bereitschaft zu vertrauen (d. h. „einer

generellen Neigung, anderen zu vertrauen“) [McKnight et al. 2002, S. 336] und Annah-

men bezüglich der Vertrauenswürdigkeit desjenigen, dem man vertraut [Mayer et al.

1995], beeinflusst. Haupteigenschaften desjenigen, dem man vertraut, sind Können,

Wohlwollen und Integrität [Mayer et al. 1995]. Auf diese Weise ist eine Person, der man

vertraut, dann vertrauenswürdig, wenn sie Fähigkeiten und Kompetenzen besitzt, die für

die Beziehung wichtig sind, wenn sie es mit dem Vertrauenden jenseits eines egozent-

rischen Gewinndenkens gut meint (Wohlwollen) und sich an eine Reihe allgemein an-

erkannter Prinzipien und Regeln hält (Integrität).

Bezüglich der Vertrauensbeziehung zwischen CIO und CEO ist festzuhalten, dass beide

Parteien in der Rolle des Vertrauenden und demjenigen, dem man vertraut, agieren kön-

nen. Erfolgreiche Business- und IT-Ausrichtung setzt dementsprechend voraus, dass ein

CIO ein gutes Verständnis über die Anforderungen und Erwartungen des Unternehmens

an die IT entwickelt und daher – zumindest zu einem gewissen Grad – dem CEO ver-

trauen muss, während der CEO ein gutes Verständnis über die Möglichkeiten der IT-

Funktionen entwickelt und dementsprechend – zumindest zu einem gewissen Grad –

dem CIO vertrauen muss [Guillemette & Paré 2012, Karahanna & Preston 2013].

4.2 Forschungsüberblick

Wie bereits ausgeführt, gibt es nur begrenzt Forschung zum Thema Vertrauen zwischen

CIO und CEO (und anderen Führungskräften). Um diese Beobachtung formal nachzu-

weisen, wurden seit dem Start des erwähnten Forschungsprojektes zu den Interaktions-

mustern zwischen CIO und CEO verschiedene Literaturrecherchen über EBSCOhost

und Web of Science durchgeführt. Ausgehend von diesen Recherchen (die letzte Litera-

tursuche wurde am 1. Juni 2016 durchgeführt) konnte kein einziger Artikel mit konkre-

tem Fokus auf dieses Thema ermittelt werden (Suchwörter und Sucheinschränkung:

„Chief Information Officer”/“CIO” UND „trust” im Titel). Als Nächstes wurde daher

elektronisch nach dem Wort „Vertrauen“ in allen 110 CIO-Arbeiten gesucht, die sich in

einer im Rahmen dieses Forschungsprojekts entwickelten Literatur-Datenbank befin-

den, um Textabschnitte zu identifizieren, in denen es um Vertrauen geht.


17

Die Analysen themenverwandter Arbeiten werden nachfolgend vorgestellt. Die Erörte-

rung themenverwandter Arbeiten beschränkt sich dabei auf vier Studien, in denen zu-

mindest Unterkapitel ausgemacht werden konnten, die sich mit dem Thema “Vertrauen”

befassen oder Textpassagen beinhalten, die über mehr als ein paar Zeilen hinweg das

Thema “Vertrauen” behandeln.

[Nelson & Cooprider 1996] haben den Beitrag von Wissensaustausch zur Gruppenleis-

tung in Informationssystemen untersucht. Konkret führten sie dabei aus, dass eine gut

funktionierende Zusammenarbeit zwischen den IT-Managern und den Managern ande-

rer Fachbereiche die Leistung des Informationssystems positiv beeinflussen kann. Es

wurde die Hypothese aufgestellt, dass Wissensaustausch durch verschiedene Mechanis-

men erreicht wird, von denen ein Mechanismus gegenseitiges Vertrauen ist. Unter Ver-

wendung von Pfadanalysen in einer Untersuchung von 86 IT-Abteilungen wurde her-

ausgefunden, dass gemeinsames Wissen das Verhältnis zwischen gegenseitigem Ver-

trauen und der Leistung des Informationssystems bestimmt. Ein höheres Maß an Ver-

trauen führte dabei zu einem höheren Grad an gemeinsamem Wissen zwischen IT-Ma-

nagern und Managern anderer Fachbereiche, was wiederum in positivem Zusammen-

hang mit der Leistung des Informationssystems stand.

[Smaltz et al. 2006] stellten ihrerseits folgende Forschungsfrage: „Was sind die wich-

tigsten Vorbedingungen für die Wirksamkeit der CIO-Rolle?“ Basierend auf den Um-

fragedaten von CIOs und Mitgliedern von Topmanagement-Teams im Gesundheitssek-

tor (136 Mitglieder von Topmanagement-Teams, die 106 Organisationen repräsentier-

ten, haben dabei die Umfrage vollständig beantwortet) wurde herausgefunden, dass

CIOs typischerweise in sechs verschiedenen Rollen handeln: als Geschäftsstrategen, In-

tegratoren, Beziehungsarchitekten, Dienstanbieter, Informationsverwalter und Pädago-

gen (für Einzelheiten siehe S. 216 in der Veröffentlichung von [Smaltz et al. 2006]).

Darüber hinaus wurde festgestellt, dass Geschäfts- und strategische IT-Kenntnisse, po-

litische Klugheit und zwischenmenschliche Kommunikation CIOs erfolgreich machen,

und zwar schwerpunktmäßig in den Rollen des Geschäftsstrategen, Integrators und Be-

ziehungsarchitekten. Aus Sicht des Vertrauens zeigen die Erkenntnisse, dass der Um-


18

fang von Vertrauensbeziehungen signifikant mit dem Engagement des Topmanage-

ment-Teams / des CIO korreliert, welches wiederum mit der Rolleneffizienz des CIO in

Zusammenhang steht.

[Karahanna & Preston 2013] untersuchten die Auswirkung des Sozialkapitals der Be-

ziehung zwischen dem CIO und dem Topmanagement-Team auf die Unternehmensleis-

tung. Diese Untersuchung beruht auf den Antworten von CIOs sowie der entsprechen-

den Mitglieder des Topmanagement-Teams aus 81 Krankenhäusern in den Vereinigten

Staaten. Neben anderen Ergebnissen fand diese Studie heraus, dass das kognitive Sozi-

alkapital (definiert als die „von den Parteien geteilten Vorstellungen, Interpretationen

und Bedeutungssysteme“, S. 20), das zwischen CIO und dem Topmanagement-Team

besteht, das zwischen CIO und TMT bestehende relationale Sozialkapital (definiert als

„ein multidimensionales Konstrukt, das sich aus dem Vertrauen des CIO in das Topma-

nagement-Team und das Vertrauen des Topmanagement-Teams in den CIO zusammen-

setzt“, S. 27) positiv beeinflusst, wobei eben dieses relationale Sozialkapital wiederum

eine positive Auswirkung auf die strategische Geschäfts- und IT-Ausrichtung hat und in

weiterer Folge auch die finanzielle Leistung des Unternehmens positiv beeinflusst. Auf

diese Weise zeigte die Untersuchung, dass das gegenseitige Vertrauen zwischen dem

CIO und anderen Mitgliedern des Topmanagement-Teams (einschließlich des CEO, S.

29) eine wichtige Determinante für ein positives Unternehmensergebnis darstellt.

In ihrer Untersuchung zum Verhalten von CIOs haben [Spitze & Lee 2012] basierend

auf einer Auswertung der Berufsbiographien von 14 erfolgreichen CIOs die entschei-

dendsten rollenspezifischen Erfolgsfaktoren eines CIO identifiziert. Im Einzelnen wur-

den hierfür Interviews geführt. In ihrer Ergebniszusammenfassung präsentieren [Spitze

& Lee] sechs Soft Skills, die alle erfolgreichen CIOs charakterisieren, wobei „der Besitz

eines vertrauensvollen und vertrauenswürdigen Charakters“ (S. 84) zu eben diesen Ei-

genschaften zählt. Ausgehend von dieser Erkenntnis argumentieren [Spitze & Lee] in

ihrem Abschlusskapitel, dass CIOs „vertrauensvoll und vertrauenswürdig werden müs-

sen", um ihr Erfolgspotenzial zu erhöhen (S. 87). Was genau Vertrauen jedoch fördern

könnte, wird in der Veröffentlichung nicht beschrieben.


19

Zusammenfassend kann damit festgehalten werden, dass [Smaltz et al. 2006], [Nelson

& Cooprider 1996] sowie [Karahanna & Preston 2013] Vertrauen als eine entscheidende

Vorbedingung für das Ausmaß der individuellen (d. h. für die Rollenwirksamkeit des

CIO) und organisationellen (d. h. für die Leistung des Informationssystems und die Un-

ternehmensleistung) Ergebnisse identifizieren und Mechanismen offengelegt haben,

durch welche Vertrauen eben dieses Ausmaß beeinflusst (z. B. das Engagement von

Topmanagement-Team und CIO oder das gemeinsame Wissen). Darüber hinaus machte

die Studie von [Spitze & Lee 2012] das Vertrauen in andere Führungskräfte und die

eigene Vertrauenswürdigkeit als Hauptcharakteristika erfolgreicher CIOs aus. Trotz des

unbestrittenen Werts dieser empirischen Untersuchungen liefern sie dennoch keinen

umfassenden Einblick in die grundlegenden Ursachen und Mechanismen des Vertrauens

zwischen CIO und CEO.

Auf der Grundlage des Forschungsüberblicks werden damit folgende Schlussfolgerun-

gen gezogen:

• Es gibt keine wissenschaftliche Forschungsstudie mit Fokus auf gegenseitiges

Vertrauen zwischen CIO und CEO (die hier erwähnten Veröffentlichungen grei-

fen dieses Thema lediglich am Rande auf).

• Ungeachtet dieser Lage hat die begrenzte Anzahl der zur Verfügung stehenden

Forschungsberichte immerhin einige Einblicke in das Wesen des Vertrauens zwi-

schen CIO und CEO geliefert sowie Vorbedingungen und Konsequenzen dieses

Vertrauens aufgezeigt.

• Vorbedingungen im Kontext des Vertrauens zwischen CIO und CEO sind weni-

ger untersucht worden als die Folgen dieses gegenseitigen Vertrauens. Aus die-

sem Grund weiß man heute mehr über die positiven Auswirkungen von Ver-

trauen (z. B. Effizienz des CIO) als über die Determinanten von Vertrauen.

• Bis auf ein paar namhafte Beispiele [Nelson & Cooprider 1996: MIS Quarterly,

Smaltz et al. 2006: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management oder Karah-

anna & Preston 2013: Journal of Management Information Systems] haben ver-

schiedene Arbeiten, die in der Literaturrecherche identifiziert wurden, weder ihre


20

Ergebnisse auf der Grundlage wissenschaftlich anerkannter Forschungsmetho-

den abgeleitet, noch wurde über die Studie unter Einhaltung von wissenschaftli-

chen Standards berichtet. Letztgenannter Faktor ist dabei jedoch in erster Linie

eine Folge der Veröffentlichung in praxisorientierten Medien und nicht dem Ka-

liber der daran beteiligten Forscher geschuldet [Bashein & Markus 1997: Sloan

Management Review oder Preston & Karahanna 2009: MIS Quarterly Execut-

ive].

Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Forschungssituation soll die vorliegende Dissertation ins-

besondere die wissenschaftliche Forschung zur CIO/CEO-Interaktion und zum Wesen

des Vertrauens zwischen CIO und CEO voranbringen. Im Folgenden erfolgt eine Be-

schreibung der verwendeten Methodik.

5 Methodik

5.1 Stichprobe

Vertrauen zwischen CIO und CEO sowie deren Interaktionsmuster im Allgemeinen sind

nur schwer messbare Konzepte, die nicht einfach durch traditionelle Formen empiri-

scher Forschung – wie etwa durch Experiment oder Befragung – zugänglich sind. Aus

diesem Grund wurden persönliche Interviews mit CIOs und CEOs geführt, da diese eine

tiefgehende Untersuchung des Forschungsthemas ermöglichen. Aus vorangehenden

Studien wie [Riedl et al. 2008] ist bekannt, dass es keine einfache Aufgabe ist, Top-

Manager davon zu überzeugen, als Informanten zur Verfügung zu stehen, speziell wenn

dies eine Teilnahme an zeitaufwendigen qualitativen Interviews impliziert.

Um Zugang zu CIOs und CEOs zu erhalten, stützte man sich auf die persönlichen Kon-

takte eines gut vernetzten früheren CIO eines an der Wiener Börse amtlich notierten

multinationalen Unternehmens. Dieser Unterstützer stellte eine anfängliche Liste von

40 CIOs aus mittelgroßen bis großen Unternehmen aus unterschiedlichen Branchen, die

alle in Österreich ansässig sind, zusammen. Diese CIOs wurden kontaktiert, um ihnen

das Forschungsprojekt zu erklären. Von diesen 40 CIOs stimmten zwölf CIOs (deren

Unternehmen in zwölf unterschiedlichen Branchen operieren) einer Teilnahme zu.

Diese zwölf CIOs sprachen mit ihren CEOs über die Studie und alle diese CEOs waren


21

ebenfalls damit einverstanden, als Informanten zur Verfügung zu stehen. Daher besteht

die endgültige Stichprobe der vorliegenden Studie aus 24 männlichen Top-Managern

zwölf verschiedener Unternehmen (wobei alle Manager unabhängig voneinander ein-

zeln interviewt wurden).

5.2 Interview-Design

Das Interviewdesign folgt einem a priori entwickelten Forschungsmodell (das zur Er-

forschung der Interaktionsmuster zwischen CIO und CEO ausgearbeitet wurde). Auf der

Grundlage dieses Modells, welches im Tagungsband der Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsin-

formatik (MKWI) 2016 publiziert ist, wurde ein anfängliches Set von zwei Interview-

leitfäden abgeleitet: eines für die Interviews mit den CIOs und eines für die Interviews

mit den CEOs.

Beide Interviewleitfäden sind teilstrukturiert und in unterschiedliche Interviewab-

schnitte eingeteilt. Wie sich während der Analyse der Interviewdaten herausstellen

sollte, lieferten sowohl CIOs als auch CEOs eine Reihe von Aussagen in Bezug auf

Vertrauen, einschließlich der entsprechenden Vorbedingungen und Konsequenzen, so-

dass diese Aussagen die Grundlage der hier vorgestellten Untersuchungsergebnisse dar-

stellen.

Die inhaltliche Gültigkeit der Interviewleitfäden wurde vor den Interviews überprüft.

Hierfür wurde ein Senior Consultant einer multinationalen Technologie- und Beratungs-

firma mit langjähriger Erfahrung im Forschungsgebiet gebeten, zu Beginn jeden Inter-

viewleitfaden zu überprüfen. Seine Kommentare und Vorschläge wurden dann dazu ge-

nutzt, die ursprünglichen Leitfäden zu überarbeiten. Die überarbeiteten Leitfäden wur-

den dann in einem Pilotinterview anhand eines zusätzlichen CIO/CEO-Paars eines in-

ternationalen Unternehmens (das nicht Teil der Stichprobe der vorliegenden Untersu-

chung ist) getestet. Der Verfasser dieser Arbeit und ein weiterer Doktorand trafen sich

für die Durchführung des Interviews mit den Führungskräften dieser Unternehmung.

Während dieser beiden Interviews wurden umfangreiche Notizen zum gesamten Inter-

viewvorgang gemacht, um die Genauigkeit dieses Instrumentes zur Datensammlung zu


22

erhöhen. Nach Beendigung des Interviews lieferte jede Führungskraft weiteres Feed-

back und Anmerkungen zum Erhebungsinstrument. Das im Vorversuch gesammelte

Material wurde mit dem Erstbetreuer dieser Dissertation besprochen und führte so, zu-

sammen mit dem Pretest selbst, zu einer zweiten Überarbeitung und Anpassung der In-

terviewleitfäden, die dann in der Hauptuntersuchung zum Einsatz kamen.

5.3 Datensammlung

Der gesamte Datenerhebungsprozess (=24 Interviews) umfasste die erste Hälfte des Jah-

res 2014 und wurde vom Verfasser der vorliegenden Dissertation durchgeführt. In einer

ersten Orientierungsphase erhielten die Teilnehmer die Gelegenheit, Fragen über den

Zweck der Studie zu stellen. Darüber hinaus wurde ihnen absolute Verschwiegenheit

zugesagt. Eine Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung, die vor der Befragung vom Interviewer

und Interviewten signiert wurde, sollte sicherstellen, dass die Daten nur in anonymisier-

ter Form zu Forschungszwecken verwendet werden. Alle Interviews wurden in deut-

scher Sprache geführt und vom Verfasser dieser Arbeit auf Band aufgenommen (alle

Interviews fanden in Österreich statt). Der Interviewer versuchte, die eigenen Stand-

punkte und Ideen des Interviewten zugänglich zu machen, um die CIO/CEO-Interakti-

onsmuster besser zu verstehen. Anstatt Fragen an den Interviewten zu richten, die direkt

auf die Identifikation der kritischen Interaktionsattribute abzielen, stellte der Interviewer

offene Fragen, um dem Interviewten die Möglichkeit zu geben, seine eigene Sicht der

Dinge darzulegen. Aufgrund dieses Interviewstils dauerten die Interviews bis zu 60 Mi-

nuten und lieferten umfangreiches Datenmaterial.

5.4 Datenanalyse

Bevor die Datenanalyse startete, wurden alle auf Band aufgenommenen Interviews

transkribiert und ihre Akzentuierung vereinfacht, um die Daten zu standardisieren und

qualitative Inhaltsanalysen zu erleichtern [Bryman & Bell 2011]. Die auf Band aufge-

zeichneten Interviews hatten eine Gesamtlänge von 13 Stunden.

Die Interviewdaten wurden analysiert, um Textpassagen zu identifizieren, die Informa-

tionen über das gegenseitige Vertrauen zwischen CIO und CEO enthielten. Basierend


23

auf der Interpretation des Interviewtextes war es darüber hinaus das Ziel, zu den spezi-

fischen Statements der Informanten Abstraktionen zu entwickeln. Den Ansatz kann man

demzufolge am besten als induktiv beschreiben, da man durch das Weglassen von De-

tails aus spezifischen Aussagen allgemeine Abstraktionen ableitet. Daraus folgt, dass

die Abstraktion ein wichtiges Prinzip ist, das dem hier verwendeten Datenanalyseansatz

zugrunde liegt. Die Abstraktion ist allgemein gesehen ein wichtiges Prinzip in der qua-

litativen Forschung [Dey 1993].

Um potentielle Verzerrungen, bedingt durch das Codieren und Strukturieren der Tran-

skripte, zu entschärfen, führte der Erstbetreuer dieser Dissertation, der weder in die Da-

tensammlung noch in die Interviewtranskription involviert war, eine erste Analyse

durch. Er las alle Transkripte und markierte und codierte alle relevanten Phrasen; weiter

entwickelte er eine erste Liste mit abstrahierten Einblicken. Nachdem der Erstbetreuer

die Codierung abgeschlossen hatte, prüfte der Verfasser dieser Arbeit die Ergebnisse.

Die beiden Hauptziele des Begutachtungsprozesses waren die Identifikation möglicher

ungeeigneter Kodierungen sowie die Abstraktion und das Identifizieren von zusätzli-

chen Textpassagen, die brauchbare Information über das gegenseitige Vertrauen zwi-

schen dem CIO und dem CEO beinhalten. Am Ende des Begutachtungsprozesses dis-

kutierten der Verfasser dieser Arbeit, der Erstbetreuer (Assoz. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr.

René Riedl) sowie ein weiterer Doktorand (Mag. Alexander Hütter) alle Ergebnisse zu-

sammen. Nachdem einige kleinere Änderungen und Klarstellungen vorgenommen wur-

den, herrschte schlussendlich Einigkeit über die finalen Ergebnisse.

6 Ergebnisse und Diskussion

6.1 Ergebniszusammenfassung

Die drei Faktoren, die für die CIO/CEO-Vertrauensbeziehung auf der Basis des gesam-

melten Datenmaterials als entscheidend identifiziert wurden, sind:

• Gemeinsame Sprache: Die Tatsache, dass sowohl der CEO als auch der CIO die

Fähigkeit haben, mit dem Gegenüber in einer angemessenen Fachsprache zu

kommunizieren, was impliziert, dass der CEO ein gewisses technisches Wissen

hat und der CIO gewisse betriebswirtschaftliche Kenntnisse besitzt.


24

• Entscheidungsspielraum: Die Freiheit des CIO, weitgehend unabhängig zu han-

deln und autonome strategische Entscheidungen zu treffen, ohne die stetige und

genaue Kontrolle durch den CEO. Dies impliziert, dass der CEO dem CIO ge-

genüber nicht zu viel Dominanz ausübt.

• Informationsverhalten: Alle Verhaltensmuster, die in den sozialen Interaktionen

zwischen CEO und CIO im Zusammenhang mit Information und Kommunika-

tion stehen, wie beispielsweise das Zurückhalten oder Manipulieren von Infor-

mationen.

Die für die Herleitung der drei Faktoren ausschlaggebenden Aussagen in den Interviews

sind in der Arbeit „Mutual Trust between the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief

Executive Officer (CEO): Insights from an Exploratory Interview Study“ im Detail be-

schrieben (vgl. die Arbeit A4 dieser kumulativen Dissertation).

Das in Abbildung 2 dargestellte Modell wird in dieser Arbeit auch näher erläutert.

Abbildung 2: Konzeptionelles Modell zum CIO/CEO-Vertrauen


25

6.2 Diskussion der Ergebnisse in einem größeren theoretischen Kon-text

Basierend auf einer Analyse der Transkripte dieser Interviews wurden induktiv drei Fak-

toren abgeleitet: gemeinsame Sprache, Entscheidungsspielraum und Informationsver-

halten. Diese drei Faktoren sind wichtige Konstrukte im Modell zum CIO/CEO-Ver-

trauen (siehe Abbildung 2). Nachfolgend werden diese drei Konstrukte im Zusammen-

hang mit drei bewährten Theorien diskutiert, wodurch die bedeutenden Ergebnisse die-

ser aktuellen Studie in einen größeren theoretischen Kontext gebracht werden. Die ge-

meinsame Sprache wird im Zusammenhang mit der Sozialkapitaltheorie [Nahapiet &

Ghoshal 1998], der CIO Handlungsspielraum im Kontext mit der Selbstbestimmungs-

theorie [Ryan & Deci 2000] und das Informationsverhalten im Zusammenhang mit der

Gatekeeper-Theorie [Barzilai-Nahon 2008] behandelt.

6.2.1 Sozialkapitaltheorie

Der Grundgedanke der Theorie des Sozialkapitals besagt, dass Beziehungsnetzwerke

eine wertvolle Ressource für die Bewältigung sozialer Angelegenheiten darstellen. So-

zialkapital definiert sich daher nach [Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998] als „die Summe der

tatsächlichen und möglichen Ressourcen, die in das Beziehungsnetzwerk eines Indivi-

duums oder einer sozialen Einheit eingebettet, durch dieses zugänglich und von diesem

abgeleitet sind [und] dadurch sowohl das Netzwerk als auch die Vermögenswerte um-

fasst, die durch dieses Netzwerk bereitgestellt werden können“ (S. 243). In ihrem Arti-

kel unterscheiden die Autoren dabei drei Formen des Sozialkapitals: strukturelles Sozi-

alkapital (z. B. Bindungen durch soziale Interaktionen), kognitives Sozialkapital (z. B.

gemeinsame Sprache) und relationales Sozialkapital (z. B. Vertrauen).

Die Interaktion zwischen CIO und CEO stellt eine soziale Aktivität dar. Dadurch ist die

Theorie des Sozialkapitals ein theoretisches Rahmenwerk, durch das diese Interaktion

beleuchtet werden kann. [Wagner et al. 2014] schreiben hierzu, dass „die Theorie des

Sozialkapitals eine nützliche theoretische Grundlage ist, um zu verstehen, wie die Ge-

schäfts- und IT-Ausrichtung funktioniert“ (S. 242). Darüber hinaus weisen [Karahanna

& Preston 2013] darauf hin, dass „es einen Mangel an Studien gibt, die Sozialkapital

zwischen Mitgliedern des Topmanagement-Teams untersuchen“ (S. 18). Die Analyse


26

der Interaktionen zwischen CIO und CEO aus der Perspektive der Theorie des Sozial-

kapitals verspricht damit interessante Erkenntnisse.

Unter Verwendung von Umfragedaten untersuchten [Karahanna & Preston 2013], wie

die drei Dimensionen des Sozialkapitals von [Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998] (strukturelles,

kognitives und relationales Sozialkapital) die wechselseitige Abstimmung der IT-Stra-

tegie und der Geschäftsstrategie einer Organisation beeinflussen. Darüber hinaus wurde

die Hypothese aufgestellt, dass diese Geschäfts- und IT-Ausrichtung als Mediatorvari-

able auf die Beziehung zwischen dem Sozialkapital von CIO und Topmanagement-

Team und der finanziellen Leistung der Organisation wirkt. Die Daten der Studie stütz-

ten die angenommenen Zusammenhänge. In ihren Überlegungen zu den Ergebnissen

schreiben [Karahanna & Preston 2013]: „Die Ergebnisse der Studie erbringen den Nach-

weis dafür, dass die Beziehungen zwischen dem CIO und dem Topmanagement-Team

und im Besonderen das Sozialkapital von Konsequenz für die Wertschöpfung innerhalb

einer Organisation sind und dass die strategische Ausrichtung des Informationssystems

eine Mediatorvariable ist, durch die eben diese Wirkung gezeigt wird“. Dies steht im

Einklang mit der Theorie des Sozialkapitals, die darauf hinweist, dass Wissensintegra-

tion, die sich im gegenständlichen Kontext als strategische Ausrichtung des Informati-

onssystems manifestiert, eine wichtige Variable ist, die zwischen Sozialkapital und den

Unternehmensergebnissen vermittelt. Sozialkapital erleichtert Wissensaustausch und

Wissenszusammenführung, was zu Wissensintegration führt, welche ihrerseits den Un-

ternehmenserfolg beeinflusst (S. 37).

Gemeinsame Sprache wurde zusätzlich zur gemeinsamen Wahrnehmung dazu verwen-

det, um das kognitive Sozialkapital zwischen CIO und Topmanagement-Team zu ope-

rationalisieren. Da die gemeinsame Sprache als „das Ausmaß, in dem CIO und TMT in

ihrer Kommunikation eine gemeinsame Sprache und Terminologie teilen“ (S. 54) defi-

niert wurde, ähnelt diese Dimension dem, was im Modell zum Vertrauen zwischen CIO

und CEO als gemeinsame Sprache bezeichnet wird (siehe Abbildung 2). Ferner wurde

das relationale Sozialkapital zwischen CIO und Topmanagement-Team basierend auf

dem Vertrauen des TMT in den CIO und des Vertrauens des CIO in das TMT operatio-

nalisiert. Die Ergebnisse der Studie von [Karahanna & Preston 2013] weisen darauf hin,


27

dass kognitives Sozialkapital das relationale Sozialkapital positiv beeinflusst. Diese Er-

kenntnis steht in Einklang mit den qualitativen Ergebnissen der vorliegenden Untersu-

chung, da auch hier herausgefunden wurde, dass eine gemeinsame Sprache einen posi-

tiven Einfluss auf das Vertrauen des CEO in den CIO und das Vertrauen des CIO in den

CEO hat (Abbildung 2).

Was sind nun mögliche Erklärungen für diesen Einfluss des kognitiven Sozialkapitals

(gemeinsame Sprache) auf das relationale Sozialkapital (Vertrauen)? Integriert man die

Ergebnisse der Studie mit den theoretischen Überlegungen in [Nahapiet & Ghoshal

1998, S. 253-255] sowie [Karahanna & Preston 2013, S. 22], werden die folgenden Me-

chanismen sichtbar: Sprache ist grundlegend für die Herstellung und das Funktionieren

von sozialen Beziehungen; sie ist das Mittel, durch welches Menschen Nachrichten aus-

tauschen und Fragen stellen. In dem Maße, in dem Menschen daher eine gemeinsame

Sprache haben, einschließlich geteilter Erzählungen wie gemeinsame Geschichten und

Metaphern, fördert dies ihr Potenzial, Beziehungen herzustellen und Zugang zu Infor-

mationen zu erhalten. Darüber hinaus beeinflusst Sprache die Wahrnehmung [Berger &

Luckman 1966].

[Karahanna & Preston 2013] argumentieren, dass „eine gemeinsame Sprache unter den

Mitarbeitern eines Unternehmens ein Gefühl der Vertrautheit entstehen lässt, welches

das Vertrauen zwischen diesen Mitgliedern fördern kann“ (S. 22). Des Weiteren führen

dieselben Autoren an, dass ein Hauptvorteil kognitiven Sozialkapitals die Solidarität

(definiert als „der Grad, in dem Parteien in einer Beziehung ihre persönlichen Bedürf-

nisse den Zielen oder Anliegen der Beziehung unterordnen“) ist. So reduziert eine ge-

meinsame Sprache die Wahrnehmung einer Person, dass sich andere soziale Akteure in

einer Gruppe opportunistisch verhalten (z. B. indem sie Informationen zurückhalten),

wodurch sich das gegenseitige Vertrauen zwischen den Gruppenmitgliedern erhöht.

Dieser Mechanismus kann anhand der Interviewdaten bestätigt werden.

Im Gegensatz zu [Karahanna & Preston 2013] verwendeten [Wagner et al. 2014] die

sozial-kognitive Theorie (Social Cogitive Theory, kurz: SCT), um die Geschäfts- und

IT-Ausrichtung auf operativer anstatt auf strategischer Ebene zu untersuchen.


28

Die Studie von [Wagner et al. 2014] zeigt, dass die Kommunikation an sich (eine Form

von strukturellem Sozialkapital, das basierend auf der Häufigkeit von Meetings gemes-

sen wurde) keine Geschäfts- und IT-Ausrichtung garantiert. Vielmehr wird der Einfluss

von strukturellem Sozialkapital auf die Geschäfts- und IT-Ausrichtung durch kognitives

und relationales Sozialkapital herbeigeführt (diese Erkenntnisse untermauern frühere

Studien, über die [Karahanna & Preston 2013] berichtet haben). [Wagner et al. 2014]

kommentieren dieses Ergebnis wie folgt: Der Effekt von strukturellem Sozialkapital auf

betriebswirtschaftliches Verständnis wird durch kognitives soziales Kapital vermittelt.

Im Wesentlichen bedeutet dies, dass Besprechungen an sich keine positiven Auswirkun-

gen haben, aber dass diese Sitzungen bei der Schaffung und Aufrechterhaltung einer

gemeinsamen Sprache eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Dasselbe Argument gilt für die Be-

ziehungsdimension des Sozialkapitals: Ohne Vertrauen und Offenheit zwischen den

Fachabteilungen und der IT-Abteilung kann kaum ein Beitrag zur Schaffung von ge-

meinsamem Geschäfts- und IT-Verständnis resultieren.

6.2.2 Selbstbestimmungstheorie

Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie ist eine Betrachtungsweise der menschlichen Motivation

und Persönlichkeit, die die Wichtigkeit der Entfaltung der inneren Ressourcen eines

Menschen für die Entwicklung der Persönlichkeit und der Selbststeuerung des Verhal-

tens betont [Ryan et al. 1997]. Gemäß [Ryan & Deci 2000] befasst sich das Gebiet der

Selbstbestimmungstheorie mit der „Erforschung der angeborenen psychologischen Be-

dürfnisse, welche die Grundlage für ihre Eigenmotivation und Persönlichkeitsintegra-

tion sind sowie für die Bedingungen, die diese positiven Prozesse fördern“ (S. 68). Un-

tersuchungen haben dabei drei Bedürfnisse identifiziert, die entscheidend für die Er-

möglichung eines optimalen Funktionierens der natürlichen menschlichen Entwick-

lungstendenzen und Integration sowie für eine konstruktive soziale Entwicklung und

das persönliche Wohlergehen sind, nämlich das Bedürfnis nach Kompetenz, Bezogen-

heit und Eigenständigkeit [Ryan & Deci 2000].

In der vorliegenden Veröffentlichung wird der Fokus auf das Bedürfnis nach Eigenstän-

digkeit gelegt, da dieses in direktem Zusammenhang mit dem Entscheidungsspielraum


29

des CIO steht, welcher einen wichtigen Faktor in diesem Modell darstellt (siehe Abbil-

dung 2). Die Ergebnisse dieser Studie weisen darauf hin, dass das Vertrauen des CEO

in den CIO den Entscheidungsspielraum des CIO positiv beeinflusst, welches sich wie-

derum positiv auf das Vertrauen des CIO in den CEO auswirkt (siehe Abbildung 2). Die

Selbstbestimmungstheorie thematisiert Mechanismen, die dabei helfen, diese Erkennt-

nisse besser zu verstehen und potenzielle Auswirkungen weiter oder enger Entschei-

dungsspielräume zu erkennen.

Motivation betrifft alle Aspekte der Aktivierung und des Willens und ist eine Hauptde-

terminante des menschlichen Verhaltens. Studien unterscheiden dabei zwischen intrin-

sischer und extrinsischer Motivation, wobei erstgenannte sich auf das „Ausführen einer

Aktivität aufgrund der der Tätigkeit selbst innewohnenden Befriedigung“ bezieht, wäh-

rend letztere auf „die Ausführung einer Tätigkeit zur Erreichung eines davon getrennten

Ergebnisses“ fokussiert ist [Ryan & Deci 2000, S. 71]. Vergleiche zwischen Menschen

mit intrinsischer und Menschen mit extrinsischer Motivation haben gezeigt, dass erstere

im Vergleich zu letzteren mehr Interesse, Begeisterung und (Selbst)Vertrauen haben,

was wiederum häufig zu mehr Kreativität, Durchhaltevermögen und einer höheren Leis-

tung führt [Deci & Ryan 1991, Sheldon et al. 1997]. Darüber hinaus konnte gezeigt

werden, dass ein hoher Grad an intrinsischer Motivation zu gesteigerter Vitalität [Nix et

al. 1999], höherem Selbstwertgefühl [Deci & Ryan 1995] und größerem Wohlergehen

[Ryan et al. 1995] führt.

Die Studie zeigt demensprechend erstens, dass der Prinzipal (CEO) dem Agenten (CIO)

nicht nur aufgrund von Informationsdefiziten Entscheidungsspielraum gibt. Der CEO

gibt dem CIO vielmehr Entscheidungsspielraum, um Verantwortung weiterzugeben und

sich selbst von entsprechenden Aufgaben zu entlasten. Interpretiert man die Ergebnisse

dieser Studie aus Sicht der Selbstbestimmungstheorie, so weisen diese zweitens darauf

hin, dass CEOs nicht notwendigerweise Anreize (wie etwa monetäre) benötigen, um das

opportunistische Verhalten von CIOs zu reduzieren. Vielmehr haben Vertrauenssignale

vom CEO an den CIO eine hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit, durch vertrauenswürdiges und da-

mit nicht-opportunistisches Verhaltens seitens der CIO erwidert zu werden. Wichtig ist

dabei, dass ein entscheidendes Vertrauenssignal seitens des CEO darin besteht, dem CIO


30

Entscheidungsspielraum zu gewähren. Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie erklärt, warum

ein solches Signal zu positiven Auswirkungen führen kann.

In diesem Zusammenhang ist es entscheidend, auf Studien hinzuweisen, die gezeigt ha-

ben, dass hohe Arbeitsanforderung in Kombination mit geringem Entscheidungsspiel-

raum häufig zu negativen Wirkungen führt, insbesondere zu psychischer Belastung (ei-

ner besonderen Form von Stress) [siehe Karasek 1979]. Betrachtet man nun die Tatsa-

che, dass IT-Manager und CIOs häufig hohe Arbeitsanforderungen erleben [Moore

2000, Spitze & Lee 2012], dann folgt daraus, dass CEOs ihren CIOs großen Entschei-

dungsspielraum geben sollten, um negative Konsequenzen wie Stress am Arbeitsplatz

zu vermeiden. Darüber hinaus wies [Moore 2000] darauf hin, dass das von IT-Managern

erlebte Fehlen von Eigenständigkeit (gemessen anhand von Punkten wie „Ich bekomme

selten, wenn überhaupt, die Gelegenheit, an Management-Entscheidungen teilzuhaben,

die Aspekte meiner Arbeit signifikant beeinflussen“, S. 166) eine wichtige Vorbedin-

gung für Arbeitsüberanstrengung (eine andere Form von Stress) ist. Wenn man bedenkt,

dass die Forschung eine negative Beziehung zwischen Stress und Vertrauen nachgewie-

sen hat [Ditzen et al. 2009, Takahashi et al. 2005], ist eine wichtige Folgerung für die

Praxis daher, dass – im Verhältnis zu CIOs mit großem Entscheidungsspielraum – CIOs

mit geringem Entscheidungsspielraum aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach höhere Stressle-

vels erleben, was wiederum vermutlich zu einem niedrigeren Maß an Vertrauen in an-

dere Menschen oder in das Unternehmen führt [Deci et al. 1989]. Summa summarum

bedeutet dies, dass eine Nichtbeachtung der negativen Auswirkungen eines geringen

Entscheidungsspielraums Unternehmen schaden kann.

6.2.3 Theorie des Netzwerk-Gatekeeping

Ein weiteres Thema, das genauere Aufmerksamkeit verdient, ist das Informationsver-

halten und sein Zusammenhang mit der Wahrnehmung von Vertrauen. Dabei handelt es

sich bei dieser Interdependenz um eine Tatsache, die durch neuere Feststellungen in den

Veröffentlichungen zum Thema CIO untermauert werden, wenn es dort heißt: „Es ist

wahrscheinlicher, dass unternehmensinterne Akteure mit Individuen, denen sie ver-

trauen, bedeutungsvolle Informationen austauschen, erörtern und sich für Ziele des Un-


31

ternehmens engagieren sowie strategische Partnerschaften eingehen [...]. Vertrauen er-

möglicht damit effizienten Informationsaustausch“ [Karahanna & Preston 2013, S. 24].

Diese Studie hat gezeigt, dass Vertrauen das Informationsverhalten beeinflusst (siehe

Abbildung 2); das Ergebnis der vorliegenden Studie bestätigt damit die Befunde von

[Karahanna & Preston]. Was hierbei jedoch wichtig ist, ist, dass die Daten auch offen-

gelegt haben, dass das Zurückhalten von Informationen als eine spezifische Form des

Informationsverhaltens die Wahrnehmung von Vertrauen negativ beeinflussen kann.

Während die Daten hauptsächlich in Bezug zur Vorenthaltung von Informationen ste-

hen, sind andere Formen des Informationsverhaltens bereits bekannt. Speziell die The-

orie des Netzwerk-Gatekeeping (im Englischen: Network Gatekeeping Theory, kurz:

NGT) [Barzilai-Nahon 2008] beschreibt verschiedene Formen des Informationsverhal-

tens, von denen mehrere eine entscheidende Rolle in den Interaktionen zwischen CIO

und CEO spielen könnten, wodurch sie ebenfalls die Wahrnehmung von Vertrauen und

die daraus folgenden Ergebnismaße wie die Effizienz des CIO, die Geschäfts- und IT-

Ausrichtung oder sogar die Unternehmensleistung beeinflussen.

Im Wesentlichen weist dabei die Netzwerk-Gatekeeping-Theorie darauf hin, dass die

Gatekeeper in Netzwerken (z. B. in Unternehmensnetzwerken) drei Hauptfunktionen

erfüllen: (i) die Verhinderung des Eintritts unerwünschter Informationen von außen, (ii)

die Verhinderung des Austritts von Informationen in die Umwelt, wenn dies für be-

stimmte Mitglieder des Führungszirkels des Netzwerkes von Nachteil wäre, und (iii) die

Kontrolle der Information innerhalb des Netzwerkes. Vorläuferformen der Theorie des

Netzwerk-Gatekeeping [Lewin 1947, 1951, Shoemaker 1991] sind bereits genutzt wor-

den, um Veränderungen in den Interaktionen zwischen Menschen auf der Grundlage des

Zusammenspiels zwischen Macht und Information zu erklären.

Innerhalb der Network-Gatekeeping-Theorie werden viele verschiedene Informations-

verhalten beschrieben, z.B. Auswahl, Darstellung, Manipulation, Wiederholung, Nicht-

beachtung und Löschung von Informationen [Barzilai-Nahon 2008, Abbildung 1, die

eine Liste von 13 Informationsverhalten beschreibt].


32

7 Einschränkungen und zukünftige Forschung Diese Dissertation untersucht wichtige Facetten der CIO/CEO-Beziehung, Kommuni-

kation und insbesondere gegenseitiges Vertrauen. Folgende Limitationen sind insbeson-

dere bei der Betrachtung der Vertrauensergebnisse zu beachten.

Erstens ist die dieser Arbeit zugrundeliegende Stichprobengröße mit N=24 Top-Mana-

gern relativ groß. Dennoch kann eine Stichprobe auf der Basis anderer Informanten zu

unterschiedlichen Ergebnissen führen, möglicherweise bedingt durch kulturelle oder ge-

setzliche Einflüsse. Diese Studie wurde in Österreich durchgeführt und es ist möglich,

dass kulturelle Einflüsse [Preston et al. 2006] oder rechtliche Beschränkungen zu wei-

teren, nicht notwendigerweise widersprüchlichen Ergebnissen führen können.

Zweitens wird betont, dass diese Makro-Perspektive (z.B. auf Länderebene) durch eine

Mikro-Perspektive vervollständigt werden sollte, damit auch die Persönlichkeit des In-

dividuums berücksichtigt wird. Die Forschung deutet darauf hin, dass Vertrauensver-

halten auch von Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen wie Risikoaversion oder Betrugssensibilität

beeinflusst wird [Thielmann & Hilbig 2015]. Daraus folgt, dass zukünftige Studien zum

Vertrauen zwischen CIO und CEO solche Persönlichkeitsmerkmale messen und sie

ebenso mit Vertrauensüberzeugungen und Vertrauensabsichten korrelieren sollten wie

die vertrauensbezogenen Verhaltensweisen (z. B. der Informationsaustausch). Basie-

rend auf dem, was aus früheren Studien bekannt ist [Thielmann & Hilbig 2015], wird

angenommen, dass höhere Grade von Risikoaversion und Betrugssensibilität geringere

Grade von Vertrauensüberzeugungen und Vertrauensabsichten sowie niedrigere Aus-

maße von vertrauensbezogenen Verhaltensweisen vorhersagen.

Drittens wurden die Erkenntnisse aus den Interviews induktiv generalisiert, um ein Mo-

dell für das Vertrauen zwischen CIO und CEO zu entwickeln (siehe Abbildung 2). Eine

alternative methodische Vorgehensweise in Bezug auf die Datenerhebung ist in [Benli-

ans & Haffkes 2016] beschrieben. Diese Untersuchung kann als konzeptionelle Basis

für das Design zukünftiger Studien dienen.

Viertens kann die hier präsentierte Interpretation der Fakten und des daraus resultieren-

den konzeptionellen Modells (siehe Abbildung 2) nicht frei von den – teilweise sogar


33

unbewussten – Vorstellungen der beteiligten Forscher sein. Michael Polanyi (1891–

1976), ein ungarisch-britischer Universalgelehrter, argumentiert in seinem Buch „Per-

sönliches Wissen“, dass Objektivität ein falsches Ideal ist, da alle Wissensansprüche –

zumindest zu einem gewissen Grad – auf persönlichen Urteilen aufbauen [Polanyi

1958]. Ähnliche Gedankengänge können in der Fachliteratur zu Informationssystemen

gefunden werden. [Walsham 2006] schreibt unter Bezugnahme auf den amerikanischen

Anthropologen Clifford Geertz (1926–2006): „Was wir unsere Daten nennen, sind tat-

sächlich unsere eigenen Konstruktionen von den Konstruktionen anderer Leute [hier der

interviewten CEOs und CIOs]“ (S. 320). Wenn man berücksichtigt, dass die vorliegende

Arbeit idiographisch ist, ist es entscheidend, dass zukünftige Studien, sowohl qualitative

als auch quantitative, diese Ergebnisse ergänzen und gegebenenfalls revidieren.

Fünftens wurde in Abschnitt 5 „Methodik“ kurz dargestellt, dass von 40 CIOs, die kon-

taktiert wurden, zwölf zugestimmt haben, als Informanten zu dienen, und dass alle diese

zwölf CIOs mit den CEOs ihrer Unternehmen über die Studie gesprochen und alle diese

zwölf CEOs ebenfalls einer Teilnahme als Informanten zugestimmt haben. Aus diesem

Grund kann angenommen werden, dass die Stichprobe hauptsächlich CIO/CEO-Paare

abbildet, die relativ gute Beziehungen zueinander haben und deren Grad an gegenseiti-

gem Vertrauen folglich verhältnismäßig hoch ist. Eine post-hoc-Analyse der Daten

zeigt, dass diese Annahme korrekt ist. Die Ergebnisse sind daher eventuell nicht auf

CIO/CEO-Paare mit niedrigen Vertrauenslevels anzuwenden (obwohl mehrere Infor-

manten Kommentare zu Vorbedingungen und Konsequenzen niedriger Vertrauenslevels

lieferten). Zukünftige Forschung sollte auf den vorliegenden Ergebnissen zu Kommu-

nikation und Vertrauen zwischen CIOs und CEOs aufbauen, um weitere Erkenntnisse

in diesem Themenfeld zu erarbeiten.

8 Referenzen Al-Taie, M.Z., Lane, M., & Cater-Steel, A. 2014. The Relationship Between Organisational Strategic IT Vision and CIO Roles: One Size Does Not Fit All. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18 (2), 59-89.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. 2008. Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring In-formation Control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (9), 1493-1512.


34

Bashein, B. J., & Markus, M. L. 1997. A credibility equation for IT specialists. Sloan Management Review, 38 (4), 35-44.

Benlian, A., & Haffke, I. 2016. Does mutuality matter? Examining the bilateral nature and effects of CEO-CIO mutual understanding. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, in press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. Penguin Press, London.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. 2011. Business research methods, 3rd edn., Oxford University Press, New York.

Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. CEO relational leadership and strategic decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from failure. Strategic Organiza-tion, 10 (1), 31-54.

Chan, Y.E. Sabherwal, R., & Thatcher J.B. 2006. Antecedents and Outcomes of Strategic IS Alignment: An Empirical Investigation. IEEE Transactions on Enineering Management, 53 (1), 27-47.

Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R.H. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness, and struc-tural design. Management Science, 32 (5), 554-572.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (4), 580-590.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1991. A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (237-288). University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1995. Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (31-49). Plenum, New York.

Dey, I. 1993. Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge, London.

Ditzen, B., Schaer, M., Gabriel, B., Bodenmann, G., Ehlert, U., & Heinrichs, M. 2009. Intranasal oxy-tocin increases positive communication and reduces cortisol levels during couple conflict. Biological Psychiatry, 65, 728-731.

Feeny, D. F., Edwards, B. R., & Simpson, M. K. 1992. Understanding the CEO/CIO relationship. MIS Quarterly, 16 (4), 435-448.

Fehr, E. 2009. On the Economics and Biology of Trust. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7 (2-3), 235-266.

Gerow, J. E., Grover, V., Thatcher, J., & Roth, P. L. Looking toward the future of IT-business strategic alignment hrough the past: A meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 38 (4), 1159-1185.

Gottschalk, P. 1999. Strategic management of IS/IT functions: the role of the CIO in Norwegian organ-isations. Information Management, 19, 389-399.

Guillemette, M. G., & Paré, G. 2012. Toward a new theory of the contribution of the IT function in organizations. MIS Quarterly, 36 (2), 529-551.

Heinrich, L. J.; Riedl, R.; Stelzer, D. 2014. Informationsmanagement - Grundlagen, Aufgaben, Metho-den, 11.

Hütter, A., Arnitz, T., & Riedl, R. 2013. Die CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft als Schlüssel zum IT-Erfolg. HMD – Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik (50), 103-111.


35

Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Ives, B. 1991. Executive Involvement and Participation in the Management of Infor-mation Technology. MIS Quarterly, 15 (2), 211.

Jetu, F. T. & Riedl, R. 2012. Determinants of Information Systems and Information Technology Project Team Success: A Literature Review and a Conceptual Model. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 30, 455-482.

Johnson, A.M. & Lederer, A.L. 2005. The effect of communication frequency and channel richness on the convergence between chief executive and chief information officers. Journal of Management Infor-mation Systems, 22, 227-252.

Johnson, A.M. & Lederer, A.L. 2010. CEO/CIO mutual understanding, strategic alignment, and the contribution of IS to the organization. Information & Management, 47 (3), 138-149.

Jones, G. R. & George, J. M. 1998. The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 531-546.

Karahanna, E. & Preston, D. S. 2013. The effect of social capital of the relationship between the CIO and top management team on firm performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30 (1), 15-55.

Karasek, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job rede-sign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.

Kearns, G.S. & Sabherwal, R. 2006. Strategic Alignment Between Business and Information Technol-ogy: A Knowledge-Based View of Behaviors, Outcome, and Consequences. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23 (3), 129-162.

Kock, N. 2005. Media Richness or Media Naturalness? The Evolution of Our Biological Communica-tion Apparatus and Its Influence on Our Behavior Toward E-Communication Tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48 (2), 117-127.

Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: Channels of group life, social planning and action re-search. Human Relations, 1, 143-153.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harper, New York.

Lind, M.R. & Zmud R.W. 1991. The Influence of a Convergence in Understanding Between Technology Providers and Users on Information Technology Innovativeness. Organization Science 2 (2), 212.

Luftman, J. 2000. Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4 (14), 1-50.

Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and power. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709-734.

McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. 2001. Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In: R. Falcone, M. Singh, & Y.-H. Tan (Eds.): Trust in Cybersocieties, LNAI 2246, Springer, 27-54.

McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. 2002. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13 (3), 334-359.

Moore, J. E. 2000. One road to turnover: An examination of work exhaustion in technology profession-als. MIS Quarterly, 24 (1), 141-168.


36

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-266.

Nelson, K. M. & Cooprider, J. G. 1996. The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20 (4), 409-432.

Nix, G., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. 1999. Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 266-284.

Peppard, J. 2010. Unlocking the performance of the chief information officer (CIO). California Man-agement Review, 52 (4), 73-99.

Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Preston, D. S. & Karahanna, E. 2004. Mechanisms for the Development of Shared Mental Models be-tween the CIO and the Top Management Team. Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), 464-480.

Preston, D. S. & Karahanna, E. 2009. How to develop a shared vision: The key to IS strategic alignment. MIS Quarterly Executive, 8 (1), 1-8.

Preston, D. S., Karahanna, E., 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 com-parison. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53 (2), 191-206.

Preston, D. S., Leidner, D. E., & Chen, D. 2008. CIO leadership profiles: Implications of matching CIO authority and leadership capability on IT impact. MIS Quarterly Executive, 7 (2), 57-69.

Raghunathan, Bh. & Raghunathan, T. S. 1989. Relationship of the rank of information systems execu-tive to the organizational role and planning dimensions of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6 (1), 111-126.

Rau, D. 2005. The Influence of Relationship Conflict and Trust on the Transactive Memory: Perfor-mance Relation in Top Management Teams. Small Group Research, 36 (6), 746-771.

Reich, B.H. & Benbasat, I. 1996. Measuring the Linkage between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 20 (1), 56-58.

Riedl, R. & Javor, A. 2012. The Biology of Trust: Integrating Evidence from Genetics, Endocrinology and Functional Brain Imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 5 (2), 63-91.

Riedl, R., Kobler, M., & Roithmayr, F. 2008. On the Rate of Board Members with IT Responsibilities in Firms Listed on the Stock Exchange: Results of a Content Analysis (Original in German: Zur perso-nellen Verankerung der IT-Funktion im Vorstand börsennotierter Unternehmen: Ergebnisse einer in-haltsanalytischen Betrachtung). Wirtschaftsinformatik, 50 (2), 111-128.

Riedl, R., Mohr, P. N. C., Kenning, P. H., Davis, F. D., & Heekeren, H. R. 2014. Trusting humans and avatars: A brain imaging study based on evolution theory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30 (4), 83-113.

Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, 3, 17.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not So Different After All: A Cross-discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.


37

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. 1995. Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D, J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psycho-pathology: Theory and methods (618-655). Wiley, New York.

Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. 1997. Nature and autonomy: Organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of selfregulation in behavior and development. Development and Psychopathol-ogy, 9, 701-728.

Scott, D. 1980. The causal relationship between trust and the assessed value of management by objec-tives. Journal of Management, 6 (2), 157-175.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. 1997. Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big Five traits and its relations with authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393.

Shoemaker, P. 1991. Gatekeeping. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1), 102-111.

Smaltz, D. H., Sambamurthy, V., & Agarwal, R. 2006. The antecedents of CIO role effectiveness in organizations: An empirical study in the healthcare sector. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-ment, 53 (2), 207-222.

Spitze, J. M. & Lee, J. J. 2012. The renaissance CIO project: The invisible factors of extraordinary success. California Management Review, 54 (2), 72-91.

Stemberger, M. I., Manfreda, A., & Kovacic, A. 2011. Achieving top management support with business knowledge and role of IT/IS personnel. International Journal of Information Management, 31 (5), 428-436.

Takahashi, T., Ikeda, K., Ishikawa, M., Kitamura, N., Tsukasaki, T., Nakama, D., & Kameda, T. 2005. Interpersonal trust and social stress-induced cortisol elevation. Neuroreport, 16, 197-199.

Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. 2015. Trust: An integrative review from a person-situation perspective. Review of General Psychology, 19 (3), 249-277.

Wagner, H.-T., Beimborn, D., & Weitzel, T. 2014. How social capital among information technology and business units drives operational alignment and IT business value. Journal of Management Infor-mation Systems, 31 (1), 241-271.

Wagner, H.-T., & Weitzel, T. 2012. How to achieve operational business-IT alignment: Insights from a global aerospace firm. MIS Quarterly Executive, 11 (1), 25-36.

Walsham, G. 2006. Doing Interpretive Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (3), 320-330.

Wehrlin, U. 2012. Management by Objectives (MBO). Munich: AVM.

Wilson, T. D. 2010. Information Sharing: An Exploration of the Literature and Some Propositions. In-formation Research, 15 (4).


38

Lebenslauf

Persönliche Daten

Geburtsdatum: 12. April 1983

Geburtsort: Vöcklabruck

Staatsbürgerschaft: Österreich

Familienstand: verheiratet

Bekenntnis: röm.-kath.

Eltern: Dipl.-Ing. Werner Arnitz (67): pensioniert, zuvor CIO

Lenzing AG, Agnes Arnitz (54): Hausfrau

Geschwister: OA Dr. Roland Arnitz (39): Wissenschaftler am Universitätsklini-

kum Innsbruck und Oberarzt im Landeskrankenhaus Vöcklabruck

Ausbildung

1989 – 1993 Volksschule Schörfling am Attersee

1993 – 2001 Bundesgymnasium Vöcklabruck

2002 – 2008 Studium der Wirtschaftsinformatik an der Universität Linz mit Spe-

zialisierung auf Controlling, Information Engineering & Manage-

ment (Data Warehousing/Data Mining) und Volkswirtschaftslehre

Berufserfahrung und Ferialjobs

2003 Ferialjob in der IT-Abteilung der Lenzing AG

2004 Ferialjob in der IT-Abteilung der Lenzing AG

2005 6-monatiges Engagement als Junior Consultant bei Standard IT So-

lutions in Pasching (Microsoft Dynamics AX)

seit 2006 Unternehmer im Bereich Webdesign & IT-Consulting

www.mywebsolution.at

seit Juni 2007 Gründer und Geschäftsführer Ligaportal GmbH

2009 Gründung des Unternehmens www.2befit.at (Verkauf 2014)

2009 - 2011 IBM Linz, freier Dienstnehmer (Projekt: Österreichweite Analyse

der ERP-Landschaft in mittelständischen Unternehmen)

Präsenzdienst

11/2001 – 06/2002 Kaserne Kirchdorf


39

Kenntnisse

- Sprachen: Englisch (in Wort und Schrift)

- Projektmanagement

- Methodisches und analytisches Vorgehen

- Führungskompetenzen

- IT-Know-how (Java, Oracle, MySql, HTML, CMS Joomla)

- Programme: Microsoft Office, Powerpoint, Visio, Photoshop, UML-Werkzeuge

Hobbies

- Fußball

- Tennis

- Klavier

HMD 293 103

Alexander Hütter, Thomas Arnitz, René Riedl

Die CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft als Schlüssel zum IT-Erfolg

Trotz hoher IT-Investitionen in Informations- undKommunikationstechnologien gelingt es vielenUnternehmen nicht, ihre damit gesetzten Zielezu erreichen. Eine wesentliche Ursache für diesesScheitern liegt in einer eingeschränkt funktionie-renden oder überhaupt fehlenden strategischenPartnerschaft zwischen dem Chief InformationOfficer (CIO) und Chief Executive Officer (CEO). InAnbetracht dieser aus IT-Sicht und Topmanage-mentsicht unbefriedigenden Situation werdenim vorliegenden Beitrag Empfehlungen für CIOsund CEOs gegeben, wie diese eine strategischePartnerschaft entwickeln und etablieren kön-nen. Dazu gehören insbesondere der Aufbau ei-ner IT-Vision, regelmäßige Kommunikation sowiedie Schaffung von Vertrauen.

Inhaltsübersicht

1 Notwendigkeit einer CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft2 Konzeptionelles Modell

2.1 IT- und Geschäftswissen2.2 Kommunikation zwischen CIO und CEO2.3 Gemeinsame IT-Vision2.4 Vertrauensbasis zwischen CIO und CEO2.5 Indirekte Einflussfaktoren

3 Entwicklung einer CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft3.1 Implikationen für den CIO3.2 Implikationen für den CEO

4 Weiterentwicklung des Modells5 Literatur

1 Notwendigkeit einer CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft

Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologi-en können die Leistungsfähigkeit von Unter-nehmen verbessern und dadurch ihre Wettbe-werbsposition stärken. Diesem Umstand fol-gend investieren viele Unternehmen einen

beachtlichen Teil ihrer Ressourcen in die IT,schaffen es aber oftmals nicht, ihre damit ge-setzten Ziele zu erreichen. Ein wesentlicherGrund für dieses Scheitern ist eine nicht ausrei-chend gut funktionierende oder überhauptnicht existierende strategische Partnerschaftzwischen dem Chief Information Officer (CIO)und Chief Executive Officer (CEO) [Johnson &Lederer 2010]. Der CIO wird als höchstrangigePerson mit IT-Verantwortung in einem Unter-nehmen definiert, die Mitglied des Vorstandssein kann [Riedl et al. 2008]; der CEO wird alsVorstandsvorsitzender definiert. CIOs und CEOserkennen zwar zumeist die Notwendigkeit ei-ner Partnerschaft, insbesondere als Grundlageeiner vertrauensvollen Zusammenarbeit, ver-stehen aber oftmals nicht, welche Faktoren denErfolg einer solchen Partnerschaft günstig be-einflussen.

Seit mehr als drei Jahrzehnten wird in derWissenschaft die CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft disku-tiert. Ein Befund vieler Studien ist, dass eine ver-trauensvolle Partnerschaft wichtig ist, um diePotenziale der IT in einem Unternehmen vollausschöpfen zu können [Smaltz et al. 2006]. DiePartnerschaft kann ein gemeinsames Verständ-nis zwischen CIO und CEO bezüglich der Rolleder IT im Unternehmen schaffen und dadurchdie Ausrichtung der IT-Strategie an der Ge-schäftsstrategie erleichtern. Diese Ausrichtungist eine bedeutsame Determinante für den Er-folg von IT-Investitionen und hat somit wesent-lichen Einfluss auf den Geschäftserfolg, einUmstand, der für große wie kleine Unterneh-men gleichermaßen gilt [Preston & Karahanna2009]. Auch in der Praxis wird die Kultivierungeiner CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft als eine der wich-tigsten Aufgaben von CIOs angesehen. So lau-tet beispielsweise ein Befund einer Umfrage

CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft

104 HMD 293

zum »State of the CIO 2013«, bei der 563 IT-Füh-rungskräfte befragt wurden, dass die Kultivie-rung der IT-/Geschäftspartnerschaft 45 % ihrerZeit und Aufmerksamkeit beansprucht [cio.com2013].

Viele Studien, die sich explizit mit der CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft beschäftigen, wurden imangloamerikanischen Raum durchgeführt.Nach Kenntnis der Autoren wurde die CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft im deutschen Sprachraum bisherkaum wissenschaftlich erforscht. Ein möglicherGrund für dieses Forschungsdefizit könnte dieSchwierigkeit sein, befriedigende Rücklaufquo-ten bei schriftlichen Befragungen von CIOs undCEOs zu erzielen (vgl. dazu Erkenntnisse aus derangloamerikanischen Fachliteratur wie z. B.[Enns et al. 2003]). Dabei sind wissenschaftlichfundierte Aussagen zur CIO/CEO-Partnerschaftgerade für die Praxis relevant. CIOs können bei-spielsweise die Partnerschaft nutzen, um ge-meinsam mit dem CEO eine zukunftsreiche IT-Vision zu entwickeln, Zustimmung zu strategi-schen IT-Projekten zu gewinnen und IT-Agen-den gezielter zu diskutieren. CEOs können hin-gegen die Partnerschaft nutzen, um IT-Projektezu forcieren sowie Höhe und Zeitpunkt von IT-Investitionen optimal zu veranschlagen, um da-durch eine hohe Investitionsrentabilität zu erzielen.

2 Konzeptionelles Modell

Das konzeptionelle Modell beschreibt einenWeg, wie der CIO und der CEO eine strategischePartnerschaft entwickeln können (vgl. Abb. 1).Dabei zeigt das Modell einerseits, dass der CIOdie IT nicht ohne Unterstützung des CEO ge-winnbringend etablieren kann, und anderer-seits, dass der CEO alleine die Potenziale der ITnicht wirksam nutzen kann. IT-Erfolge (z.B. Ver-kürzung der Durchlaufzeiten von Geschäftspro-zessen, Steigerung des Automatisierungsgradsvon betrieblichen Abläufen, Innovationen durchIT) spiegeln im Allgemeinen eine Partnerschaftzwischen dem CIO und dem CEO wider [Chen &

Wu 2011]. Die Grundlage für die Entwicklungdes Modells bildeten Peer-Review-Publikatio-nen aus drei Jahrzehnten Informationssystem-forschung (vgl. dazu z. B. die zitierte Literaturvon [Peppard 2010]). In diesen Publikationenwurden verteilte Einzelbefunde im Hinblick aufeine CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft untersucht und zueinem bisher nicht existierenden und somitneuen Gesamtmodell kombiniert.

CIO und CEO können mit dem Austausch ih-res IT- und Geschäftswissens und regelmäßigerKommunikation eine gemeinsame IT-Visionaufbauen und dadurch eine Vertrauensbasisschaffen. Durch diese Vertrauensbasis etablie-ren beide Führungskräfte eine Partnerschaft,die die Kenntnisse, Fähigkeiten und Perspekti-ven vereint, um das Unternehmen zum IT-Erfolgzu führen. Als indirekte Einflussfaktoren auf diePartnerschaft wirken beim CIO die Position inder Organisationshierarchie und die Berichter-stattungsstruktur; beim CEO wirken die Erwar-tungen an die IT sowie an den CIO. Diese Ein-flussfaktoren können jeweils durch die andereFührungskraft mit den dargestellten Maßnah-men beeinflusst werden.

2.1 IT- und Geschäftswissen

Unternehmen verfügen idealtypisch über IT-kompetente Topmanager, insbesondere einenIT-kompetenten CEO. Gerade die IT-Kenntnisseder Topmanager beeinflussen wesentliche Er-folgsfaktoren wie die Erwartungen der Topma-nager an die IT, die Beteiligung der Topmanageran IT-Entscheidungsprozessen sowie denBeitrag der IT zur Unternehmensstrategie[Peppard 2010]. Wenn der CEO mehr über dieErfolgspotenziale der IT weiß, ist eine wesentli-che Voraussetzung dafür geschaffen, die IT en-ger mit den Geschäftsabläufen zu verknüpfen,wodurch die IT auch eher bei der Strategiepla-nung berücksichtigt wird. Dies ist ein Umstand,der sich auch positiv auf das Ausmaß an IT-Innovationen im Unternehmen auswirken kann.


HMD 293 105

Umgekehrt dürfen sich CIOs nicht nur auf ihreIT-Kenntnisse verlassen, sondern sollten sichauch betriebswirtschaftliche Kompetenzen an-eignen. Insbesondere die Einbindung des CIO inverschiedene Funktionsbereiche erfordert einbreites Spektrum an technischem und betriebs-wirtschaftlichem Wissen, um dadurch die Po-tenziale der IT im Unternehmen erkennen undausschöpfen zu können [Smaltz et al. 2006].Der direkte Zugriff auf ein umfangreiches Netz-werk aus Kollegen, Mitarbeitern und Beraternerleichtert es dem CIO, sich dieses spezifischeWissen anzueignen.

CIOs mit einer Kombination aus IT-Kompe-tenzen (z.B. IT-Infrastruktur, IT-Integration undGeschäftsanwendungen) und Management-kompetenzen (z. B. betriebswirtschaftlichesFachwissen sowie soziale Kompetenz) könnendie Assimilation der IT in den Geschäftsstrategi-en und Aktivitäten rund um die Wertschöp-fungskette verbessern [Chen & Wu 2011]. Ver-stehen CIOs die strategischen und geschäftli-chen Zusammenhänge des Unternehmens underkennen sie, wie sie die IT darin integrierenkönnen, dann sind CIOs eher in der Lage, den

CEO und die anderen Topmanager über geeig-nete Technologien zu beraten und dadurch eineinheitliches Verständnis über die Potenzialeder IT im Unternehmen aufzubauen.

2.2 Kommunikation zwischen CIO und CEO

Um CEOs vom möglichen Erfolg durch IT-Verän-derungen zu überzeugen, müssen CIOs ange-messen und effektiv kommunizieren. CIOs soll-ten daher über eine ausgeprägte Kommunika-tionskompetenz verfügen, nämlich in Form vonWissen Was (Wissen über den zu kommunizie-renden Gegenstand und den entsprechendenKontext), Wissen Wie (Wissen darüber, wie manangemessen und effektiv kommuniziert) undWissen Warum (Wissen über die Motivationen,warum Menschen kommunizieren) [Johnson& Lederer 2005].

Häufig berichten Topmanager jedoch, dassihren CIOs die Fähigkeit fehlt, Probleme undWertversprechen der IT in einer verständlichenTerminologie zu erklären. Das bedeutet, dassCIOs dazu neigen, bei Erklärungen eine techni-sche Fachsprache zu verwenden, die außerhalbdes IT-Bereichs teilweise nur schwierig zu ver-

Schulung und Weiterbildungsmaßnahmen

Anpassung der organisatorischen Rahmenbedingungen

Strategische


IT-Erfolg

IT- und Geschäftswissen

Kommunikation

Vertrauensbasis

Gemeinsame IT-Vision

• Erwartungen an die IT • Erwartungen an den CIO

• Position in der Hierarchie • Berichterstattungsstruktur

CEOCIO

Abb. 1: Konzeptionelles Modell zur strategischen CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft


106 HMD 293

stehen ist. Ein Umstand, der die Fähigkeit vonCIOs mindert, effektiv mit dem CEO und ande-ren Topmanagern an den strategischen Zielenzu arbeiten [Watts & Henderson 2006]. Daheragieren CIOs, die kompetent und verständlichkommunizieren, effektiver in ihrer Rolle als CIOund werden eher als fähige Führungskraft an-gesehen.

Ein Mangel an Kommunikation zwischenCIO und CEO kann dazu führen, dass einerseitsder CEO nicht versteht, in welchem Ausmaß derCIO zum Unternehmenserfolg beitragen will,und andererseits, dass sich der CIO nicht be-wusst ist, was der CEO von ihm erwartet. ZurLösung dieses Problems können sowohl der CIOals auch der CEO beitragen, indem beide Füh-rungskräfte auf einer persönlichen Ebene versu-chen, die gegenwärtige und zukünftige Rolleder IT bei der Erfüllung der Geschäftsziele offenund direkt zu kommunizieren.

2.3 Gemeinsame IT-Vision

Der Aufbau einer gemeinsamen IT-Vision zwi-schen CIO und CEO zählt zu den wichtigstenErfolgsfaktoren von CIOs. Basierend auf einergemeinsamen IT-Vision kann der CIO die strate-gischen IT-Pläne besser mit den Unternehmens-zielen verknüpfen und dadurch den Beitrag derIT zum Geschäftserfolg verbessern [Johnson &Lederer 2010]. Die Implementierung einer sol-chen IT-Vision ist ein langfristiger Prozess, fürden sich der CIO ausreichend Zeit nehmen soll-te, insbesondere wenn sich der CEO bislang denMöglichkeiten der IT im Unternehmen nur un-zureichend gewidmet hat. Gerade die Sichtwei-se des CEO auf die Rolle der IT im Unternehmenbeeinflusst die Bemühungen des CIO, eine rea-listische IT-Vision zu definieren.

Um eine gemeinsame IT-Vision aufzubau-en, können CIOs auf mehrere pädagogischeMaßnahmen zurückgreifen, beispielsweise dieOrganisation von Seminaren und Workshops,um das IT-Wissen der Topmanager – aufstrategisch-administrativem Niveau – zu schu-len. Dadurch erhalten Topmanager Einblicke in

aufstrebende Technologien sowie in die Mög-lichkeiten zu deren organisationsinternen Im-plementierung, was einen positiven Einfluss aufdie Entwicklung realistischer Erwartungen beiden Topmanagern hinsichtlich der Erfolgspo-tenziale der IT hat [Preston & Karahanna 2009].Zudem können regelmäßige Präsentationenüber aktuelle IT-Themen und die Einbeziehungdes CEO in IT-Aktivitäten (z.B. um persönlicheErfahrung mit erfolgreichen IT-Projekten zusammeln) die gemeinsame IT-Wahrnehmungstärken. Auf Managementseite sollte der CEOden CIO in wirtschaftliche Planungs- und Ent-scheidungsprozesse einbeziehen, insbesonderedeshalb, weil damit sichergestellt wird, dass diegesetzten Maßnahmen auch mit der IT-Visionharmonieren [Štemberger et al. 2011].

Eine erfolgreiche CIO/CEO-Partnerschaftkann daher meist nur dann entstehen, wennbeide Akteure eine zumindest ähnliche IT-Visi-on haben. Dies bestätigt die Bedeutung der Be-mühungen des CIO, ein gemeinsames Ver-ständnis mit dem CEO über die mögliche Rolleder IT im Unternehmen zu etablieren und zukultivieren, sowie die Bedeutung der Bemühun-gen des CEO, die Rolle der IT im Unternehmenzu akzentuieren.

2.4 Vertrauensbasis zwischen CIO und CEO

Vertrauen ist ein wesentlicher Erfolgsfaktor fürden CIO, um die Zustimmung für strategischeIT-Projekte zu erhalten. CEOs ohne technischenHintergrund verstehen oftmals nicht viel vonder IT und wollen deshalb eine zuverlässige IT-Führungskraft, der sie vertrauen können. Einesolide Vertrauensbasis mit dem CEO hebt denEinfluss des CIO bei IT-relevanten Entscheidun-gen im Topmanagement, wodurch der CIO stra-tegische IT-Projekte zielgerichteter planen undabwickeln kann, um so den Wirkungsgrad der ITerhöhen zu können [Kaarst-Brown 2005].

Zu der Vertrauensbasis können sowohl derCIO als auch der CEO beitragen, indem beideFührungskräfte versuchen, regelmäßig persön-liche Treffen zu installieren (z.B. einmal in der


HMD 293 107

Woche, zumindest jedoch mehrmals im Mo-nat), in denen sie gemeinsam an IT-Agenden ar-beiten. Ebenso kann die Teilnahme des CEO anden vom CIO initialisierten IT-Bildungsinitiati-ven zur Entwicklung einer Vertrauensbasis bei-tragen, indem der CEO den CIO durch seine Be-mühungen, ein einheitliches Verständnis vonder Rolle der IT im Unternehmen zu schaffen,verstärkt als effektive Führungskraft wahr-nimmt [Peppard 2010].

Die kontinuierliche Erfüllung der gesetztenUnternehmensziele und -visionen mithilfe stra-tegischer IT-Initiativen kann das Ausmaß an ge-genseitigem Vertrauen auch nachhaltig erhö-hen [Enns et al. 2003]. Zudem fördert eine soli-de IT-Erfolgsbilanz das Ansehen und dieGlaubwürdigkeit von CIOs, wenn sie mit demCEO ihre Agenden verhandeln. Voraussetzungfür den Vertrauensgewinn ist aber, dass die ge-steigerten Leistungen der IT-Funktion nicht zu-lasten der anderen Abteilungen im Unterneh-men gehen (z.B. sinkende IT-Kosten aufgrundreduzierter Service Levels und damit einherge-hende Unzufriedenheit der Benutzer).

2.5 Indirekte Einflussfaktoren

Position des CIO innerhalb der

Organisationshierarchie

Eine formale Mitgliedschaft im Topmanage-ment bietet dem CIO die Möglichkeit für offizi-elle Interaktionen mit den anderen Managern.Dadurch kann der CIO ein besseres Verständnisüber die Geschäftspraktiken, Ziele und Visionendes Unternehmens aufbauen [Johnson & Lederer2005]. Umgekehrt schafft die CIO-Präsenz imTopmanagement auch ein potenzielles Forumfür Manager, ein besseres Verständnis über dieRolle der IT bei der Unterstützung der Ge-schäftsprozesse sowie der Unternehmensstra-tegie aufzubauen. Daraus abgeleitet sollten CIOund CEO ein besseres Verständnis von den je-weils anderen Prioritäten haben und verstehen,wie die IT zu diesen Zielen passt, um dadurch denGrundstein für eine Partnerschaft zu legen.

Berichterstattungsstruktur des CIO

Die Festlegung der CIO-Berichterstattungs-struktur ist eine wichtige Entscheidung, die dasTopmanagement treffen muss, denn eineungeeignete Berichterstattungsstruktur er-schwert die Arbeit des CIO. Dabei ist eine direk-te CIO-Berichterstattung an den CEO nicht füralle Unternehmen optimal. Vielmehr sollte diestrategische Positionierung des Unternehmensdie primäre Determinante für die CIO-Bericht-erstattungsstruktur sein (z.B. berichtet bei einerDifferenzierungsstrategie der CIO an den CEO,bei Kostenführerschaftsstrategie der CIO anden Chief Financial Officer) [Kaarst-Brown2005]. Die Folge daraus kann ein gesteigerterLeistungsgrad der IT-Funktion sein, vorausge-setzt die Führungskraft, an die der CIO berich-tet, glaubt an die Bedeutung der IT für das Un-ternehmen.

CEO-Erwartungen an die IT

Ein häufiges Problem, mit dem CIOs konfron-tiert sind, ist, dass die Mitglieder des Topma-nagements oftmals die Möglichkeiten der ITmissverstehen oder teilweise überhaupt nichtverstehen [Štemberger et al. 2011]. Einige Top-manager überschätzen die Möglichkeiten derIT, während andere nicht wissen, wie die IT ver-wendet werden kann, um die Geschäftsziele zuunterstützen. Solche Missverständnisse sindbeim Aufbau einer Partnerschaft hinderlich.CIOs müssen deshalb ihren CEO bezüglich derMöglichkeiten der IT schulen und seine Erwar-tungen an die IT mit den eigenen harmonisie-ren, um ein gemeinsames Verständnis von derIT zu schaffen.

CEO-Erwartungen an den CIO

Die IT-Kenntnisse der Topmanager beeinflussenauch die Erwartungen, die an die Rolle des CIOgeknüpft sind. Haben die Topmanager, beson-ders der CEO, unrealistische oder unklare Vor-stellungen von der Rolle des CIO, so wird der CIOin seiner Arbeit erheblichen Problemen begeg-nen und – noch entscheidender – in seinen Be-


108 HMD 293

mühungen gehindert sein, den Wert von IT-Ini-tiativen zu erhöhen [Smaltz et al. 2006]. DerCIO ist daher gefordert, Klarheit über die Erwar-tungen an seine Rolle als Führungskraft herzu-stellen. Denn diese Erwartungen bestimmenletztendlich, in welchem Umfang sich der CEOund die anderen Manager mit IT-Agenden aus-einandersetzen.

3 Entwicklung einer CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft

Die steigende Komplexität der IT-Agenden er-fordert zunehmend eine Partnerschaft, die dietechnisch-orientierten Kenntnisse, Fähigkeitenund Perspektiven des CIO sowie die betriebli-chen Kenntnisse, Fähigkeiten und Perspektivendes CEO vereint. Wie CIOs und CEOs diese Part-nerschaft entwickeln können, wird nachfolgendfür den CIO und CEO erläutert.

3.1 Implikationen für den CIO

CIOs sollten sich, sofern nicht ausreichend vor-handen, relevantes IT- und Geschäftswissen an-eignen, um angemessene Entscheidungen überIT-Investitionen treffen zu können und auch umneue Marktchancen mit der passenden Techno-logie verknüpfen zu können. Das nötige Ge-schäftswissen hierfür können sich CIOs durchregelmäßige persönliche Kommunikation mitdem CEO und den anderen Topmanagern an-eignen. Dabei sollte der CIO Fragen stellen undversuchen, die wirtschaftlichen Perspektivenund Ziele des Unternehmens besser kennenzu-lernen. Wichtig bei jeglicher Kommunikationmit dem Topmanagement ist, dass der CIOtechnische Fachbegriffe vermeidet, die die Ma-nager möglichweise nicht richtig verstehen. Zu-dem sollte der CIO IT-Probleme verständlich ar-tikulieren und IT-Wertversprechen aus betriebs-wirtschaftlicher Sicht formulieren.

CIOs, die wirksam kommunizieren, sind ef-fektiver in ihren Bemühungen, eine gemeinsa-me IT-Vision zu definieren. Der Aufbau einer IT-Vision ist ein zeitintensiver Prozess, für den der

CIO ein angemessenes Arbeitspensum veran-schlagen sollte, da eine solche Vision den Bei-trag der IT zum Geschäftserfolg erhöhen kann[Johnson & Lederer 2010]. Einige pädagogischeMaßnahmen haben sich hierfür besonders be-währt, insbesondere die Organisation von Se-minaren und Workshops, um die Topmanagerbezüglich der Möglichkeiten der IT zu schulen,den Topmanagern einen realistischen Blick indie Geschäftspotenziale der IT zu bieten undauch die Erwartungen der Topmanager hin-sichtlich der IT realistisch zu definieren [Preston &Karahanna 2009]. Je mehr der CEO und dieanderen Topmanager die IT verstehen, destoeher ist der CIO in der Lage, die Wertvorstellun-gen gegenüber den IT-Investitionen in einersachlichen Weise zu lenken und Innovation zufördern.

Durch die Bemühungen, eine erfolgreicheIT-Vision zu formulieren, wird der CIO verstärktals effektive Führungskraft durch das Topma-nagement wahrgenommen, was sich positivauf die Vertrauensbasis mit dem CEO auswir-ken kann. Des Weiteren sollte der CIO versu-chen, regelmäßige Treffen mit dem CEO zu eta-blieren, um auf persönlicher Ebene IT-Themenzu diskutieren und zukünftige strategische IT-Projekte abzustimmen. Die Unterstützung vonsolchen IT-Projekten durch den CEO ist ent-scheidend, damit der CIO diese Projekte erfolg-reich planen und realisieren kann, wodurchgegenseitiges Vertrauen und wechselseitigerEinfluss zwischen beiden Führungskräften ge-schaffen wird [Enns et al. 2003].

Wenn das Topmanagement es verabsäumt,ein geeignetes Arbeitsumfeld für den CIO zuimplementieren (z.B. formale Mitgliedschaft imTopmanagement und/oder direkte Berichter-stattung an einen Topmanager), kann dies dieMöglichkeiten des CIO limitieren, eine Partner-schaft mit dem CEO aufzubauen. Besondersproblematisch ist es für den CIO, wenn dieserkeinen persönlichen Zugang zum Topmanage-ment hat und ausschließlich über andere Füh-rungskräfte oder Berater mit dem CEO kommu-


HMD 293 109

nizieren kann. In diesem Fall sollte der CIO denjeweiligen Kommunikationspartner ausführlichüber die aktuellen IT-Agenden informieren unddazu motivieren, qualitativ hochwertig demCEO Nachrichten zu übermitteln; dies ermög-licht dann zumindest eine indirekte Kommuni-kation.

Eine selbstständige Umstrukturierung desArbeitsumfelds durch den CIO liegt meist au-ßerhalb seines Kompetenzbereichs. Sind keineOrganisationsänderungen in Sicht, sollte derCIO die bestehende Struktur akzeptieren undversuchen, an Topmanagement-Meetings teil-zunehmen, um so IT-Agenden einzubringenund Zugang zu Informationen zu haben, die fürdie erfolgreiche Umsetzung der IT-Strategiemaßgeblich sind.

3.2 Implikationen für den CEO

Der CEO, aber auch andere Topmanager, sindoftmals mit dem Wert, den sie hinsichtlich IT-In-vestitionen wahrnehmen, unzufrieden. Ein we-sentlicher Grund hierfür ist, dass der CEO unddie anderen Topmanager die Möglichkeiten derIT missverstehen, überhaupt nicht verstehenund/oder sich nicht bewusst sind, wie die IT dieunternehmerischen Ziele unterstützen kann.Dieser Mangel an IT-Wissen kann die Ausrich-tung zwischen der IT- und Geschäftsstrategiehemmen und somit den Beitrag der IT zum Ge-schäftserfolg reduzieren [Watts &Henderson 2006]. Daher sollte der CEO be-strebt sein, sich entsprechende IT-Kenntnisseanzueignen und sich mit den Möglichkeiten derIT vertraut zu machen.

Regelmäßige Kommunikation mit dem CIOkann dem CEO einen besseren Einblick in dietechnologischen Möglichkeiten geben und dasVerständnis des CEO über die Geschäftspoten-ziale der IT fördern. Zudem kann die Kommuni-kation mit dem CIO den CEO bei der Auf-deckung neuer Wege unterstützen, um die IT alsbedeutsame Kompetenzeinheit im Unterneh-men weiter zu stärken. Umgekehrt sollte derCEO aber auch die Anforderungen, Ziele und

Perspektiven des Unternehmens klar und direktan den CIO kommunizieren, damit dieser effek-tiver an einer gemeinsamen und innovativen IT-Vision arbeiten kann.

Die Entwicklung einer gemeinsamen IT-Vision obliegt zwar meist dem CIO, dennoch istdie Teilnahme des CEO an den Bildungsinitiati-ven des CIO (z.B. in Seminaren und Workshops)zu aktuellen IT-Themen eine wichtige Voraus-setzung, um eine kongruente Wahrnehmungvon der Rolle der IT im Unternehmen zu schaf-fen. Diese Bildungsinitiativen sind zudem eineeffektive Plattform für beide Führungskräfte(CIO und CEO), um gemeinsam an der Rolle derIT im Unternehmen zu arbeiten.

Die Schaffung einer Vertrauensbasis ist eineherausfordernde Tätigkeit, bei der der CEO denCIO aktiv unterstützen sollte. Als einen erstenSchritt kann der CEO den CIO zu den Topma-nagement-Meetings einladen, um dem CIO dieMöglichkeit zu bieten, sich mit den anderenManagern auszutauschen und Kontakte aufzu-bauen. Durch diese Kontakte kann der CIO bes-sere Beziehungen zu den anderen Managernaufbauen und dadurch IT-Projekte erfolgreicherabwickeln [Chen & Wu 2011]. Davon profitiertauch der CEO, indem er die anderen Topmana-ger eher für weitere strategische IT-Projekte ge-winnen kann.

Trotz der Bedeutung der IT für Unterneh-men sind viele CIOs immer noch nicht formalals Mitglied im Topmanagement verankert[Riedl et al. 2008]; ein Umstand, der es dem CIOerschweren kann, eine Partnerschaft mit demCEO aufzubauen. Der CEO sollte daher den CIOformal, zumindest jedoch informell (z.B. durchEinladung zu Vorstandssitzungen), in das Top-management integrieren und/oder eine ge-eignete CIO-Berichterstattungsstruktur imple-mentieren (z.B. durch direkte Berichterstattungan den CEO), sodass IT-Agenden Bestandteil vonTopmanagement-Meetings sind und der CIOdie Möglichkeit zur Interaktion mit anderenManagern hat. Bedeutsam ist jedoch, dass derCEO erkennt, dass der bloße Umstand, eine IT-


110 HMD 293

Führungskraft in das Topmanagement zu he-ben und den Titel »Chief Information Officer«zu vergeben, keinen Erfolg durch die IT garan-tiert. Die Rolle des CIO muss innerhalb des Top-managements klar verstanden und definiertsein, weil damit eine wesentliche Vorausset-zung geschaffen wäre, Geschäftserfolg durchdie IT herbeizuführen.

4 Weiterentwicklung des Modells

Erreichen Unternehmen ihre geplanten Zielenicht und/oder bleibt die Leistung unter den Er-wartungen, so kann die Ursache hierfür bei ei-nem oder mehreren der vier Erfolgsfaktoren zurstrategischen CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft liegen(vgl. Abb. 1, Mitte). Beachtet werden müssenaber auch die vier indirekten Faktoren im Mo-dell, die womöglich einen ungünstigen Einflussauf die Bemühungen von CIO und CEO ausübenkönnen, eine Partnerschaft aufzubauen und diedaraus resultierenden Erfolge zu erzielen (z.B.dann, wenn der CIO keinen persönlichen Zu-gang zum CEO hat und daher der Informations-austausch begrenzt ist).

Das hier vorgestellte Modell versteht sichals erster Ansatz, um eine erfolgreiche Partner-schaft zwischen CIO und CEO sowie deren Aus-wirkung auf den nachgelagerten IT- und Unter-nehmenserfolg zu erklären. In einem nächstenSchritt könnten in das Modell weitere Faktorenhinzugefügt werden (wie z.B. die Führungsqua-lität von CIO und CEO); oder die bereits im Mo-dell dargestellten Faktoren könnten weiter indie Tiefe gehend erforscht werden. Beispiels-weise könnte das Vertrauen zwischen CIO undCEO anhand einschlägiger Fachliteratur genau-er spezifiziert werden, in der beispielsweiseKompetenz, Wohlwollen und Integrität als dieVertrauenswürdigkeit determinierenden Fakto-ren beschrieben werden [Mayer et al. 1995].Diesbezüglich könnte untersucht werden, wel-cher der drei Faktoren einen höheren Einflussdarauf hat, ob die jeweils andere Führungskraftals besonders vertrauenswürdig wahrgenom-

men wird und ob solche möglichen Unterschie-de einen Einfluss auf andere Faktoren haben(z. B. welche Berichterstattungsstruktur ge-wählt wird).

Der grundlegenden Bedeutung einer Part-nerschaft der IT mit der Geschäftsleitung bzw.den Geschäftsbereichen sind sich mittlerweileviele IT-Führungskräfte bewusst. So gaben beieiner Umfrage zum »2013 State of the CIO« fastzwei Drittel aller CIOs an, dass sie in Zukunftverstärkt an einer solchen Partnerschaft arbei-ten wollen, um dadurch die Leistung der IT-Funktion zu verbessern [cio.com 2013]. Jetztliegt es an den Führungskräften selbst, mithilfedes hier vorgestellten Modells und den darausabgeleiteten Handlungsempfehlungen einenWeg zu finden, wie sie diese Partnerschaft in ih-ren Unternehmen gemeinsamen entwickelnund etablieren.

5 Literatur

[Chen & Wu 2011] Chen, Y.-C.; Wu, J.-H.: IT manage-ment capability and its impact on the perfor-mance of a CIO. Information & Management 48(2011), 4/5, pp. 145-156.

[cio.com 2013] State of the CIO Survey, January 2013:www.cio.com/documents/pdfs/2013%20State%20of

%20the%20CIO%20Exec%20Summary.pdf; Zugriffam 16.07.2013.

[Enns et al. 2003] Enns, H. G.; Huff, S. L.; Higgins, C. A.:

CIO lateral influence behaviors: Gaining peers'commitment to strategic information systems.MIS Quarterly 27 (2003), 1, pp. 155-176.

[Johnson & Lederer 2005] Johnson, A. M.; Lederer, A. L.:

The effect of communication frequency andchannel richness on the convergence betweenchief executive and chief information officers.Journal of Management Information Systems22 (2005), 2, pp. 227-252.

[Johnson & Lederer 2010] Johnson, A. M.; Lederer, A. L.:

CEO/CIO mutual understanding, strategicalignment, and the contribution of IS to the or-ganization. Information & Management 47(2010), 3, pp. 138-149.


HMD 293 111

[Kaarst-Brown 2005] Kaarst-Brown, M. L.: Under-standing an organization’s view of the CIO: Therole of assumptions about IT. MIS QuarterlyExecutive 4 (2005), 2, pp. 287-301.

[Mayer et al. 1995] Mayer, R. C.; Davis, J. H.;

Schoorman, F. D.: An integrative model of orga-nizational trust. Academy of ManagementReview 20 (1995), 3, pp. 709-734.

[Peppard 2010] Peppard, J.: Unlocking the perfor-mance of the Chief Information Officer (CIO).California Management Review 52 (2010), 4, pp.73-99.

[Preston & Karahanna 2009] Preston, D. S.;

Karahanna, E.: How to develop a shared vision:The key to IS strategic alignment. MIS Quarter-ly Executive 8 (2009), 1, pp. 1-8.

[Riedl et al. 2008] Riedl, R.; Kobler, M.; Roithmayr, F.:

Zur personellen Verankerung der IT-Funktion imVorstand börsennotierter Unternehmen: Ergeb-nisse einer inhaltsanalytischen Betrachtung.Wirtschaftsinformatik 50 (2008), 2, S. 111-128.

[Smaltz et al. 2006] Smaltz, D. H.; Sambamurthy, V.;

Agarwal, R.: The antecedents of CIO role effec-tiveness in organizations: An empirical study inthe healthcare sector. IEEE Transactions on Engi-neering Management 53 (2006), 2, pp. 207-222.

[Štemberger et al. 2011] Štemberger, M. I.; Manfreda, A.;

Kovacic, A.: Achieving top management supportwith business knowledge and role of IT/IS per-sonnel. International Journal of InformationManagement 31 (2011), 5, pp. 428-436.

[Watts & Henderson 2006] Watts, S.; Henderson, J. C.:

Innovative IT climates: CIO perspectives. Journalof Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006), 2,pp. 125-151.

Mag. Alexander HütterMag. Thomas ArnitzJohannes Kepler Universität LinzInstitut für Wirtschaftsinformatik –Information EngineeringAltenberger Str. 69A-4040 [email protected]@arnitz.atwww.ie.jku.at

Assoz. Univ.-Prof. Dr. René RiedlFachhochschule OÖ und Universität LinzWehrgrabengasse 1-3A-4400 [email protected]/campus-steyr

Hütter, A.; Arnitz, T.; Riedl, R.: Die CIO/CEO-Partnerschaft als Schlüssel zum IT-Erfolg. HMD – Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik 50 (2013), 293, S. 103-111.

v v

Effective CIO/CEO Communication

Alexander Hütter1, Thomas Arnitz2, and René Riedl3,4

1 MIC Customs Solutions, Linz, [email protected] 2 Ligaportal GmbH, Sattledt, [email protected] 3 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Campus Steyr, [email protected] 4 University of Linz, Department of Business Informatics ! Information Engineering

Abstract

Communication between the CIO and the CEO is important to achieve a shared understanding of the current and future role of IT in an organization. Such a shared CIO/CEO understanding has been shown to positively affect organizational IT success. Despite the importance of CIO/CEO communication, only a few studies have examined how CIOs and CEOs can achieve effectiveness in their interactions. To advance knowledge on CIO/CEO communication, we integrated existing research findings into a CIO/CEO communication model, and derived corresponding propositions. In essence, the model posits that CIO hierarchical position influences CIO/CEO communication effectivity, which, in turn, influences the shared CIO/CEO understanding on the current and future role of IT in the organization. A shared CIO/CEO understanding on the current role of IT influences both CEO support for strategic IT initiatives and CIO/CEO perception of IT contribution to business performance, while a shared CIO/CEO understanding on the future role of IT influences the CEO support for strategic IT initiatives.

1 Introduction

Communication between the chief information officer (CIO) and chief executive officer (CEO) is critical for both parties to achieve a shared understanding of the current and future role of information technology (IT) in the organization (Feeny et al. 1992; Johnson and Lederer 2005; Reich and Benbasat 2000; Peppard 2010; Stephens and Loughman 1994). A shared CIO/CEO understanding on the role of IT in an organization is important because it facilitates CIOs obtaining their CEOs commitment for strategic IT initiatives (Enns et al. 2003; Nelson and Cooprider 1996). Also, a shared CIO/CEO understanding improves the alignment of IT and business objectives (Johnson and Lederer 2010; Preston and Karahanna 2009), which, in turn, predicts higher IT and business performance (Chan et al. 2006). Despite the importance of a shared CIO/CEO understanding for organizational IT success, the academic literature frequently reports that CIOs and CEOs often do not hold similar views on the role of IT in their organizations; hence, misunderstandings exist (Hütter and Riedl 2011; Kaarst-Brown 2005; Riedl et al. 2008).

1524 Alexander Hütter, Thomas Arnitz, René Riedl

Communication between the CIO and CEO (hereafter: CIO/CEO communication) is often described as important in the information systems (IS) literature; however, only a few studies have investigated how CIOs and CEOs can achieve effectiveness in their interactions. Those studies that focus on CIO/CEO communication almost exclusively derived their results from survey data, or are conceptual in nature (for details, see the next section). To the best of our knowledge, no study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal has yet used a qualitative interview approach to study the nature of CIO/CEO communication, as well as corresponding antecedents and consequences. A major reason for the dearth of qualitative research, particularly interviews, could be the difficulty of getting access to, and meaningful data from, busy top managers.

However, to shape and bound the knowledge on CIO/CEO communication we integrate existing research findings into a CIO/CEO communication model, and derive corresponding propositions that can serve as a foundation for future empirical research projects. Specifically, in this paper we focus on the following three research questions:

Does the CIO"s hierarchical position influence the effectivity of communication between an organization"s CIO and CEO?

Which factors related to communication effectivity have an influence on the shared CIO/CEO understanding of the current and future role of IT in an organization?

Does shared CIO/CEO understanding of the current and future role of IT in an organization influence CEO support for strategic IT initiatives, and the CIO/CEO perception of IT contribution to business performance?

2 Related work

Communication is defined as a cyclical process that involves the repeated exchange of information between individuals in order to reach a shared understanding and/or collective action (Rogers and Kincaid 1981; Van de Ven and Walker 1984). The literature on communication competence investigates how individuals can achieve both appropriateness and effectiveness in their interactions (Bostrom 1984; Duran and Spitzberg 1995; Flauto 1999; MacIntyre et al. 1999; McCroskey 1982; Rubin et al. 1993). IS researchers have applied a number of specific theories related to communication for studying effective CIO communication. In Table 1, we chronologically summarize related work in the IS discipline on CIO/CEO communication.

In the 1990s, Watson (1990) and Stephens and Loughman (1994) argued that richer communication channels provide IT executives with the capacity to communicate strategic IT planning requirements more appropriately to their CEOs, and therefore help IT executives to minimize the complexity of the planning task. Lind and Zmud (1991) found that more frequent and channel rich communication predicts convergence between technology providers and users regarding the potential of IT to innovatively support business activities.

In the 2000s, Reich and Benbasat (2000) indicated that direct and frequent communication between business executives and IT executives positively influences the level of alignment between IT and business objectives. Moreover, Rattanasampan and Chaidaroon (2003) pointed out that effective communication qualifies CIOs to establish executive working relationships and collaborations across department boundaries. These executive relationships, in turn, make it easier for CIOs to gain their CEOs commitment more easily for organization-wide IT changes, and collaborations with others pave the way for implementing those changes successfully. Johnson and Lederer"s (2005)

MKWI 2016 ! Student Track 1525

findings indicate that more frequent CIO/CEO communication predicts convergence of opinion about the current role of IT in an organization and some aspects of the future role of IT. Further, the use of richer communication channels in the communication process between an organization"s CIO and CEO facilitates the development of convergence of opinion about the future role of IT. Greater CIO/CEO opinion convergence on the current role of IT predicts greater IT financial contribution. Moreover, Preston and Karahanna (2004, 2009) and Preston et al. (2006) showed that CIOs who are competent communicators are more effective in creating a shared IT vision and knowledge around the issue of IT-business alignment within an organization"s top management than CIOs who are less competent communicators.

Publication Method Sample Country of

investigation Applied theory related to

communication

Watson (1990) Survey 43 IS managers Australia Media richness (Daft and

Lengel 1986)

Lind and Zmud (1991)

Case study 2 divisions from

one company United States

Convergence (Rogers and Kincaid 1981), media

richness (Daft and Lengel 1986)

Stephens and Loughman (1994)

Case study 5 CIOs from

five companies United States

No specific theory from communication research

Reich and Benbasat (2000)

Case study 10 business units

from three companies

Canada No specific theory from communication research

Rattanasampan and Chaidaroon (2003)

Conceptual Not applicable Not

applicable Communication competence (Duran and Spitzberg 1995)

Preston and Karahanna (2004)

Survey 382 CIOs United States No specific theory from communication research

Preston et al. (2006) Survey 44 French CIOs,

163 United States CIOs

France, United States

No specific theory from communication research

Johnson and Lederer (2005)

Survey 202 CIO/CEO

pairs United States

Convergence (Rogers and Kincaid 1981), strategic grid framework (McFarlan and McKenney 1983), media richness (Daft and Lengel

1986)

Preston and Karahanna (2009)

Survey 243 matched-pair CIOs and top managers

United States No specific theory from communication research

Table 1: Related work in the IS discipline on CIO/CEO communication

From a theoretical perspective, Table 1 shows that several researchers have applied theories from communication research to explain effects of CIO/CEO communication. For example, Johnson and Lederer (2005) and Lind and Zmud (1991) used Rogers and Kincaid"s (1981) convergence model to argue that through cycles of information exchange, the CIO and CEO move toward a mutual understanding of each other"s opinion, and thus, create consensus on the organization"s role of IT. To cite another example, Johnson and Lederer (2005) used McFarlan and McKenney"s (1983) strategic grid framework to separate the effects of the role of IT in an organization into two distinctive roles, the current role of IT and the future role of IT, because the current plans and


strategies for IT may be counterproductive for the future business. Another important theory is Daft and Lengel"s (1986) media richness theory which was used by several researchers to explain the effects of communication channel on CIO/CEO convergence regarding IT"s role for business activities. In essence, media richness theory describes a communication medium in terms of richness, whereby richness is based on the medium"s ability to provide direct feedback, carry multiple cues, and support the use of natural language (Daft et al. 1987).

Another theory that has guided much of the research on an organization"s top management is the upper echelons theory from Hambrick and Mason (1984). This theory emphasizes the characteristics of top managers, as well as the nature of their interactions, as important influences on strategic decisions and resulting business outcomes. Following the upper echelons theory, research suggests that the CIO should be included in the top management in order to increase the nature and level of interactions about IT issues between top managers (Armstrong and Sambamurthy 1999; Banker et al. 2011; Li and Tan 2013; Ranganathan and Jha 2008; Smaltz et al. 2006).

From a methodological perspective, five facts are important to note. First, survey, and hence quantitative research, is the dominant methodological approach. Second, qualitative research is less common. Third, qualitative research was carried out in the form of case studies, but not in the form of paired interviews with CIOs and CEOs within organizations. Fourth, qualitative research was carried out in the early period of CIO/CEO communication research (we were not able to identify qualitative research in the last 15 years). Fifth, most studies were conducted in English speaking countries. Based on this analysis, in the next section we put forward our research model, as well as corresponding propositions.

3 Research model and propositions

Our research model comprises the following constructs and relationships (Figure 1): (1) CIO hierarchical position affects the effectivity of CIO/CEO communication about IT topics, (2) CIO/CEO communication effectivity impacts the shared CIO/CEO understanding of both the current and the future role of IT in an organization, (3) a shared CIO/CEO understanding of the current role of IT influences both CEO support for strategic IT initiatives and CIO/CEO perception of IT contribution to business performance, and (4) a shared CIO/CEO understanding of the future role of IT influences the CEO support for strategic IT initiatives. In the following subsections, we detail the constructs and their interrelationships.

Figure 1: Research model


3.1 CIO hierarchical position

The CIO hierarchical position is defined as the organizational rank and status of the CIO that enables him/her to communicate with the CEO about IT issues (Karimi et al. 1996). According to upper echelons theory, a high hierarchical position provides the CIO with opportunities for official engagements with the CEO and other top managers, and increases CIO authority and power while interacting with them (Feeny et al. 1992; Hambrick and Mason 1984; Smaltz et al. 2006). Higher levels of engagements between the CIO, the CEO, and other top managers are likely to provide the CIO with a greater understanding of the organization"s business practices, goals, and visions (Armstrong and Sambamurthy 1999; Earl and Feeny 1994). These engagements also offer a potential forum for the CEO and other top managers to learn about the capabilities of IT and how IT can be employed to support the business strategy and value-chain activities (Preston and Karahanna 2009; Tan and Gallupe 2006). Due to a high CIO hierarchical position within an organization, both parties are expected to move toward a more effective communication about IT themes (communication effectivity is discussed in detail in the next section).

Proposition 1: The higher the hierarchical position in which a CIO operates, the more a CIO is

able to communicate effectively with the organization�s CEO about IT themes.

3.2 CIO/CEO communication effectivity

To operationalize CIO/CEO communication effectivity, we followed suggestions described in Johnson and Lederer (2005) and Rattanasampan and Chaidaroon (2003) and conceptualize this construct with five sub-dimensions: (1) CIO/CEO personal characteristics, (2) CIO/CEO communication channel, (3) CIO/CEO communication style, (4) CIO/CEO communication content, and (5) CIO/CEO communication frequency.

CIO/CEO personal characteristics. The CIO/CEO personal characteristics (i.e., their technical and business knowledge, their working style, and their attitude toward IT) are critical for the success of championing IT within organizations. When CIOs understand the organization"s goals, objectives, and visions, they are better able to decide how IT should support and/or enable the business (Kaarst-Brown 2005; Li and Tan 2013, Watson 1990). When CEOs understand the capabilities and contribution of IT to business, they are better able to decide how IT can be employed to support the business strategy and value-chain activities (Luftman and Kempaiah 2007; Tan and Gallupe 2006). CIOs" educational efforts in transferring IT knowledge to the CEO are important in promoting a shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT in an organization (Bassellier et al. 2003; Preston and Karahanna 2004). A CEO"s positive attitude toward IT and a CEO"s willingness to discuss IT issues with the CIO contributes to the development of a shared IT understanding (Feeny et al. 1992; Kearns and Lederer 2003). Accordingly, we put forth the following proposition:

Proposition 2: The more key personal characteristics an organization's CIO and CEO possess for

communicating about IT issues with each other, the higher their degrees of shared understanding

of a) the current role of IT and (b) the future role of IT in that organization.

CIO/CEO communication channel. Communication channel is defined as the medium that is used by an organization"s CIO and CEO to communicate about IT themes. Prior research has often used Daft and Lengel"s (1986) media richness theory to examine the impact of communication channels on outcome variables. This theory classifies communication media along a continuum of richness, whereby richness is based on a medium"s ability to provide immediate feedback, carry multiple


cues such as facial and nonverbal expressions, convey personality traits, and support the use of natural language (Daft et al. 1987). However, Kock (2004) derived a new theory from evolutionary psychology theorizing proposing that the naturalness of a medium is more important than its richness. Specifically, in his media naturalness theory he proposes that a decrease in the degree of naturalness results in three major effects regarding a communications process: (1) increased cognitive effort, (2) increased ambiguity, and (3) decreased physiological arousal in terms of excitement (Kock 2009). However, achieving a shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT in an organization is a difficult process (implying reciprocal understanding of emotions, intentions, and reasoning processes), and thus, following Kock"s theory, we propose that when an organization"s CIO and CEO use a more natural communication channel (ideally face-to-face), they will achieve a higher level of shared understanding about the current and future role of IT.

Proposition 3: The more natural the channels used for communication about IT themes between

the CIO and CEO, the higher their degree of shared understanding of (a) the current role of IT and

(b) the future role of IT in that organization.

CIO/CEO communication style. Communication style refers to the terms and jargon that are used by an organization"s CIO and CEO to communicate about IT themes (Duran and Spitzberg 1995). CIOs can proactively create a shared understanding of the technological side with the CEO by focusing on communicating in business terms and avoiding technical jargon that others who are not familiar with IT do not understand (Preston and Karahanna 2009; Stephens and Loughman 1994). Thus, CIOs must plan the logic of their arguments in order to communicate complex technical matters appropriately, and must be capable of making tacit IT knowledge explicit (Chen & Wu 2011; Peppard 2010). Clarity of the explanations of potential benefits and uses of IT increases CEOs" technical knowledge, thereby also increasing motivation to communicate back with the CIO (Bassellier et al. 2003). CEOs who explain organizational strategies, processes, and needs in a manner that CIOs with a technical background can understand are more effective in creating a shared understanding of the business side (Kearns and Sabherwal 2006). Thus, we propose:

Proposition 4: The more an organization's CIO and CEO communicate about IT and related

business themes in clear terms and without jargon, the higher their degree of shared understanding

of (a) the current role of IT and (b) the future role of IT in that organization.

CIO/CEO communication content. Communication content comprises the IT themes which are discussed by an organization"s CIO and CEO during their meetings. The type of topics discussed by an organization"s CIO and CEO plays a key role in developing a shared understanding of the role of IT in the organization (Al-Taie et al. 2014; Li and Tan 2013). CIOs who communicate mainly about strategic IT themes with their business peers (e.g., when the CIO and CEO discuss IT strategy instead of how a module of the ERP system supports a specific business process) are more effective in providing them with the appropriate perspective on how to align IT with organizational structures and goals (Kettinger et al. 2011; Luftman and Kempaiah 2007). A strategic discussion of IT themes ensures that business and IT capabilities are integrated into technical solutions that support the organization effectively (Rockart et al. 1996; Ross et al. 1996). Strategic discussions allow for the transfer of business and IT knowledge between the CIO and CEO, and ensure that the CIO deploys IT resources to support critical business activities (Jones and Arnett 1994; Preston et al. 2006).

However, due to the lack of qualitative studies in the IS discipline, we know little about the effect of communication content on the CIO/CEO shared understanding about the role of IT in the organization. Yet, based on the little we know, we propose:


Proposition 5: The more an organization's CIO and CEO communicate about strategic IT themes,

the higher their degree of shared understanding of (a) the current role of IT and (b) the future role

of IT in that organization.

CIO/CEO communication frequency. Communication frequency describes how often an organization"s CIO and CEO communicate about IT themes. Frequency of communication enables both executives to develop common definitions of situations, reduce barriers, and build consensus (Reich and Benbasat 2000; Van de Ven and Walker 1984). Frequent CIO/CEO communication about IT topics predicts greater convergence in their views of the role of IT in their organization and its expected contribution to the business, and evidence indicates that more frequent interaction is likely to result in a greater understanding of the future role of IT in an organization (Johnson and Lederer 2005; Lind and Zmud 1991). Regular discussions help both the CIO and CEO share information which is strategically important to the organization and thus positively influences a CEO"s view of IT (Armstong and Sambamurthy 1999; Jarvenpaa and Ives 1991).

Summarizing this stream of quantitative research, it becomes evident that the general notion is that the higher the frequency of communication between an organization"s CIO and CEO, the higher the level of shared IT understanding. However, these findings may not be applicable to CIOs who have to deal with CEOs managing multiple organizational issues during their work time. In such case, would it be wise for CIOs to take as much as possible of their CEOs" time to discuss IT themes? Probably not, therefore, we argue that CIOs should focus on communicating about IT issues with their CEOs to an appropriate extent (rather than with the highest possible communication frequency). Reflecting this concept, we propose:

Proposition 6: With an appropriate frequency of communication about IT themes, an

organization�s CIO and CEO can achieve a shared understanding of (a) the current role of IT and

(b) the future role of IT in that organization.

3.3 Shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT

Shared understanding is defined as the degree of convergence between the views of an organization's CIO and CEO about the role of IT within the business (Johnson and Lederer 2005; Rogers and Kincaid 1981). A shared understanding exists when the CEO understands IT objectives and the CIO understands business objectives, and both executives agree on how IT should be deployed to support or enable the business strategy. McFarlan and McKenney"s (1983) strategic grid framework proposes two distinct roles of IT, a current and a future role. The current role represents how the organization uses IT at the present time, while the future role embodies how the organization plans to use IT in the future. Research shows distinctions between the current and future role of IT (Raghunathan et al. 1999; Tukan and Weber 1996), because the current role of IT in an organization does not necessarily determine its future role. For example, plans and strategies for an organization's current IT function and operations may be counterproductive for the future business. However, a shared CIO/CEO understanding of the organization"s role of IT is critical both at present and in the future, and it is probably the crucial factor in determining whether the CEO supports strategic IT initiatives (Enns et al. 2003; Nelson and Cooprider 1996; Peppard et al. 2011). When an organization"s CEO understands the value and capabilities of IT and is aware of how IT can be used to support business objectives, then the CEO is more likely to participate in, and commit to, strategic IT initiatives.


Proposition 7: The higher an organization�s CIO and CEO�s degree of shared understanding of

(a) the current role of IT and (b) the future role of IT in an organization, the more the CEO supports

strategic IT initiatives.

A shared CIO/CEO understanding of the current role of IT determines the CIO"s and CEO"s perceptions of IT contribution to business performance (Johnson and Lederer 2010; Kettinger et al. 2011; Li and Ye 1999; Peppard 2010; Spitze and Lee 2012). When an organization"s CIO understands actual business priorities and the CEO understands immediate IT needs, then they are better able to target IT investments on strategic objectives, and therefore have a higher aligned perception of the IT contribution.

Proposition 8: The higher an organization�s CIO and CEO�s degree of shared understanding of

the organization�s current role of IT, the more aligned the CIO/CEO perception of IT contribution

to business performance is.

3.4 CEO support for strategic IT initiatives

CEO support for strategic IT initiatives is defined as the willingness of the CEO to participate in, and commit to, strategic IT initiatives that affect the overall business. Evidence indicates that CEO support for strategic IT initiatives is critical for fully tapping the benefits of IT projects (Kearns 2006; #temberger et al. 2011; Watts and Henderson 2006). Without the necessary organizational resources and the support of the CEO (and other top managers), the CIO cannot achieve strategic goals and higher organizational performance (Boynton et al. 1994; Ragu-Nathan et al. 2004). CEOs" involvement in IT activities and personal associations with successful IT projects can both positively influence a firm"s progressive use of IT (Jarvenpaa and Ives 1991), and strengthen a firm"s competitive position with respect to IT use (Ross et al. 1996).

3.5 CIO/CEO perception of IT contribution to business performance

The CIO/CEO perception of IT contribution to business performance is defined as the contribution to business performance made by IT products and services implemented within the organization as perceived by both the CIO and CEO (Cohen and Dennis 2010; Premkumar and King 1992). Different CIO/CEO perceptions of this IT contribution often lead to misunderstandings regarding the expected returns on investment of IT projects, or even worse, raise IT project failure rates (Kaarst-Brown 2005; Nelson 2007). Consequently, it is the task of the CIO to improve the perceived IT contributions by developing a shared IT understanding with the CEO and other top managers, and by demonstrating the contribution made by IT products and services (Chen et al. 2010; Croteau and Bergeron 2001). To assess an organization"s CIO and CEO perception of IT contribution to business performance, we use Premkumar and King"s (1992) five fundamental performance measures, namely return on investment, sales revenue, market share, operating efficiency, and customer satisfaction. These five measures retain their importance in contemporary contexts (e.g., Johnson and Lederer 2010).

4 Concluding statement

Despite the importance of an effective CIO/CEO communication for organizational IT success, only a few studies have investigated corresponding antecedents and consequences. To close this research gap, we developed a CIO/CEO communication model and formulated eight research propositions


that can serve as a foundation for future empirical studies in the IS discipline. It will be rewarding to see what insight future research will reveal.

5 References

Al-Taie M, Lane M, Cater-Steel A (2014) The relationship between organisational strategic IT vision and CIO roles: One size does not fit all. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 18(2):59-89

Armstrong CP, Sambamurthy V (1999) Information technology assimilation in firms: The influence of senior leadership and IT infrastructures. Information Systems Research 10(4): 304-327

Banker RD, Hu N, Pavlou PA, Luftman J (2011) CIO reporting structure, strategic positioning, and firm performance. MIS Quarterly 35(2):487-504

Bassellier G, Benbasat I, Reich BH (2003) The influence of business managers' IT competence on championing IT. Information Systems Research 14(4):317-336

Bostrom RN (1984) Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Boynton AC, Zmud RW, Jacobs GC (1994) The influence of IT management practice on IT use in large organizations. MIS Quarterly 18(3):299-318

Chan YE, Sabherwal R, Thatcher JB (2006) Antecedents and outcomes of strategic IS alignment: An empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53(1):27-47

Chen YC, Wu JH (2011) IT management capability and its impact on the performance of a CIO. Information & Management 48(4/5):145-156

Chen DQ, Preston DS, Xia W (2010) Antecedents and effects of CIO supply-side and demand-side leadership: A staged maturity model. Journal of Management Information Systems 27(1):231-271

Cohen JF, Dennis CM (2010) Chief information officers: An empirical study of competence, organisational positioning and implications for performance. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 13(2):203-221

Croteau AM, Bergeron F (2001) An information technology trilogy: business strategy, technological deployment and organizational performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 10(2):77-99

Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science 32(5):554-572

Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly 11(3):355-366

Duran RL, Spitzberg BH (1995) Toward the development and validation of a measure of cognitive communication competence. Communication Quarterly 43(3):259-275

Earl MJ, Feeny DF (1994) Is your CIO adding value?. Sloan Management Review 35(3):11-20

Enns HG, Huff SL, Higgins CA (2003) CIO lateral influence behaviors: Gaining peers' commitment to strategic information systems. MIS Quarterly 27(1):155-176


Feeny DF, Edwards BR, Simpson MK (1992) Understanding the CEO/CIO relationship. MIS Quarterly 16(4):435-448

Flauto FJ (1999) Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and communication competence. The Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 6(1/2):86-97

Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 9(2):193-206

Hütter A, Riedl R (2008) Der Chief Information Officer (CIO) in Deutschland und den USA: Verbreitung und Unterschiede. Information Management & Consulting 26(3):61-66.

Jarvenpaa SL, Ives B (1991) Executive involvement and participation in the management of information technology. MIS Quarterly 15(2):205-227

Johnson AM, Lederer AL (2005) The effect of communication frequency and channel richness on the convergence between chief executive and chief information officers. Journal of Management Information Systems 22(2):227-252

Johnson AM, Lederer AL (2010) CEO/CIO mutual understanding, strategic alignment, and the contribution of IS to the organization. Information & Management 47(3):138-149

Jones MC, Arnett KP (1994) Linkages between the CEO and the IS environment: An empirical assessment. Information Resources Management Journal 7(1):20-34

Kaarst-Brown ML (2005) Understanding an organization"s view of the CIO: The role of assumptions about IT. MIS Quarterly Executive 4(2):287-301

Karimi J, Gupta YP, Somers TM (1996) The congruence between a firm's competitive strategy and information technology leader's rank and role. Journal of Management Information Systems 13(1):63-88

Kearns GS (2006) The effect of top management support of SISP on strategic IS management: insights from the US electric power industry. Omega 34(3):236-253

Kearns GS, Lederer AL (2003) A resource-based view of strategic IT Alignment: How knowledge sharing creates competitive advantage. Decision Sciences 34(1):1-29

Kearns GS, Sabherwal R (2006) Strategic alignment between business and information technology: A knowledge-based view of behaviors, outcome, and consequences. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3):129-162

Kettinger WJ, Zhang C, Marchand DA (2011) CIO and business executive leadership approaches to establishing company-wide information orientation. MIS Quarterly Executive 10(4):157-174

Kock N (2004) The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science 15(3):327-348

Kock N (2009) Information systems theorizing based on evolutionary psychology: An interdisciplinary review and theory integration framework. MIS Quarterly 33(2):395-418

Li Y, Tan CH (2013) Matching business strategy and CIO characteristics: The impact on organizational performance. Journal of Business Research 66(2):248-259

Li M, Ye RL (1999) Information technology and firm performance: Linking with environmental, strategic and managerial contexts? Information & Management 35(1):43-51


Lind MR, Zmud RW (1991) The influence of a convergence in understanding between technology providers and users on technology innovativeness. Organization Science 2(2):195-217

Luftman J, Kempaiah R (2007) An update on business-IT alignment: $A line" has been drawn. MIS Quarterly Executive 6(3):165-177

MacIntyre PD, Babin PA, Clement R (1999) Willingness to communicate: Antecedents & consequences. Communication Quarterly 47(2):215-229

McCroskey JC (1982) Communication competence and performance: A pedagogical perspective. Communication Education 31(1):1-7

McFarlan FW, McKenney JL (1983) Corporate information systems management. Richard D. Irwin, Homewood

Nelson RR (2007) IT project management: Infamous failures, classic mistakes and best practices. MIS Quarterly Executive 6(2):67-78

Nelson KM, Cooprider JG (1996) The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly 20(4):409-432

Peppard J (2010) Unlocking the Performance of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). California Management Review 52(4):73-99

Peppard J, Edwards C, Lambert R (2011) Clarifying the ambiguous role of the CIO. MIS Quarterly Executive 10(1):31-44

Premkumar G, King WR (1992) An empirical assessment of information systems planning and the role of information systems in organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems 9(2):99-125

Preston DS, Karahanna E (2004) Mechanisms for the development of shared mental models between the CIO and the top management team. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems, Paper 37

Preston DS, Karahanna E (2009) How to develop a shared vision: The key to IS strategic alignment. MIS Quarterly Executive 8(1):1-8

Preston DS, Karahanna E, 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 Transactions on Engineering Management 53(2):191-206

Raghunathan B, Raghunathan TS, Tu Q (1999) Dimensionality of the strategic grid framework: The construct and its measurement. Information Systems Research 10(4):343-355

Ragu-Nathan BS, Apigian CH, Ragu-Nathan TS, Tu Q (2004) A path analytic study of the effect of top management support for information systems performance. Omega 32(6):459-471

Ranganathan C, Jha S (2008) Do CIOs matter? Assessing the value of CIO presence in top management teams. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Information Systems, Paper 56

Rattanasampan W, Chaidaroon S (2003) The applications of communication competence framework for CIOs. In: Proceedings of the 9th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Paper 160


Riedl R, Kobler M, Roithmayr F (2008) Zur personellen Verankerung der IT-Funktion im Vorstand börsennotierter Unternehmen: Ergebnisse einer inhaltsanalytischen Betrachtung. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(2):111-128.

Reich BH, Benbasat I (2000) Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly 24(1):81-113

Rockart JF, Earl MJ, Ross JW (1996) Eight imperatives for the new IT organization. Sloan Management Review 38(1):43-55

Rogers EM, Kincaid DL (1981) Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. Free Press, New York

Ross JW, Beath CM, Goodhue DL (1996) Develop long-term competitiveness through IT assets. Sloan Management Review 38(1):31-42

Rubin RB, Martin MM, Bruning SS, Powers DE (1993) Test of self-efficacy model of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Quarterly 47(2):210-220

Smaltz DH, Sambamurthy V, Agarwal R (2006) The antecedents of CIO role effectiveness in organizations: An empirical study in the healthcare sector. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53(2):207-222

Spitze JM, Lee JJ (2012) The renaissance CIO project: The invisible factors of extraordinary success. California Management Review 54(2):72-91

Stephens C, Loughman T (1994) The CIO's chief concern: Communication. Information & Management 27(2):129-137

#temberger MI, Manfreda A, Kova i A (2011) Achieving top management support with business knowledge and role of IT/IS personnel. International Journal of Information Management 31(5):428-436

Tan FB, Gallupe RB (2006) Aligning business and information systems thinking: A cognitive approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53(2):223-237

Van de Ven AH, Walker G (1984) The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly 29(4):598-621

Watson RT (1990) Influences on the IS manager's perceptions of key issues: Information scanning and the relationship with the CEO. MIS Quarterly 14(2):217-231

Watts S, Henderson JC (2006) Innovative IT climates: CIO perspectives. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15(2):125-151

123

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Alexander Hütter

Thomas Arnitz

René Riedl

On the Nature of

Effective CIO/CEO

Communication

Evidence from an Interview Study

SpringerBriefs in Information Systems

Series editor

Jörg Becker

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10189

Alexander Hütter • Thomas ArnitzRené Riedl

On the Nature of EffectiveCIO/CEO Communication

Evidence from an Interview Study

123

Alexander HütterDepartment of Business InformaticsJohannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria

Thomas ArnitzDepartment of Business InformaticsJohannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria

René RiedlUniversity of Applied Sciences UpperAustria

Steyr, OberösterreichAustria

and

Department of Business InformaticsJohannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria

ISSN 2192-4929 ISSN 2192-4937 (electronic)SpringerBriefs in Information SystemsISBN 978-3-319-50534-3 ISBN 978-3-319-50535-0 (eBook)DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50535-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016960560

© The Author(s) 2017This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or partof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or

for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer NatureThe registered company is Springer International Publishing AG

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

On the Nature of Effective CIO/CEO Communication:

Evidence from an Interview Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.2 Research Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 Sampling Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.2 Interview Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.4 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.1 CIO Hierarchical Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.2 CIO/CEO Communication Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.3 CIO/CEO Communication Channel Naturalness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.4 CIO/CEO Communication Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.5 CIO/CEO Communication Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.6 CIO/CEO Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

6 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7 Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Appendix A: The CIO/CEO Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix B: Detailed Information About the Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix C: Categorization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

v

On the Nature of Effective CIO/CEO

Communication: Evidence from an

Interview Study

1 Introduction

Effective communication between the chief information officer (CIO) and chief

executive officer (CEO) is critical for both parties to achieve a shared understanding

of the role of information technology (IT) in their organization [27, 49, 58, 68].

A shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT is important because it facilitates

CIOs obtaining their business peers’ commitment for strategic IT initiatives

[16, 47]. Further, a shared CIO/CEO understanding improves the alignment of IT

and business objectives [29, 53], which, in turn, is positively related to IT and

business performance [8].

Despite this importance of effective CIO/CEO communication for organizational

IT success, studies frequently report that CIOs and CEOs often have troubles in

their communication; hence, misunderstandings about the role of IT exist [24, 67].

There are different reasons for this situation. CEOs and other top managers often

state that their CIOs lack the ability to explain IT issues in business terms, and that

they tend to use technical jargon that is not readily understood by those outside the

IT domain [31, 75]. In contrast, CIOs complain that their business peers misun-

derstand the value and capabilities of IT, and are often unaware of how IT can be

used to support business objectives [36]. Such discrepancies limit CIOs’ ability to

work effectively with their CEOs in order to meet strategic objectives and derive IT

benefits [1].

Only a few scientific studies have investigated explicitly how CIOs and CEOs

can achieve effectiveness in their communication. Those studies that focus on

CIO/CEO communication effectiveness almost exclusively derived their results

from survey data (in English speaking countries), or are conceptual in nature (for

details, see Sect. 2). A major reason for the dearth of qualitative research, partic-

ularly interviews, could be the difficulty of getting access to, and meaningful data

from, busy top managers [65].

© The Author(s) 2017

A. Hütter et al., On the Nature of Effective CIO/CEO Communication,

SpringerBriefs in Information Systems, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50535-0_1

1

Communication and shared understanding of IT are two elusive concepts, not

easily amenable by the dominant IS research method (i.e., survey) [60]. Moreover,

given the relative paucity of qualitative studies on CIO/CEO communication, we

decided to conduct an interview study with twelve pairs of CIOs and CEOs in the

German-speaking area, more specifically, in Austria (for details, see Sect. 3). Based

on this approach, we develop new insight into the nature of CIO/CEO communi-

cation effectiveness.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: In the next section, we

outline theoretical background information on CIO/CEO communication.

Specifically, we discuss related work and outline our research model. A discussion

of our research methodology follows. Afterward, we present the results. This is

followed by a reflection on the results, which may, particularly for practitioners,

help in future decisions and actions to cope with challenges related to CIO/CEO

communication. Finally, we discuss important implications of our work, as well as

limitations, and outline possible avenues for future research.

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Related Work

The literature on communication competence examines how individuals can achieve

both appropriateness and effectiveness in their interactions [6, 14, 18, 43, 46, 64].

Despite the variety of approaches and perspectives that researchers have adopted in

communication research, there are three basic elements of communication compe-

tence that are discussed as important, namely cognitive knowledge, performance,

and motivation [57]. Cognitive knowledge is the knowledge about the subject matter

and its corresponding context, as well as the knowledge of how to communicate

appropriately and effectively. Performance refers to the interaction partners’ actual

communication behaviors. Motivation is the incentive of communicators to transfer

their cognitive knowledge into the behaviors they actually perform. Based on this

insight from the communication competence literature, IS scholars applied a number

of theories related to communication to explain effectivity in CIO/CEO communi-

cation. Table 1 summarizes related work in chronological order.

From a theoretical perspective, Table 1 shows that Lind and Zmud [41] and

Johnson and Lederer [27, 28] used Rogers and Kincaid’s [62] convergence model

to argue that through cycles of information exchange, the CIO and CEO move

toward a mutual understanding of each other’s opinion, and thus, create consensus

on the organization’s role of IT. In addition, both studies have also applied Daft and

Lengel’s [12] media richness theory to explain the effects of communication

channel on CIO/CEO convergence regarding IT’s role for business activities.

Lind and Zmud [41] found that more frequent and channel rich communication

predicts convergence between technology providers and users regarding the potential

of IT to innovatively support business activities. Johnson and Lederer [27, 28]

2 On the Nature of Effective CIO/CEO Communication: Evidence …

Table

1Related

work

intheIS

literature

onCIO

/CEO

communication

Publication

Method

Sam

ple

Countryof

investigation

Applied

theory

relatedto

communication

Abstract/m

ajorfindings

Watson[74]

Survey

43IS

managers

Australia

Media

richness[12]

Thispaper

investigates

theinform

ationscanning

behaviorofIS

executives

andtherelationship

withtheirCEOs.Based

onsurvey

data,

the

authors

reportthat

ISexecutives

whohave

two-w

aycommunicationwiththeirCEOsrate

IT

strategic

planningas

less

critical

andthat

IS

executives

tendto

scan

sources

that

areclose

to

theirindustry.

LindandZmud[ 41]

Casestudy

2divisions

from

one

company

United

States

Convergence

[ 62],

media

richness[12]

Thispaper

exam

ines

ifaconvergence

in

understandingbetweenprovidersandusers

ofa

technologyresultsin

greater

innovativeness

regardingthattechnology.Theresultsofthiscase

studyindicatethat

convergence

isapredictorof

innovativeness,communicationrichnessisa

predictorofconvergence,andcommunication

frequency

isapredictorofboth

convergence

and

communicationrichness.

StephensandLoughman

[ 68]

Casestudy

5CIO

sfrom

fivecompanies

United

States

Nospecifictheory

from

communication

research

CIO

smustbeable

tocommunicatecomplex

issues

clearly,withoutoverusingtechnicaljargon,

totheirtopmanagem

entandbusinessunit

managerswhoareoften

outsidetheIS

function.

Based

onboth

quantitativeandqualitativedata,

thepaper

presentshow

CIO

sconveyed

ideas

effectivelyandpowerfullyto

avariety

of

functional

managers.

(continued)

2 Theoretical Background 3

Table

1(continued)

Publication

Method

Sam

ple

Countryof

investigation

Applied

theory

relatedto

communication

Abstract/m

ajorfindings

Reich

andBenbasat

[ 58]

Casestudy

10business

unitsfrom

three

companies

Canada

Nospecifictheory

from

communication

research

AlignmentbetweenIT

andorganizational

objectives

isoneofthekey

concernsofIS

executives.Thus,thispaperinvestigated,based

on

aconceptual

model,factors

that

may

potentially

influence

alignment.Resultsindicatethat

shared

domainknowledge,IT

implementationsuccess,

communicationbetweenbusinessandIT

executives,andconnectionsbetweenbusinessand

ITplanninginfluence

short-term

alignment.Only

shared

domainknowledgewas

foundto

influence

long-term

alignment.

Rattanasam

pan

and

Chaidaroon[ 57]

Conceptual

Notapplicable

Not

applicable

Communication

competence

[ 14]

Arelationship

betweentheCIO

andbusiness

unitsisim

portantbecause

theim

plementationand

use

ofIT

dem

andscollaborations.Thispaper

proposesthat,to

improveCIO

s’relationships

withothersandtheeffectivenessofCIO

s’

communication,CIO

smustpossess

communicationcompetence

(i.e.,knowingwhat,

how,andwhyto

communicate).

PrestonandKarahanna[ 52]

Survey

382CIO

sUnited

States

Nospecifictheory

from

communication

research

Thispaper

exam

ines

thedevelopmentofshared

mentalmodelsbetweentheCIO

andtop

managem

entabouttherole

ofIT

inthe

organization.Based

onamodel

spanningthe

dim

ensionsofshared

languageandshared

understanding,thepaper

indicates

that

relational

similarityandform

almechanismsofknowledge

exchange(e.g.,theCIO

hierarchical

level)are

importantto

thedevelopmentofshared

mental

models.

(continued)


Table

1(continued)

Publication

Method

Sam

ple

Countryof

investigation

Applied

theory

relatedto

communication

Abstract/m

ajorfindings

Prestonet

al.[ 54]

Survey

44French

CIO

s,163

United

States

CIO

s

France,

United

States

Nospecifictheory

from

communication

research

Thedevelopmentofashared

understanding

betweentheCIO

andtopmanagersabouttherole

ofIT

intheorganizationisim

portantfor

achievingIT

success.Thepaper

proposesthat

CIO

educational

mechanismsim

pactthe

developmentofthisshared

understandingin

both

samples.However,whilein

theFrench

sample

social

system

sofknowingarekey

mechanisms,

intheU.S.sample

structuralsystem

sofknowing

andrelational

similarityarekey

mechanismsfor

achievingashared

understanding.

JohnsonandLederer

[ 27,28]

Survey

202CIO

/CEO

pairs

United

States

Convergence

[ 62],

media

richness[12]

Convergence

betweenan

organization’s

CIO

and

CEO

abouttheIT

iscritical

forexploiting

technologysuccessfully.Supported

by

communicationtheory,thepaper

indicates

that

more

frequentcommunicationleadsto

convergence

aboutthecurrentrole

ofIT.

Convergence

aboutthecurrentrole

ofIT

predictedhigher

ISfinancial

contribution.

PrestonandKarahanna[53]

Survey

243

matched-pair

CIO

sandtop

managers

United

States

Nospecifictheory

from

communication

research

Thispaper

presentsamodelforcreatingashared

visionbetweenan

organization’sCIO

andother

topmanagersabouttheroleofIT.Based

onsurvey

data,thepaperdescribes

howsuch

ashared

vision

canbefacilitatedbysixvisioningmechanisms.

Moreover,thepaper

indicates

thatashared

IT

visionisthekey

foraligningtheorganization’sIT

strategywithitsbusinessstrategy.


indicate that more frequent communication between the CIO and CEO, as well as the

use of richer communication channels in their interactions, predict convergence of

opinion about the role of IT in an organization. Moreover, Reich and Benbasat [58]

indicate that direct and frequent communication between business executives and IT

executives positively influences the level of alignment between IT and business

objectives. Watson [74] and Stephens and Loughman [68] point out that richer

communication channels provide IT executives with the capacity to communicate

strategic IT planning requirements more appropriately to their CEOs, and therefore

help IT executives to minimize the complexity of the planning task.

Preston and Karahanna [52, 53] and Preston et al. [54] showed that CIOs who

are competent communicators are more effective in creating a shared IT vision and

knowledge around the issue of IT-business alignment within an organization’s top

management than CIOs who are less competent communicators. Furthermore,

Rattanasampan and Chaidaroon [57] indicate that effective communication qualifies

CIOs to establish executive working relationships and collaborations across

department boundaries. These executive relationships, in turn, make it easier for

CIOs to gain their CEOs commitment for organization-wide IT changes, and col-

laborations with others pave the way for implementing those changes successfully.

From a methodological perspective, five facts are important to note (see

Table 1). First, survey, and hence quantitative research, is the dominant method-

ological approach. Second, it follows that qualitative research is less common.

Third, qualitative research was carried out in the form of case studies, but not in the

form of paired interviews with CIOs and CEOs within organizations, which could

also provide deep insights into CIO/CEO communication. Fourth, qualitative

research was carried out only in the early period of CIO/CEO communication

research (we were not able to identify qualitative research in the last 15 years).

Fifth, most studies were conducted in English speaking countries. Hence, there is a

paucity of research in other geographical areas.

To sum up, the current IS research stream has a narrow focus on communication

frequency and communication channels in describing how CIOs and CEOs can

achieve effectiveness in their interactions. To advance knowledge in this research

area and to close research gaps surrounding effective CIO/CEO communication, we

developed an a priori research model which served as a basis for our interview study.

2.2 Research Model

Based on the related work (see Sect. 2.1) and further CIO literature (identified

through a systematic literature review; the entire list of CIO papers is available by

request), we developed an initial model for investigating effective CIO/CEO

communication. Specifically, to extend the insights reported in the related work on

CIO/CEO communication (Table 1), we reviewed the CIO literature for additional

factors and relationships that are currently not addressed in the context of effective

CIO/CEO communication, but are potentially important for understanding its


antecedents and consequences. Based on this additional analysis, we identified, in

addition to communication frequency and communication channel, communication

content, communication style, personal characteristics, and CIO hierarchical

position as important for effective CIO/CEO communication. Figure 1 shows our

research model. In the following subsections, we detail the factors and

relationships.

CIO Hierarchical Position. CIO hierarchical position is defined as the orga-

nizational rank and status of the CIO that enables him/her to communicate with the

CEO about IT themes [32]. A high hierarchical position provides the CIO with

opportunities for official engagements with the CEO (see the upper echelons theory

[21]) and increases the nature and level of their IT interactions [2, 40]. Further, a

high hierarchical position can strengthen CIO authority and power [17, 66]. Higher

levels of engagements between the CIO and CEO may provide the CIO with a

greater understanding of the organization’s business practices, goals, and visions

[2, 15]. These engagements also offer a potential forum for the CEO to learn about

the capabilities of IT and how IT can be employed to support the business strategy

and value-chain activities [70].

CIO/CEO Communication Frequency. Communication frequency describes

how often an organization’s CIO and CEO communicate about IT themes.

Frequency of communication enables both executives to develop common defini-

tions of situations, reduce barriers, and build consensus [58, 71]. Frequent

CIO/CEO communication about IT themes predicts greater convergence in their

views of the role of IT in their organization and its expected contribution to the

business [27, 41]. Regular discussions also help both executives to share infor-

mation which is strategically important to the organization and thus positively

influences a CEO’s view of IT [2, 26].

CIO/CEO Communication Channel Naturalness. Communication channel

naturalness is defined as the naturalness of a medium that is used by an organi-

zation’s CIO and CEO to communicate about IT themes. Prior research has often

CIO hierarchical

position

CIO/CEO

communication

frequency

CIO/CEO

communication

style

CIO/CEO

communication

channel naturalness

CIO/CEO

communication

content

CIO/CEO personal characteristics

Shared CIO/CEO

understanding of the

role of IT

Effectivity of

CIO/CEO

communication

Fig. 1 A priori research model


used Daft and Lengel’s [12] media richness theory to examine the impact of

communication channels on outcome variables [13]. However, Kock [37] derived a

new theory from evolutionary psychology theorizing proposing that the naturalness

of a medium is more important than its richness. Specifically, in his media natu-

ralness theory he proposes that a decrease in the degree of naturalness results in

three major effects regarding a communication process: (1) increased cognitive

effort, (2) increased ambiguity, and (3) decreased physiological arousal in terms of

excitement [38].1 However, achieving a shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role

of IT is a difficult process (implying reciprocal understanding of emotions, inten-

tions, and reasoning processes), and thus, following Kock’s theory, more natural

communication channels (ideally face-to-face) will impact the nature of CIO/CEO

communication.

CIO/CEO Communication Content. Communication content comprises the IT

themes which are discussed by an organization’s CIO and CEO during their

meetings. The type of themes discussed by an organization’s CIO and CEO plays a

key role in developing a shared understanding of the role of IT in the organization

[1, 40]. CIOs who communicate mainly about strategic IT themes with their

business peers (e.g., when the CIO and CEO discuss an IT strategy instead of how a

module of the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system supports a specific

business process) are more effective in providing them with the appropriate per-

spective on how to align IT with organizational structures and goals [36, 42].

A strategic discussion of IT themes ensures that business and IT capabilities are

integrated into technical solutions that support the organization effectively [61, 63].

These discussions also allow for the transfer of business and IT knowledge between

the CIO and CEO, and ensure that the CIO deploys IT resources to support critical

business activities [30, 54]. However, due to the lack of qualitative studies in the IS

literature, we know little about the effect of communication content on the

CIO/CEO shared understanding about the role of IT.

CIO/CEO Communication Style. Communication style refers to the terms and

jargon that are used by an organization’s CIO and CEO to communicate about IT

themes [14]. CIOs can proactively create a shared understanding of the techno-

logical side with the CEO by focusing on communicating in business terms and

avoiding technical jargon that others who are not familiar with IT do not understand

[53, 68]. Hence, CIOs must plan the logic of their arguments in order to

1Note that face-to-face communication is 100% natural because it has been the main mode of

communication throughout almost the entire period of human evolution, and therefore, as Kock

[37, 38] argues, abilities in face-to-face interactions (e.g., ability to understand other people’s

emotions, intentions, and reasoning processes) must be part of the genetic makeup of humans. The

degree of naturalness of a communication medium can be evaluated based on the degree to which

it incorporates the characteristics of face-to-face interaction. The main criteria for assessing the

level of naturalness include (1) two communicating people share the same context, and they are

able to see and hear each other, (2) individuals can exchange communicative stimuli in real time,

(3) the situation provides the ability to both convey and observe facial expressions, (4) to convey

and observe body language, and (5) to convey and listen to speech. Differences in media richness

theory and media naturalness theory are discussed in Kock [37, 38].


communicate complex technical matters appropriately, and must be capable of

making tacit IT knowledge explicit [9, 50]. Clarity of the explanations of potential

benefits and uses of IT increases CEOs’ technical knowledge, thereby also

increasing motivation to communicate back with the CIO [4]. CEOs who explain

organizational strategies, processes, and needs in a manner that CIOs with a

technical background can understand are more effective in creating a shared

understanding of the business side [35].

CIO/CEO Personal Characteristics. CIO/CEO personal characteristics (i.e.,

their technical and business knowledge, their working style, and their attitude

toward IT) are critical for the success of championing IT within organizations.

When CIOs possess knowledge about the organization’s goals, objectives, and

visions, they are better able to decide how IT should support and/or enable the

business [31, 40]. When CEOs understand the capabilities and contribution of IT to

business, they are better able to decide how IT can be employed to support the

business strategy and value-chain activities [42, 70]. Hence, CIOs’ educational

efforts in transferring IT knowledge to the CEO are important in promoting a shared

CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT in an organization [4, 52]. A CEO’s

positive attitude toward IT and a CEO’s willingness to discuss IT themes with the

CIO contributes to the development of a shared IT understanding [34]. However,

today it is not clear how the CIO/CEO personal characteristics are related to the

nature of CIO/CEO communication.

Effectivity of CIO/CEO Communication. Communication is defined as a

cyclical process that involves the exchange of information between individuals in

order to reach a common perception and/or collective action [22, 62]. Based on this

definition, we argue that effective CIO/CEO communication requires regular

exchange of relevant information between the two executives, which, in turn, leads

to higher levels of shared CIO/CEO understanding about the role of IT in the

organization. Based on our discussion of related work, we further argue that using

appropriate communication styles and a natural communication channel is critical

for communication effectiveness. Moreover, we stress that empirical evidence about

the link between communication effectivity and shared IT understanding hardly

exists. Yet, there is reason to assume that higher communication effectivity may

lead to higher shared IT understanding.

Shared CIO/CEO Understanding of the Role of IT. Shared understanding is

defined as the degree of convergence between the views of an organization’s CIO

and CEO about the role of IT within the business [27, 62]. A shared understanding

exists when the CEO understands IT objectives and the CIO understands business

objectives, and both executives agree on how IT should be deployed to support or

enable the business strategy. Research indicates that if such a shared understanding

between the CIO and CEO about the role of IT exists, then both executives are more

likely to contribute to desired organizational outcomes, such as IT strategic

alignment and higher firm performance [5, 35]. Also, it was found that a shared

understanding positively relates to the performance of the IT function, as well as to

the success of the CIO [31, 47].


Next, we describe the research methodology that we used to gain better insight

into the nature of CIO/CEO communication effectivity.

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Sampling Strategy

It is a well-known fact in the research community that it is difficult to convince top

managers to serve as informants, particularly to participate in a time-consuming

qualitative interview. To gain access to CEOs and CIOs (or the highest ranking IT

executive within a company), we had to rely on the personal contacts of a

well-connected former CIO of a multinational company located in Austria who had

expressed support for our research project. As a first step, our supporter set up an

initial list of forty CIOs from medium to large companies across different industries

located in Austria where he has direct access to many CIOs. We discussed this list

together and decided to contact all CIOs via e-mail and telephone in order to

explain the research project and our domain of interest. Out of forty CIOs, twelve

CIOs agreed to participate. All of these twelve CIOs agreed to talk to their

respective CEOs about the study, and all twelve CEOs also agreed to serve as

informants. Thus, the final sample in the present study consists of 24 top managers

(12 CIOs and 12 CEOs) of twelve companies. Table 2 shows major characteristics

of the participating firms.

Table 2 Organizational characteristics of the sample

Comp. ID Industry Number of

employeesaRevenue in

€ millionsaTop management

consists ofa

A Manufacturing 1500 800 CEO, CFO, CTO

B Manufacturing 800 250 CEO, CTO

C Manufacturing 500 150 CEO, CFO

D Retail Trade 2500 1000 CEO, CFO, 4 � head of division

E Retail Trade 3500 500 CEO, COO, CMO

F Manufacturing 200 20 CEO

G Manufacturing 6500 2000 CEO, CFO, COO, CCO

H Manufacturing 400 80 CEO

I Manufacturing 6000 1000 CEO, CFO, COO, CMO

J Manufacturing 2500 800 CEO, CFO, CTO

K Manufacturing 1500 250 CEO

L Manufacturing 7500 1000 CEO, COO, CMO

Notes aData collected from the annual reports. CCO Chief commercial officer, CEO Chief

executive officer, CMO Chief marketing and sales officer, COO Chief operating officer, CTO chief

technology officer. In order to guarantee anonymity, classification of industry is based on the

highest possible abstraction level; also, we rounded the number of employees and revenues


3.2 Interview Design

Based on our research model in Fig. 1, we designed an initial set of two interview

guides: one for the CIO and one for the CEO. These guides are organized around

four interview sections [7] to gain insights about a wide range of factors related to

CIO/CEO communication that are currently not addressed in IS research.

The first section contains a set of general questions concerning the participating

person and the company. All participants are asked questions about their career

background and how they would define the term “information technology” within

their company. The CIO guide contains some additional questions about the CIO

working environment to better understand the CIO hierarchical position and struc-

tural power. The second section uses free associations in order to capture the par-

ticipants’ unstructured representations of CIO/CEO communication and the IT

within their company. By way of free association, participants are told a topic on

which they should name the first five terms that come spontaneously into their minds

[48]. Research suggests that free associations provide an insight into individual

knowledge structures and are therefore well-suited to investigating mental repre-

sentations empirically [23, 48]. The third section contains a typical interview section

consisting of a series of open-ended questions, plus some Likert-type scales.

Following previous studies (e.g., [17]), we used seven-point Likert-type scales to

grade the effectiveness of the CIO/CEO communication and the CIO/CEO percep-

tion of IT importance for the business. The fourth and final section summarizes the

discussion and provides an opportunity for each participant to add further comments.

The content validity of the interview guides was examined prior to the inter-

views. A senior consultant from a multinational technology and consulting com-

pany with longstanding experience in our research area was asked to initially

review each interview guide. His valuable comments and suggestions were used to

revise the initial guides. The revised guides were then piloted with an additional

CIO/CEO pair from an international company (not part of the sample in the main

study). The first and second author of this book met with the executives of this

company for the interview. During the interviews, the authors took extensive notes

on the entire interview process in order to enhance the accuracy of the data col-

lection instrument. After completion of the interviews, each executive provided

further feedback and comments about the instrument. This pre-test resulted in a

second revision and adjustment of the interview guides. The final interview guides

are available in Appendix A.

3.3 Data Collection

The entire data collection process covered the first half of the year 2014. During an

initial orientation phase, participants were given the opportunity to ask questions

3 Research Methodology 11

regarding the study’s purpose and were promised confidentiality. A confidentiality

agreement was signed by the interviewer and the interviewee assuring that the data

will only be used anonymously for research purposes. All interviews were con-

ducted in the German language and tape recorded by the second author of this book

(all interviews took place in Austria). The interviewer worked to elicit an inter-

viewee’s own views and ideas in order to better understand the nature, antecedents,

and effects of CIO/CEO communication. Rather than directing questions toward

identification of the critical communication attributes, the interviewer asked

open-ended questions to give each interviewee the opportunity to speak in his or her

own voice, as well as to guide the discussion into particular directions of interest.

Due to this interview style, the interviews lasted up to 60 min and provided thick

data in our domain of interest. Table 3 shows the profiles of all participating top

managers.

3.4 Data Analysis

Before starting the data analysis procedure, we transcribed all tape recorded

interviews of the 24 top managers and simplified their accentuation in order to

standardize the data and to facilitate qualitative content analyses [7]. The tape

recorded interviews with a total duration of more than 13 h resulted in transcripts

with a total length of 206 pages of text (the CIO transcripts have a length of 108

pages of text, the CEO transcripts have a length of 98 pages of text). More detailed

information about each interview is available in Appendix B.

The first step in our data analysis was to categorize (i) the level of CIO/CEO

communication effectivity and (ii) the level of shared CIO/CEO understanding of

the role of IT (see Appendix C for a detailed explanation of the categorization

process). Then, we analyzed the interview data in order to identify text passages

that include information about the nature of CIO/CEO communication. To mitigate

potential bias due to coding and structuring of the transcripts, the first author of this

book, who had not taken part in the interviews, performed the initial analysis.

Thereby, the first author read all transcripts and marked and coded the relevant

phrases by using qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti) in order to make the

analysis process transparent. After coding by the first author, the other two authors

reviewed the results. The two main goals of this review process were the identi-

fication of inappropriate coding and the extraction of additional text passages that

contain useful information about our research domain. At the end of this review

process, we discussed all coding results together, and after some minor modifica-

tions and clarifications, we agreed on the final coding tables.


4 Results

4.1 CIO Hierarchical Position

Table 4 shows that nine out of twelve CIOs in our sample operate at the second

management level, while the three remaining CIOs operate in a staff function or

external function within the company. Nonetheless, all CIOs in our sample have

direct access to the top management due to their reporting line, which means that

the CIO reports directly to the CEO, the CFO (chief financial officer), the COO

Table 3 Profile of the participating top managers

CIO absolute

frequency

CEO absolute

frequency

CIO relative

frequency (%)

CEO relative

frequency (%)

Educational level

Doctorate 1 3 8.3 25.0

Diploma and master 8 6 66.7 50.0

Bachelor 0 0 0.0 0.0

Lower educational level 3 3 25.0 25.0

Educational field

Computer science 2 1 16.7 8.3

Economic sciences 3 6 25.0 50.0

Engineering sciences 2 2 16.7 16.7

Information systems 4 1 33.3 8.3

Law 0 2 0.0 16.7

Mathematics 1 0 8.3 0.0

Years of employment in current organization

13 or more 3 2 25.0 16.7

10–12 1 1 8.3 8.3

7–9 4 1 33.3 8.3

4–6 3 5 25.0 41.7

3 or fewer 1 3 8.3 25.0

Former field of work

Business 1 7 8.3 58.3

IT 10 3 83.4 25.0

Technical 1 2 8.3 16.7

Type of recruitment

Internal hire 5 8 41.7 66.7

External hire 7 4 58.3 33.3

Gender

Male 12 12 100.0 100.0

Female 0 0 0.0 0.0

4 Results 13

Table

4CIO

hierarchical

position

Comp.ID

CIO

managem

ent

level

oroperating

function

CIO

reporting

lineto

CIO

has

regular

meetingswith

CIO

participationin

topmanagem

ent

meetings

CIO

participationin

thestrategic

IT

planning

CIO

responsibility

forother

functions

A2ndmanagem

ent

level

CFO

CFO

andCEO

No

Yes

(ITsteering

committee)

No

BStafffunction

CEO

CEO

No

No

Organizational

development

C2ndmanagem

ent

level

CEO

CEO

andCFO

No

No

No

DStafffunction

CFO

CFO

andCEO

Yes

(inform

ally)

Yes

(managem

ent

meetings)

No

E2ndmanagem

ent

level

CEO

CEO

No

No

Organizational

development

F2ndmanagem

ent

level

CEO

CEO

No

No

Financial

controlling

G2ndmanagem

ent

level

CFO

CFO

andCEO

No

No

No

H2ndmanagem

ent

level

CEO

CEO

No

No

No

I2ndmanagem

ent

level

COO

COO

Yes

(inform

ally)

Yes

(managem

ent

meetings)

No

J2ndmanagem

ent

level

CFO

andCTO

CFO

andCTO

Yes

(inform

ally)

Yes

(ITsteering

committee)

No

KExternal

function

CEO

CEO

No

No

No

L2ndmanagem

ent

level

CEO

CEO

No

No

No


(chief operating officer), or the CTO (chief technology officer). Through this top

management access, almost all CIOs have regular meetings with their CEOs (and

other top managers). Those CIOs who have no regular meetings with their CEOs

participate informally in their companies’ top management meetings, and therefore

also have access to the CEO. Regarding CIO responsibility for other organizational

functions, Table 4 shows that most CIOs are responsible exclusively for the IT

function (in 75% of the cases); only in a few cases does the CIO have to assume

responsibility for other functions such as organizational development or financial

controlling. Thus, most CIOs in our sample can focus on their IT function and do

not have to think about other responsibilities.

Despite the high hierarchical position of the CIOs in our sample, it is surprising

that only four out of twelve CIOs are involved in the strategic planning of IT. A closer

look reveals that those four CIOs who are involved in the strategic IT planning do not

report to the CEO (they report to the CFO, COO, or CTO), but they are in general

informal participants in their companies’ top management meetings. The CIO of

Company A is not a member of the top management, but he has a seat on the IT

steering committee together with the CEO and other business unit managers, and is

therefore involved in strategic IT decisions. Attendance at strategic IT meetings is

critical for CIOs in order to be able to align IT with the business processes and

business strategy [10, 40] and also to initiate IT projects that leverage the contribution

of IT to business performance [11, 56]. In those companies where the CIO is not

involved in strategic IT decisions, the CIO has hardly any access to information that

is necessary to carry out the responsibilities. The CIO of Company B with twenty

company sites in fourteen European countries, and the CIO of Company D, clearly

expressed the significance of CIO attendance at strategic IT meetings:

I am not invited to management meetings. This is a big disadvantage for me and also for the

firm, because IT-relevant decisions are also made there, but ones where the IT is not

considered. When meetings are held in the areas of organizational or corporate develop-

ment in which I am not participating, it may happen that I am not informed about an

initiative. Given that, it is often the case that a decision is made that is not feasible. (CIO,

Company B)

I am not a member of the top management board, but I have the opportunity to participate in

management meetings in which important IT decisions are made. Therefore, it is not

necessarily a disadvantage for me [if I do not always participate in top management board

meetings, added by the authors of this book]. However, from the perspective of organi-

zational influence, I think it is very important that the IT is located at the top of the

company. (CIO, Company D)

IS literature often argues that a CIO should directly report to the CEO in order to

promote the importance of IT and to strengthen the CIO’s influence within the

organization (e.g., [1, 54]). Reporting to the CFO, in contrast to reporting to the

CEO, is typically considered as a diminished role of a CIO because the CIO-CFO

reporting structure is often selected as a means of monitoring IT spending [3]. By

contrasting the CIO-CEO reporting structure (seven CIOs in our sample report to

the CEO) with the CIO-CFO reporting structure (four CIOs in our sample report to

the CFO), we found that all CIOs who report to the CFO do not consider their

4 Results 15

reporting line as an obstacle. Rather, these CIOs argue that the personal charac-

teristics of the top manager to whom they report are the key criterion for successful

interaction (e.g., it makes a difference if a top manager has a positive attitude

toward IT or not). We asked CIOs who report to the CFO if they saw any disad-

vantages in their reporting line, and they provided comments as the following ones:

No, not in the current situation, because from a personality perspective the CFO is much

more IT-savvy than the CEO. The CFO is 42 years old and has a totally different view on

IT. The CEO, however, is 64 years old and held his first smart phone in his hand recently.

(CIO, Company A)

Yes and no. Yes, because I am basically convinced that IT plays a key role in the orga-

nization, and hence the CIO should directly report to the CEO. No, because in our case the

CFO, just like the CEO, has a perspective that encompasses the entire organization … and

therefore it is ok for me. (CIO, Company D)

It depends on the CFO type. A CFO who is able to realize that IT can make a valuable

contribution and that IT is an important factor … then this CFO will be last person who

prevents an investment [in IT]. (CIO, Company G)

4.2 CIO/CEO Communication Frequency

Prior quantitative empirical studies (listed in Table 1) indicate that CIOs should

communicate as often as possible with their CEOs in order to reach a high level of

shared understanding on the role of IT. In contrast to this research stream, however,

our interview data reveals that almost all CIO/CEO pairs in our sample with a high

level of communication effectivity and a high level of shared understanding

regarding the organization’s role of IT have only one, or at most, two regular

meetings per month (see Table 5). Many IT tasks (e.g., implementation of a new

operating system) typically take several weeks or month, and sometimes even years

(e.g., implementation of an ERP system), and it is therefore usually not necessary to

have meetings on a weekly basis, as clearly exemplified by the following statements:

I do not see a need to communicate weekly with the CIO because an IT task often takes

several weeks or months. Therefore, I am satisfied with the 14-day intervals [for our regular

meetings]. (CEO, Company B)

One meeting per month with the CIO is appropriate in my opinion. In the meetings with the

CIO, we define general parameters and goals, so I think this is okay. (CEO, Company C)

Only two CIOs in our sample plead for regular meetings with their CEOs on a

weekly basis, because their cross-national IT projects often require quick decisions.

One of these CIOs (of Company E) communicates on a weekly basis with his CEO,

and due to this frequency, the CIO is able to align his perceptions on the ongoing IT

challenges with his CEO. As a result, they maintain a high level of shared

understanding of the role of IT. The other CIO (of Company G) who has only

monthly meetings with his CEO argues that the frequency of their regular meetings

should be increased to four times per month (i.e., to one meeting per week) in order


Table

5CIO

/CEO

communicationfrequency

Comp.ID

Frequency

ofregular

CIO

/CEO

meetings

IsthisCIO

/CEO

meetingfrequency

sufficient?

Frequency

of

regular

CIO

/CFO

meetings

Frequency

of

regular

CIO

/COO

meetings

Frequency

of

CIO

/CEO

project-related

meetings

Effectivityof

CIO

/CEO

communication

Shared

CIO

/CEO

understanding

oftherole

ofIT

A1�

per

month

Yes

(both)

1�

per

month

4�

per

month

High

High

B2�

per

month

Yes

(both)

Dependsonproject

Medium-high

High

C1�

per

month

Yes

(both)

1�

per

month

Dependsonproject

Medium

Low-m

edium

D2�

per

month

Yes

(both)

3�

per

month

Dependsonproject

Medium-high

Medium

E4�

per

month

Yes

(both)

8�

per

month

High

High

F1�

per

month

Yes

(both)

1�

per

month

High

Medium-high

G1�

per

month

CIO

:no,CEO:yes

4�

per

month

1�

per

month

Medium-high

Medium-high

H1�

every2ndmonth

CIO

:no,CEO:yes

Dependsonproject

Low

Medium

INotregular

Yes

(both)

1�

per

month

4�

per

month

Medium-high

Medium-high

JNotregular

Yes

(both)

1�

per

month

Dependsonproject

Medium-high

Medium-high

K2�

per

month

Yes

(both)

Dependsonproject

Medium-high

Medium-high

L1�

per

month

Yes

(both)

3�

per

month

High

High

4 Results 17

to further elevate their level of shared IT understanding (currently they maintain a

medium to high level of shared understanding of the role of IT). With only one

regular meeting per month, it is difficult for them to create common knowledge

about their IT processes, and therefore to achieve effective communication.

However, ten out of twelve CIOs in our sample are satisfied with the frequency

of their regular meetings with the CEOs (even when the CIO has no formal regular

meetings with his CEO), as expressed in the following statements:

The communication frequency is currently appropriate. If I need more meetings, then I can

have them at any time. (CEO, Company L)

The communication frequency [with the CEO] is appropriate. The CEO is accessible at any

time for me to talk about important issues. (CIO, Company J)

The CIO of Company H is not satisfied with the frequency of regular meetings

with his CEO (they only communicate every second month about IT themes).

However, this CIO is faced with a completely different problem because his CEO is

not interested in IT, and therefore is not willing to discuss IT issues more fre-

quently. This CIO provided the following statement:

Electronic data processing probably does not have the same value in the eyes of the CEO as

other business areas. The priorities are elsewhere. (CIO, Company H)

With such a personal attitude of the CEO toward IT, it is difficult for the CIO to

achieve effective communication with his CEO. This fact is relatively independent

from the frequency of interactions. As a result, this CIO/CEO pair maintains only a

medium level of communication effectivity. Also, they only have a low level of

shared IT understanding.

However, with respect to CIO/CEO project-related communication, the appro-

priate frequency is difficult to quantify, because it depends on the requirements and

complexity of the project. The following statements provide the empirical evidence

for this conclusion:

The appropriate frequency depends on the project conditions. If it is a large and critical

project, you have to communicate more frequently. If it is a smaller and regular project, you

communicate less. (CIO, Company A)

From the moment when the goal of the project is clear, the communication [frequency]

decreases because only the essential points are then discussed in a summarized form and the

discrepancies are adjusted. (CIO, Company E)

4.3 CIO/CEO Communication Channel Naturalness

Based on our research model, we expect that CIOs and CEOs who use natural

channels to communicate about IT issues with each other are more likely to achieve

a high degree of shared understanding about their company’s role of IT. Table 6

shows that, in total, 64% of the overall CIO/CEO communication occurs

face-to-face. CIOs and CEOs stated frequently that the effectivity of their


Table

6CIO

/CEO

communicationchannel

naturalness

Comp.ID

Face-to-face

Video

conference

Telephone

E-M

ail

Face-to-face

in%

Video

conference

in%

Telephone

in%

E-M

ail

in%

Effectivityof

CIO

/CEO

communication

Shared

CIO

/CEO

understandingof

therole

ofIT

Ax

xx

60

25

15

High

High

Bx

xx

50

545

Medium-high

High

Cx

x70

30

Medium

Low-m

edium

Dx

xx

50

25

25

Medium-high

Medium

Ex

x50

50

High

High

Fx

x85

15

High

Medium-high

Gx

x45

55

Medium-high

Medium-high

Hx

x55

45

Low

Medium

Ix

xx

x40

545

10

Medium-high

Medium-high

Jx

100

Medium-high

Medium-high

Kx

xx

75

10

15

Medium-high

Medium-high

Lx

xx

x85

55

5High

High

Sum

12

26

11

4 Results 19

communication is higher when they have face-to-face contact because this setting

provides the opportunity for direct feedback and enables more comprehensive

explanation of complex technical and business matters. The following quotes

express the significance of face-to-face communication:

I think the effectiveness of the communication with the CIO is influenced by the time you

invest [in the meetings] and the fact that the communication process is focused [on specific

topics]. Face-to-face is more effective in most situations. (CEO, Company J)

Face-to-face contact should not be underestimated. With all the modern forms of com-

munication that exist, I think it is critical that you still invest time [in face-to-face meetings],

even if it is little. (CIO, Company B)

Face-to-face is the foundation. I think it is important that you meet your CIO each week at

least once or twice and discuss topics face-to-face. (CEO, Company L)

The CIO of Company G noted that if, for example, an alignment gap between IT

and business objectives occurs, he asks his CEO for a face-to-face meeting in order

to directly discuss possible solutions to reestablish strategic alignment. The CIO of

Company L commented that effective communication about strategic themes (e.g.,

how to implement process innovations in the value chain or how to leverage

existing IT assets) requires in most cases face-to-face interactions:

If I communicated only by e-mail with the CEO, then it would be difficult, if compared to

sitting together with the CIO [to discuss strategic IT themes]. Currently, our communication

is good. The relationship with the CEO is very open and I am satisfied. (CIO, Company L)

The telephone is used as a communication channel by our interviewees to

exchange urgent information that must be explained or commented by both parties

(e.g., a resource shortage emerged during an IT project and both executives have to

decide quickly how to deal with this issue). Table 6 shows that 9% of overall

executive communication takes place by telephone. E-mail is the basic channel to

transmit information that requires no immediate feedback from the receiver (e.g.,

information about the current project status, description of new IT suppliers, or IT

infrastructure key performance indicators). In total, 26% of the overall executive

communication is based on e-mail.

Using videoconferences for discussing IT issues is not very common in our

sample, predominantly because most CIO/CEO pairs have a short distance between

their offices; only 1% of the overall communication is based on videoconference.

For example, the CIO of Company E is located next door to the CEO, and hence

videoconferences are not necessary. However, our interviewees’ noted that video-

conferences could be a useful tool to exchange content rich information if one of the

communication partners is located on a different company site.

4.4 CIO/CEO Communication Content

To gain insights into what topics CIOs and CEOs communicate about during their

meetings, we reviewed the interview responses to determine the content of


communication. Table 7 shows that the two most frequently discussed IT themes

by the CIO/CEO pairs in our sample are the alignment between a company’s IT and

business objectives and the budget and costs of IT (ten out of twelve pairs com-

municate about these themes). The current and future IT projects and the company’s

IT strategy are the next most important topics (eight pairs communicate about it).

Table 7 indicates that in order to achieve a high level of shared understanding

regarding the role of IT in a company, it is necessary that both the CIO and CEO

communicate extensively about strategic topics. In fact, only those CIO/CEO pairs

who discussed five or more strategic themes with each other reached a high level of

shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT. For example, the CEO and CIO of

Company E with 3500 employees in several countries (where IT is a driver of

innovation) communicate about all strategic themes listed in Table 7, and thereby

are better able to develop a comprehensive understanding of the role of their IT.

The CEO of this company tellingly described why he perceives strategic discus-

sions as important and also stated reasons for this importance:

We [the CEO and CIO] always think about the ‘big picture’, always based on a specific

objective, and we do not discuss technological details … IT alone cannot drive business

areas and strategies forward, only a very high degree of interaction with the top management

and the individual business units enables us to find optimal ways to drive the firm forward in

the use of IT and to be able to promote the necessary changes. This is only possible through

involvement of the different organizational departments. (CEO, Company E)

When CEOs realize that strategic input from the business side is important for

their CIOs to deploy IT resources to support key competitive objectives, then an

important cornerstone for the development of a shared CIO/CEO understanding is

laid. For example, the CIO and the CEO of Company J reached a relatively high

level of shared understanding regarding the role of IT (i.e., medium-high) even

though the CIO negotiates operational IT issues mainly with the CFO and the CTO

(the CIO reports to both the CFO and CTO). A reason for this observation is that his

CEO is aware of the importance of making strategic IT decisions directly with the

CIO in order to establish an IT department that fully meets the competitive

requirements, as clearly exemplified in the following statement:

Strategic orientation is actually the only topic that I discuss with the CIO. We have split the

responsibility between the CFO and CTO; they take care of the daily IT business … First

and foremost, the strategic discussions provide input from me so that the CIO can do his

job, for example, by explaining how the organizational structure will develop. The CIO can

then decide how he wants to develop the IT function, and also how to align it [with the

business]. (CEO, Company J)

CIOs have to realize that strategic input on technical matters is important for

their CEOs so that they can decide appropriately how IT can enable business

processes. As such, the CIO of Company I with more than 6000 employees

worldwide and a revenue of 1000 million euros negotiates operational IT issues

mainly with the COO (to whom the CIO reports), but he always tries to make

strategic IT decisions directly with the CEO. However, strategic and operational IT

issues are often interrelated, and hence the challenge is to find an appropriate

4 Results 21

Table

7CIO

/CEO

them

eswithrespectto

ITcommunication

Comp.ID

Business

strategy

IT strategy

IT-business

alignment

Competitive

advantage

throughIT

IT innovation

IT projects

Budget

and

costs

IT security

Sum

ofIT

them

es

Effectivityof

CIO

/CEO

communication

Shared

CIO

/CEO

understanding

oftheroleofIT

Ax

xx

xx

5High

High

Bx

xx

xx

5Medium-high

High

Cx

xx

3Medium

Low-m

edium

Dx

xx

xx

x6

Medium-high

Medium

Ex

xx

xx

xx

x8

High

High

Fx

1High

Medium-high

Gx

xx

xx

x6

Medium-high

Medium-high

Hx

1Low

Medium

Ix

xx

xx

xx

7Medium-high

Medium-high

Jx

xx

x4

Medium-high

Medium-high

Kx

xx

3Medium-high

Medium-high

Lx

xx

xx

5High

High

Sum

58

10

52

910

554


trade-off between these issues because otherwise a CEO’s interest in IT topics is

likely to decrease, as clearly expressed in the following statement:

Regarding the subject of strategy definition, we [the CEO and I] have a very good

understanding and communication basis. The more technical a subject is, the less under-

standing and interest on the subject exists. It depends entirely on the subject matter on

which the communication is taking place. If it is a topic that has to do with a possible

acquisition, then the interest is very high. If it is an issue that affects internal processes, the

interest is rather limited … (CIO, Company I)

Those CEOs in our sample who communicate most extensively about IT themes

with their peer acted as CIO before they became CEO (the CEO of Company E

communicates about eight IT themes with his CIO, and the CEO of Company I

communicates about seven IT themes with his CIO). Based on this professional

background, these two CEOs tend to discuss more IT-related themes with their

current CIOs (compared to the other executive pairs in our sample) because they

possess an extensive understanding of their companies’ IT challenges.

In contrast, the CEO of Company C has a master degree in computer science, and

thus he often takes over IT agendas from his CIO (e.g., the CEO is also responsible

for IT-business alignment or IT innovations). Due to this CEO intervention in IT

activities; problems concerning responsibility arise for the CIO because his CEO

does not involve him in strategic IT decisions. In that case, it is difficult for them to

perform an effective communication about strategic IT issues (their communication

effectivity is only on a medium level), and consequently it is difficult for them to

achieve a shared understanding about the role of IT in their company.

4.5 CIO/CEO Communication Style

Table 8 shows for each CIO (1) if he focuses on key IT issues in the communi-

cation process, (2) if he explains IT issues clearly, and (3) if he explains the IT

contribution to organizational performance clearly. Moreover, Table 8 shows for

each CEO (1) if he explains business needs clearly, (2) if he explains IT needs

clearly, and (3) if he explains strategic IT decisions to his CIO. We reviewed the

CIO responses to gain insights into the CEO communication style, and vice versa,

we analyzed the CEO responses to understand the CIO communication style. As

already indicated, our assumption is that this approach yields more reliable results

(due to a lowered risk of the emergence of biases such as social desirability) than

directly asking a person about his own behavior and performance.

Analysis of our interview data reveals that both CIOs and CEOs use, in several

cases, an inappropriate communication style, and therefore struggle with commu-

nication about the role of IT in their company. Table 8 shows that only nine out of

twelve CIOs have realized that is important to focus on key IT issues (e.g., how IT

could and should support the business) instead of technical details (e.g., what the

firm can do with a new server) in their interaction with the CEO. Time is, in

general, a limiting factor for executive communication and hence CIOs have to

4 Results 23

Table

8CIO

/CEO

communicationstyle

Comp.ID

CIO

focuseson

key

IT

issues

CIO

explainsIT

issues

clearly

CIO

explains

IT contribution

clearly

CEO

explains

business

needsclearly

CEO

explainsIT

needs

clearly

CEOexplains

strategic

IT

decisions

Effectivityof

CIO

/CEO

communication

Shared

CIO

/CEO

understandingof

therole

ofIT

Ax

xx

xHigh

High

Bx

xx

xx

Medium-high

High

Cx

xMedium

Low-m

edium

Dx

xx

xMedium-high

Medium

Ex

xx

xx

xHigh

High

Fx

xHigh

Medium-high

Gx

xx

xMedium-high

Medium-high

Hx

Low

Medium

Ix

xx

xx

Medium-high

Medium-high

Jx

xx

xx

Medium-high

Medium-high

Kx

xx

Medium-high

Medium-high

Lx

xx

xx

High

High

Sum

912

86

38


concentrate on topics that are directly relevant for IT-business success. Two CEOs

tellingly described how they perceive the communication with their CIO, and the

CIO of Company B clearly expressed the importance of focusing on key IT issues:

I have sometimes only half an hour with the CEO, and therefore, I think it is critical that

you are well prepared [for the meeting] to make a structured conversation possible and to

focus on topics that are important for the other person. (CIO, Company B)

We have very efficient communication. The CIO is a very organized person who addresses

[IT] issues concisely and I do not need to ask a lot of questions for a long time to

understand these things. (CEO, Company K)

We have such a communication style that both sides know the important topics… The CIO

is quite adept at explaining the necessities for the entire production operation … We have a

shared language! (CEO, Company A)

IT issues and contributions are often very complex and difficult to understand for

those without an IT background. Table 8 indicates that all CIOs in our sample are

aware of the importance of explaining technical issues (e.g., gaps in security) to their

CEOs in layman’s terms. It is just as important as a clear explanation of technical

issues by the CIO that CIOs communicate IT’s contribution to business performance

to their CEOs in a clear way. Despite this importance, only eight out of twelve CIOs

make the value obtained from investments in IT explicit (see column “CIO explains

IT contributions clearly” in Table 8). As a consequence, those CIOs who do not

communicate IT’s contributions to their CEOs have, in most cases, a lower level of

shared understanding with them. Among these CIO/CEO pairs, the highest level of

shared CIO/CEO understanding regarding the company’s role of IT is “medium-

high”, while their lowest level of shared understanding is “low-medium”. However,

CIOs use different approaches to explain IT issues and the contribution of IT to their

CEOs, as exemplified in the following statements:

We [the IT team] orient ourselves strongly by the corporation’s business strategies and

areas … and hence the level of explanation in communication [with the CEO] is not high.

All topics are prepared in such a way that everyone can understand what we are talking

about. (CIO, Company E)

I have always tried to explain [IT] topics to the CEO in a manager-friendly form and to

make use of an open information policy. As a result, the CEO has a level of IT knowledge

that roughly corresponds to the level that I have. Due to this shared IT knowledge, we have

a very good communication basis. (CIO, Company B)

The CEO communication style also leaves room for improvement because only

six out of twelve CEOs explain the company’s business needs clearly to their CIOs

(see column “CEO explains business needs clearly” in Table 8). Of course, in those

cases in which the CIO has extensive business and organizational knowledge, it

might not always be necessary that the CEO explains all business needs to the CIO,

but explicit articulation can reduce ambiguity regarding business conditions in

which a company operates. In particular, when a firm operates in a competitive

environment where the business conditions are changing frequently, it could be

difficult for the CIO to stay up-to-date. Such a scenario is described by the CEO of

Company D in which the CIO has been employed for almost 30 years and hence

4 Results 25

has gained wide-ranging organizational and business knowledge (the CEO said:

“The CIO knows the business inside out.”), but to introduce IT innovation, the CIO

nevertheless requires strong input from the business side of the company. The CIO

of Company J with more than 2500 employees describes a similar scenario in which

he implemented an IT innovation (i.e., a communication portal) more effectively

because his CEO was able to articulate the business needs clearly to him:

Introducing and implementing a communication platform was the subject about which we

spoke. The CEO clearly defined his requirements. We then discussed the technological

potentials and drawbacks, and the project evolved gradually … as a result, we implemented

this project in an optimal way. (CIO, Company J)

Table 8 shows that only three out of twelve CEOs explain IT needs clearly to

their CIOs (see column “CEO explains IT needs clearly”). Those three CEOs who

explain the IT needs to their CIOs in a clear way have either an educational or a

professional background in IT. For example, the CEO of Company C has a uni-

versity degree in computer science, and both the CEO of Company E and the CEO

of Company F worked in the role of a CIO within their current companies in the

past. Based on this educational or professional background in IT, the CEO can

(1) advise the CIO about IT needs more effectively, (2) discuss complex IT issues

with the CIO in a more technical language (without explaining and talking too

much about basic technological relationships), and (3) is better able to decide how

IT should be used within the business. Two interviewees clearly expressed the

benefits of a CEO background in IT:

I was the previous CIO and handed over all these [IT] things to the current CIO, and

therefore, I have a strong affinity with IT … We discuss the improvement of process

efficiency through the use of IT, but also topics such as strategic IT orientation, that is,

which processes should be supported by IT. (CEO, Company F)

I can present complex technical issues to the CEO without spending hours explaining the

technological background. The understanding of the advantages and disadvantages [of IT]

is just there, and he often brings in arguments why we need it [or not]. The CEO also asks

the right questions, so that we are better able to reflect on an issue again. (CIO, Company C)

As discussed, it is important for CIOs that they participate in strategic meetings

where key IT decisions are made. Those CIOs who are not involved in such

strategic meetings may have problems in carrying out their responsibilities because

they have hardly any access to information that is critical for IT success. In those

cases, CIOs are dependent on the willingness of their CEOs to communicate

important IT decisions to them during regular meetings. Thus, if CEOs do not

communicate strategic IT decisions to their CIOs the level of shared IT under-

standing is affected negatively.

4.6 CIO/CEO Personal Characteristics

For each CIO, Table 9 shows (1) his field of education, (2) his former field of work,

(3) if he understands the business, (4) if he has a professional working style, and


(5) if he educates his CEO about the IT. For each CEO, Table 9 shows (1) his field

of education, (2) his former field of work, (3) if he understands the IT, (4) if he has a

positive attitude toward IT, and (5) if he takes time for discussing IT issues. We

reviewed the CIO responses to gain insights into the CEO personal characteristics

from numbers 3 to 5, and vice versa, we analyzed the CEO responses to understand

the CIO personal characteristics from number 3 to 5. The rationale for this approach

is that it is difficult to imagine that each individual CIO and CEO of our study

would provide direct statements against his own competence and good manners.

Thus, our assumption is that based on our approach data is less susceptible to

biases, particularly social desirability.

Table 9 (column “CIO understands the business”) indicates that all CEOs

believe that their CIOs understand the company’ goals, objectives, and vision

(despite the fact that only three CIOs have an educational or professional back-

ground in economic sciences; the nine other CIOs have an IT or technical back-

ground). Profound business knowledge is important for CIOs to enable them to

form a shared understanding with their CEOs regarding the business demands on

IT. The CEO of Company L with more than 7500 employees worldwide and

revenue of nearly 1000 million euros clearly expressed the importance of CIO

business understanding; he comments on the CIO of the firm as follows:

I think his strengths are more affected by his solid understanding of the business processes

and his long affiliation with the company than by any technical details… (CEO, Company L)

Our data show that a long affiliation with the company may compensate for a

missing educational background in management and economics. Hence, significant

experience in a specific organizational environment implies that a CIO has learned

about the company’s business processes and competitive needs. The CIO of

Company G with approximately 6500 employees and revenue of 2000 million euros

has analyzed, and hence internalized, his company’s business processes over many

years to gain this business knowledge, as exemplified in the following statement:

I have intensively analyzed our business processes … because it is essential for a CIO that

he understands his business. The IT is only a part of the business … and when you do not

understand the value chain, you cannot introduce innovation. (CIO, Company G)

In ten out of twelve cases the CEOs are satisfied with the CIO style of working.

Due to this professional working style, the CIOs in our sample can effectively

handle the (sometimes) small timeslots that they have in which to communicate

about IT issues with their CEOs. As already mentioned, both the CIO with “low”

communication effectivity (i.e., CIO from Company C) and the CIO with “medium”

communication effectivity (i.e., CIO from Company H) have some deficits in their

working style. These deficits manifest themselves predominantly in three ways: the

CIO (1) is not always prepared well for the meetings with the CEO, (2) neglects to

set up a structured agenda for the meetings with the CEO in which key IT issues are

discussed, or (3) discusses IT projects with the CEO which are not (yet) clearly

specified, and therefore misunderstandings are likely to emerge. The time available

for personal meetings with the CEO is often short, and therefore such inadequacies

4 Results 27

Table

9CIO

/CEO

personal

characteristics

Comp.ID

CIO

field

of

education

CIO

form

er

fieldof

work

CIO

understands

thebusiness

CIO

has

a

professional

working

style

CIO

educates

theCEO

aboutIT

CEO

field

of

education

CEO

form

er

fieldof

work

CEO

understands

theIT

CEO

has

a

positive

attitude

towardIT

CEO

takes

timefor

discussing

ITissues

Effectivityof

CIO

/CEO

communication

Shared

CIO

/CEO

understandingof

therole

ofIT

Amath.

ITx

xx

eng.sci.

Technical

xx

xHigh

High

Binf.sys.

ITx

xx

econ.sci.

Business

xx

xMedium-high

High

Cinf.sys.

ITx

comp.sci.

Business

xx

xMedium

Low-m

edium

Dcomp.sci.

ITx

xx

econ.sci.

Business

xx

xMedium-high

Medium

Eecon.sci.

ITx

xecon.sci.

ITx

xx

High

High

Fecon.sci.

business

xx

econ.sci.

ITx

xx

High

Medium-high

Gecon.sci.

ITx

xx

law

Business

xx

xMedium-high

Medium-high

Heng.sci.

technical

xeng.sci.

Technical

Low

Medium

Iinf.sys.

ITx

xinf.sys.

ITx

xMedium-high

Medium-high

Jcomp.sci.

ITx

xecon.sci.

Business

xx

Medium-high

Medium-high

Keng.sci.

ITx

xecon.sci.

Business

xx

Medium-high

Medium-high

Linf.sys.

ITx

xx

Law

Business

xx

xHigh

High

Sum

12

10

59

11

10

Notescomp.sci.=computerscience,econ.sci.=economic

sciences,eng.sci.=engineeringsciences,inf.sys.=inform

ationsystem

s,math.=mathem

atics


make it difficult to develop a high level of a shared CIO/CEO understanding

regarding the role of IT in the company. This explains why those CIOs with deficits

in their working style only achieved a “low-medium” or “medium” level of shared

understanding about the role of IT with their CEO (see the last column in Table 9).

The CEOs’ understanding of IT is critical for CIOs to form a shared under-

standing regarding the capabilities and potential contributions of IT to company

performance, and to be better able to decide together how IT can be employed to

support the business strategy and value-chain activities. Interestingly, nine out of

twelve CIOs think that their CEOs possess this required level of IT knowledge.

Four of those CEOs with an appropriate level of IT understanding have an edu-

cational background in IT or have worked previously in the IT field. In the other

five companies where the CEO had insufficient IT knowledge, the CIO had edu-

cated the CEO about IT in order to create/provide this IT knowledge (i.e., what IT

can do and what one may expect from IT). The CEOs and CIOs tellingly described

their perspectives on IT understanding:

When the CIO is a technical expert and the CEO does not possess IT knowledge, then I

think it is very difficult for the CEO to talk with the technical expert, or at least to

understand what he is saying. (CEO, Company G)

If I had not been the CIO previously, I think that communication with the CIO would be

quite difficult. An advantage [of my IT background] is that I can understand and judge the

things the company needs and those it does not need. (CEO, Company E)

Due to the fact that the CEO was my predecessor and really has sound IT experience, our

communication is very effective. If this had not been the case, then we would have

sometimes had problems in our communication. The electronic data processing knowledge

of the CEO is absolutely critical, without that knowledge it would not be always easy.

(CIO, Company F)

Just as important as the IT knowledge of the CEO is that the CEO has a positive

attitude toward IT, because when the CEO is willing and open to discuss IT issues

with the CIO, then he is better able to specify IT projects that drive the company

forward in the use of IT. A negative CEO attitude toward IT adversely affects

CIO/CEO communication, and in consequence also their level of shared under-

standing of the role of IT. The CIO of Company H has enormous problems

regarding the communication about IT issues with his CEO, and hence the

development of a shared IT understanding is hampered. In essence, the CEO in this

company is absolutely not interested in IT, as effectively exemplified in the fol-

lowing statement:

Electronic data processing has to work, and therefore I do not care about it. We need

electronic data processing as a tool, and the CIO ensures that this tool works. Electronic

data processing is a utility, like a car, where I start the engine and drive off. (CEO,

Company H)

However, in most cases the CIOs are satisfied with the amount of time that they

have to discuss IT issues with their CEOs. Moreover, the data of our sample shows

that most CIOs can contact their CEOs at any time if an urgent decision has to be

made, as the following examples indicate:

4 Results 29

When there are any problems, I can always contact the CEO, also when an urgent decision

must be made. (CEO, Company E)

I always have access to the CEO when I have a problem. The former CEO did not really

care much about IT; the current CEO is more competent from this point of view. (CEO,

Company L)

5 Discussion

Despite its theoretical and practical significance, to the best of our knowledge, no

scientific study has investigated in detail the nature of effective CIO/CEO com-

munication. Based on personal interviews with CIO/CEO pairs from twelve com-

panies, and the little we knew a priori from the existing literature (see Sect. 2), we

made a first contribution to closing this significant research gap by developing a

conceptual model of CIO/CEO communication effectivity (see Fig. 2). In the fol-

lowing, we elaborate on the model.

The model indicates that a high hierarchical position within the organization is

important for the CIO to have access to the CEO, and to be able to discuss IT

themes directly with the CEO (see ❶). When the CIO does not directly commu-

nicate with the CEO about IT themes on a regular basis, information flow is

impaired (e.g., see also the studies from Kearns [33] or Ragu-Nathan et al. [55]).

Our interview data indicates that a high CIO hierarchical position can either be

implemented by setting the CIO reporting line directly to the CEO, or by posi-

tioning the CIO at least at the second management level or an equivalent functional

position.

CIO hierarchical positionCIO/CEO communication

frequency

CIO communication style

CIO/CEO communication channel naturalness

CIO/CEO communicationcontent

Effectivity of CIO/CEO communication

- CIO participation in IT

management meetings

- CIO participation in IT

steering committees

CIO involvement in strategic IT planning and

decisions

2

CEO communication style

- Focus on key themes not

on technical details

- Avoid technical terms

and jargon

- Explain business needs

and changes clearly

- Inform about strategic

decisions

- CIO reporting structure

- CIO management level

1

4

3

6

7

8

9

5

11

Shared CIO/CEO understanding of the

role of IT

CIO personal characteristics

CEO personal characteristics

- Business knowledge

and understanding

- IT teaching ability

- Management skills

- Level of IT knowledge

- Attitude toward IT

- IT cooperativeness

- Intervention in IT activities

10

Fig. 2 Conceptual model of CIO/CEO communication


When the CIO does not operate in a high hierarchical position, then it is more

likely that the CIO is not involved in management board meetings or steering

committees where strategic IT planning and decisions are made (see ❷), which, in

turn, adversely influences communication frequency between the CIO and CEO

about IT themes (see ❸). This lack of involvement in IT planning and decisions

causes problems for CIOs in carrying out their responsibilities because in that case

they often have no access to information that is essential for key IT tasks (e.g.,

aligning IT with current and future business objectives), and have no chance to

discuss, and influence, the top management’s IT decisions (see ❹). A CIO exclu-

sion from strategic IT planning may also cause problems for management teams

because it could happen that top managers make an IT decision that is not feasible

(e.g., replacing the old ERP system without evaluating the far-reaching conse-

quences of such a system change).

In contrast to the extant literature (e.g., [66]), the CIOs in our sample do not, in

general, see a necessity to be accepted as a formal member of the company’s

management board. They rather argue that involvement in IT planning and decision

meetings of the management board is sufficient for them to be able to communicate

with top managers about strategic IT themes effectively. One important aspect for

the CIOs in our sample is, however, that they have the opportunity to discuss a wide

range of IT themes with their CEOs (ranging from critical issues in IT projects to

new IT innovations), and to educate and manage their CEOs’ expectations on the

value IT can deliver in order to achieve effective communication and a harmonized

view on the role of IT (see ❺).

Our interviewees indicate that the IT themes that are discussed between the CIO

and CEO influence the naturalness of their communication channel (see ❻). If the

complexity of the IT themes is high (e.g., how IT should support new business

processes), then the CIO/CEO pairs in our sample prefer face-to-face meetings

because this channel enables a more detailed explanation of complex business and

technical objectives. However, they indicate that a lower degree of naturalness is

sufficient (e.g., communication via telephone or e-mail), if the IT themes do not

require detailed explanation and are simple to understand (e.g., the CIO informs the

CEO about implementation progress of a new IT system). Thus, with an appropriate

degree of naturalness, CIOs and CEOs can achieve a higher level of communication

effectivity (see ❼).

In contrast to prior studies, our results demonstrate that an appropriate com-

munication frequency between the CIO and CEO is more suitable to achieve a high

level of shared understanding regarding the company’s role of IT; too many

interactions may adversely affect communication effectivity. CEOs have to manage

multiple organizational issues during their work time, and therefore, it is not wise

for CIOs to take as much time as possible of their CEOs to discuss IT themes.

Concerning the term “appropriate frequency”, the CIOs and CEOs in our sample

suggest that one or two regular CIO/CEO meetings per month are usually enough in

most cases because strategic IT tasks (e.g., developing a new IT system for sup-

porting the supply chain) often last several month, and sometimes even years. Our

model therefore shows that the communication theme between the CIO and CEO

5 Discussion 31

should determine the frequency of their interactions (see ❽), and an appropriate

frequency in their interactions leads, in turn, to an effective IT communication

(see ❾).

Analysis of the transcripts revealed that communication style is an important

determinant of communication effectivity. To gain benefits from personal meetings,

both executives are encouraged to keep focused on key issues during their meet-

ings, and to avoid jargon and other terms that either the CEO, or CIO, does not

understand (see ❿). CIOs have to concentrate on topics that are directly relevant for

IT-business success, and have to explain technical issues and the contribution of IT

to their CEOs in a clear way. CEOs, in contrast, have to explain business needs

clearly to their CIOs to reduce ambiguity concerning business processes and

requirements, and have to inform their CIOs proactively about strategic decisions

that may affect the IT domain. When both executives achieve shared language, then

it is more likely that their communication effectivity is high. In Fig. 2, we illustrate

these insights with the factor ‘CIO/CEO communication style’ as moderator

between the CIO/CEO communication attributes (communication channel, com-

munication content and communication frequency) and the effectivity of CIO/CEO

communication.

CIO/CEO communication effectivity, in turn, influences the level of shared

understanding between the CIO and CEO regarding the role of IT. As illustrated in

Fig. 3, in seven out of twelve cases, the level of CIO/CEO communication effec-

tivity and the level of shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT are identical.

In four cases, there is only one level difference between communication effectivity

and shared understanding (e.g., CIO/CEO communication effectivity is ‘high’ while

shared CIO/CEO understanding is ‘medium-high’). Only in one out of twelve cases

low

low-

medium

medium

medium-

high

high

Effectivity of CIO/CEO communication Shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT

Fig. 3 CIO/CEO communication effectivity and shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT


there is a difference of two levels (Company H: communication effectivity is ‘low’

and shared understanding is ‘medium’). Despite the fact that one should not gen-

eralize qualitative data to develop a nomothetic law, our results clearly indicate a

positive relationship between communication effectivity and shared understanding.

Based on the interviewees’ responses, we conclude that the personal charac-

teristics of the CIO and CEO affect their communication pattern, and consequently

also their level of shared understanding. When a CEO possesses at least basic IT

knowledge, has a positive attitude toward IT, and/or possesses IT cooperativeness,

then the foundation for developing a shared IT understanding regarding the role of

IT is laid. Recent evidence supports this reasoning by arguing that a CIO’s ability to

foster change is greater when the CIO communicates with someone who believes

in, and understands, the importance of IT [3, 39]. When CIOs understand their

business in detail, have a professional style of working (e.g., CIO/CEO meetings

are prepared well), and/or are good IT educators, then this shared CIO/CEO

understanding can grow. In Fig. 2, we summarize these insights with the factor

‘CIO/CEO personal characteristics’ which moderates all communication effects on

shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT.

The extent to which CEOs participate in strategic IT discussions is influenced by

their IT knowledge [20]. If a CEO possesses an educational background in IT, or

has worked previously in the IT domain, then the CEO will more likely take an

active part in IT activities, and also propose IT initiatives by himself. Such a CEO

involvement in IT activities is important for the CIO to fully leverage the potential

of IT [69], but some CIOs in our sample indicate that when a CEO intervenes too

much in the management of IT, then the effectivity of communication decreases and

the CIO’s job becomes more difficult. Thus, the appropriate level of CEO inter-

vention in IT activities is an important aspect of the CEO personal characteristics

that requires future investigation.

Finally, our interview data reveals that the degree of shared understanding

between the CIO and CEO may affect the level of CIO involvement in strategic IT

planning and decisions (see ⓫). If the CEO and other top managers recognize the

importance of discussing strategic objectives with the CIO where the IT is involved,

then the CIO may be better able to implement specific IT systems to drive the

company forward in the use of IT, which, in turn can leverage desired business

outcomes.

To exemplify our findings in more detail, we discuss the conceptual model

(Fig. 2) based on two different CIO/CEO pairs. The first CIO/CEO pair is from

Company E where both executives have a ‘high’ level of communication effectivity

and a ‘high’ level of shared understanding of the role of IT (a “positive” case). The

second CIO/CEO pair is from Company H where both executives have, in contrast,

a ‘low’ level of communication effectivity and a ‘medium’ level of shared under-

standing (a “negative” case). Based on the interviewees’ responses and our con-

ceptual model, we discuss their communication patterns.

The CIO of Company E operates at the second management level but reports

directly to the CEO. However, he does neither participate in strategic IT planning

meetings, nor is he involved in top management meetings where key IT decisions

5 Discussion 33

are made. The main reason for this CIO exclusion from strategic IT decisions is that

the CEO of this company acted as CIO before he became the CEO, and therefore

the CEO takes on responsibility for strategic IT decisions. However, this exclusion

is not an issue for the CIO because the CEO informs him about all important IT and

business decisions, and also discusses the resulting implications with him.

With respect to hierarchical position, the CIO of Company H also operates at the

second management level and directly reports to the CEO. Moreover, this CIO is

not involved in strategic IT planning and decision meetings either. However, the

notable difference to Company E is that the CEO of Company H is not interested in

IT, and this CEO also believes that IT has not the capability to strategically drive

the organization forward. Consequently, the CIO and CEO of Company H com-

municate only every second month formally about IT themes. During these meet-

ings, they only discuss budget and cost issues, but do not speak about strategic

themes such as IT innovations or IT-business alignment. This communication

frequency, at least in this case, does not allow for the creation of a shared IT vision.

In contrast, the CIO and CEO of Company E communicate at least once a week

about IT and business issues. The CEO of Company E stated that he communicates

with his CIO about all topics that may contribute to their shared understanding of

the role of IT. In this context, it has to be noted that both executives sit next-door,

and therefore it is easy to communicate frequently.

The CIO of Company E is always well prepared for the meetings with the CEO

and focuses mostly on key IT issues in the meetings. Moreover, the CIO of

Company E explains IT issues and IT contributions clearly to his CEO, a fact which

positively affects communication effectivity. Both executives frequently use tech-

nical terms during their meetings to discuss complex IT issues, but this does not

adversely affect their communication effectivity because the CEO possesses pro-

found technical knowledge. In Company H, however, the CEO has no technical

background (and is not willing to change this situation due to his disinterest in IT),

and therefore the CIO has to take care which terms and jargon he uses in his

communication with the CEO. The CIO of Company H, however, has difficulties in

explaining the contribution of IT to his CEO, and he is not always well-prepared for

the meetings with the CEO. This also negatively affects communication effectivity.

As noted above, the CEO of Company H does not believe in the strategic

potential of IT, and therefore, from his point of view, it is not necessary to provide

business-related information to his CIO. However, business-related information

would be important for the CIO in order to learn more about organizational pro-

cesses and requirements, which, in turn, forms the basis for IT-business alignment.

6 Implications

From our interview data, we have learned that if the top management of a company

does not implement an appropriate hierarchical position for the CIO (i.e., neither

invites the CIO to top management meetings nor implements an appropriate CIO


reporting line), then it is difficult for the CIO to communicate about IT issues with

the CEO in an effective manner. Directly reporting to the CEO is not always

necessary. However, what is necessary for CIOs is that they are involved in the

strategic IT planning meetings and decisions, or in the IT steering committee, so

that they have access to information that is critical for IT success and can ensure

that only feasible IT decisions are made. If the CEO and other top managers have

failed to set up an appropriate working environment for the CIO, the CIO should try

to lobby the top management to invite him to meetings where important IT plans

and decisions are made. If no changes occur, the CIO should accept the existing

structure and work to ensure communication with the CEO and other executives

who perform functions crucial for CIO success.

Both CIOs and CEOs can use our model illustrated in Fig. 2 to ensure a high

level of effectiveness in their communication. First, CIOs and CEOs should rec-

ognize that the content of their communication should determine communication

frequency and whether face-to-face communication is required. Complex themes

should be discussed face-to-face because this setting provides the opportunity for

immediate feedback, perception of facial expressions and body language, and hence

leads (more quickly) to a shared understanding due to lower levels of communi-

cation ambiguity. Simple information sharing (e.g., communication on IT project

status) should be based on media such as e-mail (to save CEO working time). It is

important to note that most executives in our sample do not see a need to discuss IT

themes on a weekly base with the CEO. Rather, in most cases less frequent

face-to-face communication with the CEO is sufficient.

CIOs and CEOs benefit most from their regular meetings when they focus on

key issues and avoid jargon and terms in the communication process that a

layperson would not understand. This means, for example, that CIOs should focus

on key IT issues (i.e., how IT supports or enables the business), and explain those

IT issues in clear terms and without jargon so that others without a technical

background can understand them. Of course, if the CEO has a technical back-

ground, the CIO can use technical language (in our sample the CEO of Company C

has a university degree in computer science, and thus, communicates effectively

with his CIO in technical language). However, if CEOs do not possess the required

level of IT knowledge, CIOs should educate their CEOs about IT capabilities, and

especially, manage their expectations of IT in order to achieve higher levels of

communication effectivity. One of the most important issues for CIOs is to clearly

demonstrate and argue the contribution made by IT products and services to

business performance because awareness of this track of record can positively

influence the CEO’s view of and attitude toward IT.

CEOs should explain business needs clearly to their CIOs so that business and

IT capabilities are integrated into powerful technical solutions. Especially if CIOs

are not involved in the IT meetings of the top management, CEOs should com-

municate important strategic decisions that affect the overall IT function to their

CIOs so that they can align the IT resources with the changing business environ-

ment, and decide together how IT can transform future business processes.

6 Implications 35

When CIOs involve their CEOs actively in strategic IT initiatives, then CEOs

can learn about the capabilities of IT, and therefore, are better able to recognize how

IT contributes to certain business activities. However, when CEOs intervene too

much in IT activities, then problems concerning responsibility may arise for the

CIO. If CEOs possess no educational or professional background in IT, CEOs

should not advise their CIOs about strategic IT initiatives because they may thereby

introduce unnecessary limitations of a predominantly technological nature.

7 Limitations and Future Research

We explored a wide range of ideas associated with CEO/CIO communication in

order to gain insights into how these ideas fit together. Despite our comprehensive

and accurate research approach, we have to note as a limitation that all companies in

our sample are located in Austria. Research indicates that the national context may

have an influence on the development of a shared CIO/CEO understanding

regarding the role of IT [19, 54], and therefore, as a function of culture, different

communication patterns may lead to shared understanding of IT. The CIOs in our

sample, for example, argue that they do not see the necessity to be included in the

management board as formal member to communicate effectively about IT themes

with the CEO. However, it is possible that this point of view may be limited to

German-speaking countries, because CIO membership in the management board is

not very common in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland [25, 59]. To enhance

knowledge about CIO/CEO communication effectiveness in different cultures,

researchers are encouraged to use our conceptual model (Fig. 2) to replicate our

study in other geographical regions.

Moreover, researchers could formally test our model in a large-scale survey, or

use mixed methods research to verify the findings of our study. For example,

researchers could investigate the link between an appropriate frequency of

CIO/CEO communication about IT themes and their level of communication

effectivity and level of shared understanding of the role of IT. Also, no related work

does exist on communication content’s effects on CIO/CEO communication

effectivity and shared IT understanding. Our study is a first step that provides

evidence for the proposition that the communication content should determine

communication frequency and communication channel naturalness.

After several reviews of our interview data, a new factor appeared that should be

considered in future CIO/CEO communication research, namely the CEO inter-

vention in IT management. Future research is encouraged to quantify the appro-

priate level of CEO intervention in IT activities, as well as the factors that determine

this appropriate level. Moreover, it is crucial to examine the potential effects of

CEO intervention on outcome variables such as performance of the IT function or

success of the CIO [31, 47].

Another point for model extension is that leadership behavior and decision

making depends on a top manager’s personality, and thus, personality (e.g., need


for dominance) could influence CIO/CEO communication [18]. Some CIOs in our

sample stated that CEO personality could be an important attribute in determining

how a face-to-face meeting runs. Finally, communication and trust have an inter-

action effect in some cases. Without trust, the CEO may not communicate with the

CIO about key strategic objectives, and may not trust the CIO’s judgement about

the capabilities and benefits of IT, which makes the CIO’s educational efforts more

difficult. The level of trust between a firm’s CIO and CEO can be specified more

precisely based on relevant literature. For example, Mayer et al. [45] describe and

measure the trustworthiness of an individual with three dimensions: ability (i.e.,

skills and competencies that are important for a relationship), benevolence (i.e.,

how well-meaning the interaction partner is aside from an egocentric motive), and

integrity (i.e., how well the interaction partner adheres to principles and laws that

the other person finds acceptable). Researchers could use Mayer et al.’s [45]

trustworthiness framework together with our communication model to measure the

interaction effects between communication and trust. Whatever avenue IS scholars

choose to continue the current paper’s line of research, it will be rewarding to see

what insights future research will reveal.

A methodological conclusion that can be drawn from Table 1 is that survey and

case study have hitherto been the dominant methods in CIO/CEO communication

research, and in the present paper we applied an interview approach. It is likely that

future mixed methods research provides the greatest potential for further novel

insights. A recent paper by Venkatesh et al. [72] outlines the enormous value of

mixed methods research in the IS field in general. Specifically, the Venkatesh et al.

[72] study indicates seven purposes of mixed methods research (see Table 1 in their

paper, p. 26), several of which are also of relevance for CIO/CEO communication.

For example, completeness (i.e. mixed methods are used in order to gain com-

plementary views about the same phenomenon or relationships), compensation (i.e.,

mixed methods enable compensating for the weaknesses of one approach by using

the other), and diversity (i.e., mixed methods are used with the hope of obtaining

divergent views of the same phenomenon) are essential purposes for mixed

methods studies, and will hopefully motivate future mixed methods studies in the

CIO/CEO communication domain.

By analyzing the country in which previous CIO/CEO communication studies

collected their data, it becomes evident that IS research has been predominantly

performed in the United States and a few other English-speaking countries (e.g.,

Australia and Canada). Due to the fact that both cultural and legal aspects may

affect CIO and CEO behavior (e.g., [43]), we make a call for more culturally

diverse studies. Especially, in countries which have been mostly neglected in prior

studies more research is needed (e.g., CIO research in Asia or in the

German-speaking area is scarce).

Finally, we have to note that despite our accurate research methodology, the

presented interpretation of the interview statements cannot be free from our own,

sometimes even unconscious, beliefs. In this context, the Hungarian-British poly-

math Michael Polanyi (1891–1976) argues in his book “Personal Knowledge” that

objectivity is a false ideal, because all knowledge claims rely, at least to some

7 Limitations and Future Research 37

extent, on personal judgments [51]. Similar notions can be found in IS literature.

For example, Walsham [73], citing the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz,

writes: “What we call our data are really our own constructions of other people’s

constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to” (p. 320). The kind of

research presented in this paper is deeply rooted in a hermeneutic tradition, thereby

being of a fundamentally idiographic nature. Such research, therefore, has the

objective of providing “richness in reality”, and not “tightness of control” ([44],

p. 308). If follows that the present study is a first contribution to an important

research field; however, more research is needed to confirm, extend, or revise the

findings of the present study.

Acknowledgments We thank all scholars and anonymous reviewers for their efforts in providing

guidance on ways to improve this work.

References

1. Al-Taie, M., Lane, M., Cater-Steel, A.: The relationship between organisational strategic IT

vision and CIO roles: one size does not fit all. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 18(2), 59–89 (2014)

2. Armstrong, C.P., Sambamurthy, V.: Information technology assimilation in firms: the

influence of senior leadership and IT infrastructures. Inf. Syst. Res. 10(4), 304–327 (1999)

3. Banker, R.D., Hu, N., Pavlou, P.A., Luftman, J.: CIO reporting structure, strategic

positioning, and firm performance. MIS Q. 35(2), 487–504 (2011)

4. Bassellier, G., Benbasat, I., Reich, B.H.: The influence of business managers’ IT competence

on championing IT. Inf. Syst. Res. 14(4), 317–336 (2003)

5. Benlian, A., Haffke, I.: Does mutuality matter? Examining the bilateral nature and effects of

CEO-CIO mutual understanding. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 104–126 (2016)

6. Bostrom, R.N.: Competence in Communication: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Sage

Publications, Beverly Hills (2016)

7. Bryman, A., Bell, E.: Business Research Methods, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press,

New York (2011)

8. Chan, Y.E., Sabherwal, R., Thatcher, J.B.: Antecedents and outcomes of strategic IS

alignment: an empirical investigation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 53(1), 27–47 (2006)

9. Chen, Y.-C., Wu, J.-H.: IT management capability and its impact on the performance of a

CIO. Inf. Manag. 48(4/5), 145–156 (2011)

10. Chen, D.Q., Preston, D.S., Xia, W.: Antecedents and effects of CIO supply-side and

demand-side leadership: a staged maturity model. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27(1), 231–271 (2010)

11. Cohen, J.F., Dennis, C.M.: Chief information officers: an empirical study of competence,

organisational positioning and implications for performance. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci

13(2), 203–221 (2010)

12. Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H.: Organizational information requirements, media richness, and

structural design. Manag. Sci. 32(5), 554–572 (1986)

13. Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., Trevino, L.K.: Message equivocality, media selection, and manager

performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Q. 11(3), 355–366 (1987)

14. Duran, R.L., Spitzberg, B.H.: Toward the development and validation of a measure of

cognitive communication competence. Commun. Q. 43(3), 259–275 (1995)

15. Earl, M.J., Feeny, D.F.: Is your CIO adding value? Sloan Manag. Rev. 35(3), 11–20 (1994)

16. Enns, H.G., Huff, S.L., Higgins, C.A.: CIO lateral influence behaviors: Gaining peers’

commitment to strategic information systems. MIS Q. 27(1), 155–176 (2003)


17. Feeny, D.F., Edwards, B.R., Simpson,M.K.: Understanding the CEO/CIO relationship. MISQ.

16(4), 435–448 (1992)

18. Flauto, F.J.: Walking the talk: the relationship between leadership and communication

competence. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 6(1–2), 86–97 (1999)

19. Ford, D.P., Connelly, C.E., Meister, D.B.: Information systems research and Hofstede’s

culture’s consequences: an uneasy and incomplete partnership. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.

50(1), 8–26 (2003)

20. Haffke, I., Benlian, A.: To understand or to be understood? A dyadic analysis of perceptual

congruence and interdependence between CEOs and CIOs. In: Proceedings of the 34th

International Conference on Information Systems (2013)

21. Hambrick, D.C., Mason, P.A.: Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top

managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 9(2), 193–206 (1984)

22. Hargie, O., Tourish, D.: Assessing the effectiveness of communication in organisations: the

communication audit approach. Health Serv. Manag. Res. 6(4), 276–285 (1993)

23. Hollway, W., Jefferson, T.: Doing Qualitative Research differently: A Psychosocial

Approach, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2012)

24. Huang, K., Quaddus, M.: An analysis of IT expectations across different strategic context of

innovation: the CEO versus the CIO. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on

Information Systems, paper 190 (2008)

25. Hütter, A., Riedl, R.: Der Chief Information Officer (CIO) in Deutschland und den USA:

Verbreitung und Unterschiede. Inf. Manag. Consult. 26(3), 61–66 (2011)

26. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Ives, B.: Executive involvement and participation in the management of

information technology. MIS Q. 15(2), 205–227 (1991)

27. Johnson, A.M., Lederer, A.L.: 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 (2005)

28. Johnson, A.M., Lederer, A.L.: The impact of communication between CEOs and CIOs on

their shared views of the current and future role of IT. Inf. Syst. Manag. 24(1), 85–90 (2007)

29. Johnson, A.M., Lederer, A.L.: CEO/CIO mutual understanding, strategic alignment, and the

contribution of IS to the organization. Inf. Manag. 47(3), 138–149 (2010)

30. Jones, M.C., Arnett, K.P.: Linkages between the CEO and the IS environment: an empirical

assessment. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. 7(1), 20–34 (1994)

31. Kaarst-Brown, M.L.: Understanding an organization’s view of the CIO: the role of

assumptions about IT. MIS Q. Executive 4(2), 287–301 (2005)

32. Karimi, J., Gupta, Y.P., Somers, T.M.: The congruence between a firm’s competitive strategy

and information technology leader’s rank and role. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 13(1), 63–88 (1996)

33. Kearns, G.S.: The effect of top management support of SISP on strategic IS management:

insights from the US electric power industry. Omega 34(3), 236–253 (2006)

34. Kearns, G.S., Lederer, A.L.: A resource-based view of strategic IT Alignment: how

knowledge sharing creates competitive advantage. Decis. Sci. 34(1), 1–29 (2003)

35. Kearns, G.S., Sabherwal, R.: Strategic alignment between business and information

technology: a knowledge-based view of behaviors, outcome, and consequences. J. Manag.

Inf. Syst. 23(3), 129–162 (2006)

36. Kettinger, W.J., Zhang, C., Marchand, D.A.: CIO and business executive leadership

approaches to establishing company-wide information orientation. MIS Q. Executive 10(4),

157–174 (2011)

37. Kock, N.: The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated

communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organ. Sci. 15(3), 327–348 (2004)

38. Kock, N.: Information systems theorizing based on evolutionary psychology: an interdisci-

plinary review and theory integration framework. MIS Q. 33(2), 395–418 (2009)

39. Leidner, D.E., Mackay, J.M.: How incoming CIOs transition into their new jobs. MIS Q.

Executive 6(1), 17–28 (2007)

40. Li, Y., Tan, C.-H.: Matching business strategy and CIO characteristics: the impact on

organizational performance. J. Bus. Res. 66(2), 248–259 (2013)

References 39

41. Lind, M.R., Zmud, R.W.: The influence of a convergence in understanding between

technology providers and users on technology innovativeness. Organ. Sci. 2(2), 195–217

(1991)

42. Luftman, J., Kempaiah, R.: An update on business-IT alignment: “A line” has been drawn.

MIS Q. Executive 6(3), 165–177 (2007)

43. MacIntyre, P.D., Babin, P.A., Clement, R.: Willingness to communicate: antecedents and

consequences. Commun. Q. 47(2), 215–229 (1999)

44. Mason, R.O., KcKenney, J.L., Copeland, D.G.: An historical method for MIS research: steps

and assumptions. MIS Q. 21(3), 307–320 (1997)

45. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust.

Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995)

46. McCroskey, J.C.: Communication competence and performance: a pedagogical perspective.

Commun. Educ. 31(1), 1–7 (1982)

47. Nelson, K.M., Cooprider, J.G.: The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group

performance. MIS Q. 20(4), 409–432 (1996)

48. Nelson, D.L., McEvoy, C.L., Dennis, S.: What is free association and what does it measure?

Mem Cogn. 28(6), 887–899 (2000)

49. Peppard, J.: Unlocking the performance of the chief information officer (CIO). Calif. Manag.

Rev. 52(4), 73–99 (2010)

50. Peppard, J., Edwards, C., Lambert, R.: Clarifying the ambiguous role of the CIO. MIS Q.

Executive 10(1), 31–44 (2011)

51. Polanyi, M.: Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago (1958)

52. Preston, D.S., Karahanna, E.: Mechanisms for the development of shared mental models

between the CIO and the top management team In: Proceedings of the 25th International

Conference on Information Systems, paper 37 (2004)

53. Preston, D.S., Karahanna, E.: How to develop a shared vision: the key to IS strategic

alignment. MIS Q. Executive 8(1), 1–8 (2009)

54. Preston, D.S., Karahanna, E., Rowe, F.: 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. Eng. Manag. 53(2), 191–206 (2006)

55. Ragu-Nathan, B.S., Apigian, C.H., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Tu, Q.: A path analytic study of the

effect of top management support for information systems performance. Omega 32(6),

459–471 (2004)

56. Ranganathan, C, Jha, S.: Do CIOs matter? Assessing the value of CIO presence in top

management teams. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Information

Systems, paper 56 (2008)

57. Rattanasampan, W., Chaidaroon, S.: The applications of communication competence

framework for CIOs. In: Proceedings of the 9th Americas Conference on Information

Systems, paper 160 (2003)

58. Reich, B.H., Benbasat, I.: Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between

business and information technology objectives. MIS Q. 24(1), 81–113 (2000)

59. Riedl, R., Kobler, M., Roithmayr, F.: Zur personellen Verankerung der IT-Funktion im

Vorstand börsennotierter Unternehmen: Ergebnisse einer inhaltsanalytischen Betrachtung.

Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(2), 111–128 (2008)

60. Riedl, R., Rückel, D.: Historical development of research methods in the information systems

discipline. In: Proceedings of the 17th Americas Conference on Information Systems, paper

28 (2011)

61. Rockart, J.F., Earl, M.J., Ross, J.W.: Eight imperatives for the new IT organization. Sloan

Manag. Rev. 38(1), 43–55 (1996)

62. Rogers, E.M., Kincaid, D.L.: Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for

Research. Free Press, New York (1981)

63. Ross, J.W., Beath, C.M., Goodhue, D.L.: Develop long-term competitiveness through IT

assets. Sloan Manag. Rev. 38(1), 31–42 (1996)


64. Rubin, R.B., Martin, M.M., Bruning, S.S., Powers, D.E.: Test of self-efficacy model of

interpersonal communication competence. Commun. Q. 47(2), 210–220 (1993)

65. Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T.: Qualitative studies in information systems: a critical review

and some guiding principles. MIS Q. 37(4), iii–xviii (2013)

66. Smaltz, D.H., Sambamurthy, V., Agarwal, R.: The antecedents of CIO role effectiveness in

organizations: an empirical study in the healthcare sector. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 53(2),

207–222 (2006)

67. Spitze, J.M., Lee, J.J.: The renaissance CIO project: the invisible factors of extraordinary

success. Calif. Manag. Rev. 54(2), 72–91 (2012)

68. Stephens, C., Loughman, T.: The CIO’s chief concern: Communication. Inf. Manag. 27(2),

129–137 (1994)

69. Štemberger, M.I., Manfreda, A., Kovačič, A.: Achieving top management support with

business knowledge and role of IT/IS personnel. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 31(5), 428–436 (2011)

70. Tan, F.B., Gallupe, R.B.: Aligning business and information systems thinking: a cognitive

approach. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 53(2), 223–237 (2006)

71. Van de Ven, A.H., Walker, G.: The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Adm. Sci.

Q. 29(4), 598–621 (1984)

72. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Bala, H.: Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines

for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q. 37(1), 21–54 (2013)

73. Walsham, G.: Doing interpretive research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 320–330 (2006)

74. Watson, R.T.: Influences on the IS manager’s perceptions of key issues: information scanning

and the relationship with the CEO. MIS Q. 14(2), 217–231 (1990)

75. Watts, S., Henderson, J.C.: Innovative IT climates: CIO perspectives. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst.

15(2), 125–151 (2006)

References 41

Appendix A

The CIO/CEO Interview Guide

Part 1: General questions regarding the interviewee and interviewee’s

company

(1:1) Only CIO: What is your current position called?

(1:2) How many years have you been working in your current position? What

position did you have before?

(1:3) Only CIO: Are you a member of the top management board? If not, at

which management level do you work?

(1:4) Only CIO: To which manager do you report?

(1:5) Only CIO: Are you also responsible for other functions beside IT (e.g.,

organizational development)?

(1:6) What is the highest qualification you hold? In which area do you have this

qualification?

(1:7) How do you define the term information technology (IT) in your company?

Part 2: Associations

(2:1) When you think about IT within your organization, what do you sponta-

neously associate with it? (max. five terms)

(2:2) When you think about the communication with your CEO/CIO, what do

you spontaneously associate with it? (max. five terms)

Part 3: Main part

(3:1a) How do you rate the effectiveness of your communication with your

CEO/CIO?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Completely

problematic

Mostly

problematic

Rather

problematic

Moderate Partly

informative

Mostly

informative

Fully

informative



SpringerBriefs in Information Systems, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50535-0

43

(3:1b) Please give an example that illustrates your point of view.

(3:2) Do you communicate directly with your CEO/CIO about IT issues? If not,

with whom do you communicate about them? If so, with who else do you

communicate about it?

(3:3) How often do you communicate with your CEO/CIO about IT issues

during a typical month? How frequently should communication take place

(in your opinion)?

(3:4) Which communication channels do you use with your CEO/CIO

(face-to-face, videoconference, telephone, e-mail, memo)? Please esti-

mate their frequency of use (as a percentage).

(3:5) About which IT topics do you communicate with your CEO/CIO?

(3:6) What influences the effectiveness of the communication with the CEO/CIO

from your point of view? What could be improved?

(3:7a) How do you rate the importance of IT for your business?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Completely

unimportant

Largely

unimportant

Rather

unimportant

Indifferent Partly a

competitive

factor

Largely a

competitive

factor

Fully a

competitive

factor

(3:7b) Please describe how IT supports the business areas and strategies of your

company?

(3:8) How would an IT breakdown affect the business activities of your com-

pany? In the short-term? In the long-term?

(3:9) Please describe the contribution of IT to your business success (in your

opinion)?

(3:10) How do you measure the performance of IT?

(3:11) Who decides whether an investment in IT is made or not? How is it

decided?

(3:12) Only CEO: Do you participate in IT discussions about IT use within the

organization? If so, how?

(3:13) Only CEO: How satisfied you are with the organization’s IT?

(3:14) Only CEO: How strong was your influence on the selection of the CIO?

Part 4: Summary and conclusion

Have we forgotten something important? Do you have any questions? Thank you.

44 Appendix A: The CIO/CEO Interview Guide

Appendix B

Detailed Information About the Interviews

Table B.1 provides detailed information about the CIO/CEO interviews and their

transcripts length.

Table B.1 CIO/CEO interviews and transcripts length

Comp. ID CIO interview

length (h:m:s)

CIO transcript

page lengthaCEO interview

length (h:m:s)

CEO transcript

page lengtha

A 00:47:41 11.5 00:44:46 10.5

B 00:32:30 10.5 00:36:44 10.0

C 00:50:09 9.0 00:39:25 8.0

D 00:42:18 9.0 00:27:16 8.0

E 00:36:45 9.5 00:51:30 8.5

F 00:15:19 7.5 00:20:15 7.5

G 00:48:35 10.5 00:19:26 7.5

H 00:22:40 7.0 00:20:46 7.5

I 00:39:30 9.5 00:21:32 8.0

J 00:28:01 8.0 00:28:22 8.0

K 00:29:00 8.5 00:16:50 7.0

L 00:48:44 7.5 00:16:05 7.5

Sum 7:21:12 108.0 5:42:57 98.0aWe use the font Arial with size of 11 points and line spacing at 1.5 for all transcripts




45

Appendix C

Categorization Process

The categorization of CIO/CEO communication effectivity was based primarily on

a CIO/CEO pair’s responses to Question 3.1a (the seven-point scale about com-

munication effectivity) and Question 3.1b (the example that should illustrate an

interviewee’s rating of communication effectivity). To further validate the reported

level of effectivity, we analyzed what terms a CIO/CEO pair associate with their

communication (Question 2.2), and reviewed their answers to open-end questions

about communication. In cases where a CIO/CEO pair rated their communication

effectivity high, but expressed major reservations or unfavorable contrasts with their

communication, we downgraded their reported level of effectivity and vice versa.

Table C.1 summarizes the interviewee responses to Questions 3.1a and 2.2, as well

as our final rating of CIO/CEO communication effectivity.

The categorization of the shared CIO/CEO understanding of role of IT was

based primarily on a CIO/CEO pair’s responses to Question 3.7a (the seven-point

scale about the business importance of IT) and Question 3.7b (the description about

how IT supports the business areas and strategies). To further validate the initially

classified level of shared understanding, we analyzed what terms a CIO/CEO pair

associates with the IT in their company (Question 2.1), and reviewed their answers

to open-end questions about IT. In cases where a CIO/CEO reported major dif-

ferences about IT, we downgraded their level of shared understanding and vice

versa. Table C.2 summarizes the interviewee responses to Question 3.7a and 2.1, as

well as our final rating of the shared CIO/CEO understanding of the role of IT.




47

Table

C.1

CategorizationoftheCIO

/CEO

communicationeffectivity

Comp.ID

CIO

ratingof

communication

effectivitywith

theCEOa

CIO

associationswiththeCEO

communication

CEO

ratingof

communication

effectivitywith

theCIO

a

CEO

associationswiththeCIO

communication

Effectivityof

CIO

/CEO

communication

A6—Mostly

inform

ative

Consultative,

uncomplicated,

experienced,does

notinterfere

7—

Fully

inform

ative

Regularmeetings,IT

steering

committee,

ITrequests,steering

committeemeetingsforlargeprojects,

budget

overruns

High

B6—Mostly

inform

ative

Littletime,

structured,at

thesame

level,inform

ationflow

inboth

directions

6—

Mostly

inform

ative

Openness,lotoftrust,goodleadership

skills,sometim

esnotso

professionalas

heshould

be

Medium-high

C6—Mostly

inform

ative

Goodbasisfordiscussion,listensto

mywishes

andneeds,abilityto

developnew

topicsonmyown,

open

fornew

topics,plenty

of

scope

6—

Mostly

inform

ative

Ihaveto

advisetheCIO

,CIO

has

a

difficultjob,has

apositivelaid

back

attitude,

goodcommunication

Medium

D6—Mostly

inform

ative

Strategic

unison,goal

orientation,

persuasion,opinionform

ation

6—

Mostly

inform

ative

TensionbetweenpastIT

approachand

new

requirem

ents,project

meetings,

capacityissues,costissues,toolittle

discussionabouttherequirem

entsof

currentbusinessoperations

Medium-high

E7—Fully

inform

ative

Open

communication,short

distance,quickdecision-m

aking

7—

Fully

inform

ative

Budget,cost,organizational

development,supportfor

improvem

entsin

businessareas

High

F7—Fully

inform

ative

Direct,companionable,contact

personbecause

heusedto

bethe

headofIT

7—

Fully

inform

ative

Datapreparation,dataanalysis,user

support,communicationwithexternal

serviceproviders

High

(continued)

48 Appendix C: Categorization Process

Table

C.1

(continued)

Comp.ID

CIO

ratingof

communication

effectivitywith

theCEOa

CIO

associationswiththeCEO

communication

CEO

ratingof

communication

effectivitywith

theCIO

a

CEO

associationswiththeCIO

communication

Effectivityof

CIO

/CEO

communication

G6—

Mostly

inform

ative

Amicable,understanding,definitely

interested,reducedto

key

topics,

notintensivecommunicationbut

enough

6—Mostly

inform

ative

Know-how,value-added,helicopter

perspective

Medium-high

H4—

Indifferent

Tim

epressure,toolittle,

justification

4—Indifferent

Datasecurity,dependence

onIT

staff,

stateofthearttechnology

Low

I5—

Partly

inform

ative

Toolittle,toocost-driven,but

willingnessforinnovation,

discussionsaboutflexibility,shared

understandingofstrategy

6—Mostly

inform

ative

Open,honest,transparent,

comprehensive,

politicallycorrect

Medium-high

J7—

Fully

inform

ative

Open,straightforw

ard,at

anytime,

alwayslistensto

mywishes

and

needs,courteous

6—Mostly

inform

ative

Event-driven,open,sparse

Medium-high

K6—

Mostly

inform

ative

Agreem

entaboutcurrentactivities,

strategycoordination,budget

coordination,coordinationof

project

contents,general

perspectiveofIT

6—Mostly

inform

ative

Regularexchange

Medium-high

L6—

Mostly

inform

ative

Regularmeeting,shared

visionand

understanding,constructive,

pleasant

6—Mostly

inform

ative

Regular,calm

,veryinterested,years

of

experience,conservative

High

aCIO

s/CEOsratedonascaleof1(completely

problematic)to

7(fullyinform

ative)

how

effectivelythey

communicateaboutIT

issues

Appendix C: Categorization Process 49

Table

C.2

Categorizationofshared

CIO

/CEO

understandingoftherole

ofIT

Comp.ID

CIO

ratingof

business

importance

of

ITa

CIO

associationswithIT

inthe

organization

CEOratingof

business

importance

of

ITa

CEO

associationswiththeIT

inthe

organization

Shared

CIO

/CEO

understanding

oftherole

of

IT

A5—

Partlya

competitive

factor

Outsourcing,cuttingcosts,enables

processes,monitoringtechnology

market,security

5—

Partlya

competitive

factor

Solution-oriented,competent,realizes

large

projectswithexternal

partner,discussing

sometim

esoff-topic

issues,basically

positive

High

B7—

Fullya

competitive

factor

Risk,supportofbusinessprocesses,

complexity,technology,knowledge

7—

Fullya

competitive

factor

Organization,productionmeans,datapool,

committedIT

staff,verycentraldepartm

ent

High

C6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Flexibility,broad

professional

knowledgebutnotin

depth,

solution-orientedworkingstyle,

goodIT

team

,driver

ofinnovation

5—

Partlya

competitive

factor

Hardware,frontend,printerproblems,SAP,

applications

Low-m

edium

D7—

Fullya

competitive

factor

Structure,processes,consulting,

support,areasoftension

6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Essential,im

portant,ongoinginvestm

ents,

inneedofreform

,permanentchallengeto

stay

up-to-date

Medium

E6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Innovation,reliability,optimally

adaptedtoolsto

theprocesses

of

employees,process

support

7—

Fullya

competitive

factor

Technology,organization,driver

of

innovation,im

portantfactorin

the

company,strategic

implementationsto

be

implementedbased

exclusivelyonIT

High

F5—

Partlya

competitive

factor

Forw

ard-looking,essential,

applicationsoftware

6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Server,PCs,users,software,

hardware

Medium-high

(continued)

50 Appendix C: Categorization Process

Table

C.2

(continued)

Comp.ID

CIO

ratingof

business

importance

of

ITa

CIO

associationswithIT

inthe

organization

CEOratingof

business

importance

of

ITa

CEO

associationswiththeIT

inthe

organization

Shared

CIO

/CEO

understanding

oftherole

of

IT

G6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Analyzing,standardization,

centralization,inform

ation

availability,efficiency

improvem

ent

7—

Fullya

competitive

factor

Inform

ation,storage,

costs,value-added

Medium-high

H6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Cost-intensive,

difficultto

manage,

great

opportunity,butalso

arisk

6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Facilitation,datasecurity,educationlevel

ofIT

staff,security

leaks

Medium

I6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Technology,innovation,cost-center

vs.profitcenter,shared

service

centerapproach,process

optimizationthroughIT

5—

Partlya

competitive

factor

Lessproblemsthan

inother

businessareas,

poorsupport,complexprocess,

administration,effectiveness

Medium-high

J6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Network,serviceorientation,data

centeroperations,security,mobile

working

5—

Partlya

competitive

factor

Pragmatic,helpful,lean,competent

Medium-high

K6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Businessenabler,supportscore

processes,applications,

infrastructure,datacenteroperations

6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Veryadvanced,im

portantforthecompany,

costsmoney

Medium-high

L6—

Largelya

competitive

factor

Serviceprovider,cost-conscious,

businessenabler,process

companion

7—

Fullya

competitive

factor

Reliability,conservative,

years

of

experience,followingtechnologyrather

than

leading,security

High

aCIO

s/CEOsratedhow

importantIT

isfortheirbusinessonascaleof1(completely

unim

portant)to

7(fullyacompetitivefactor)

Appendix C: Categorization Process 51

JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

THEORY AND APPLICATION

ISSN: 1532-3416

Volume x Issue x Paper x pp. x-y Month Year

Mutual Trust between the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO):

Insights from an Exploratory Interview Study

Thomas Arnitz

University of Linz, Austria, PhD candidate

[email protected]

Alexander Hütter

University of Linz, Austria, PhD candidate

René Riedl

University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria and University of Linz, Austria

Abstract:

Research on the importance of the chief information officer (CIO) in organizations has received significant attention in the information systems (IS) literature over the past decades. However, mutual trust between the CIO and other top managers, particularly the chief executive officer (CEO), is an under-researched topic. This is problematic because it is an established fact that trust is fundamental for all forms of cooperative behavior, which, in turn, determines the success of groups and organizations. Against the background of this significant research deficit, this paper reports on an exploratory interview study which is part of a larger research project in which we investigate CIO-CEO interaction patterns. We report the trust-specific results of this project, based on N=24 interviews (the CIO and CEO in twelve Austrian organizations). Our results reveal crucial mechanisms through which mutual trust emerges in CIO-CEO interactions, and we summarize our results in a conceptual framework. We embed findings of this study in a larger theoretical context; specifically, we establish a link to Social Capital Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and Network Gatekeeping Theory.

Keywords: Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Information Officer (CIO), CIO Decision Latitude, Information Behavior, IT Management, Common Language, Top Management, Trust, Trustworthiness.

>. was the / acted as the Senior Editor for this paper. [will be completed by the editor]

[Note: this page has no footnotes.]

2 CIO-CEO Trust: Interview Study

Volume X Issue x Paper X

1 Introduction

Research on the importance of the chief information officer (CIO) in organizations has received significant

attention in the information systems (IS) literature over the past decades. A major research finding is that

CIOs are critical, because they can positively influence organizational success through strategic initiatives.

Against the background of the CIO’s importance for organizations, a number of studies have examined

antecedents of CIO success. In essence, research has found that both internal (e.g., CIO hierarchical

position and reporting structure; Banker et al. 2011, Armstrong and Sambamurthy 1999, Smaltz et al.

2006) and external (e.g., technological environment; Leidner and Mackay 2007, Peppard et al. 2011,

Preston et al. 2008) factors contribute to CIO success and the resulting organizational performance.1

One factor which is also important for organizational performance is mutual trust between the CIO and

other top managers, particularly the chief executive officer (CEO) (Nelson and Cooprider 1996, Spitze and

Lee 2012). In particular, in the light of recent business-IT alignment initiatives trust between the CIO and

CEO is an important topic, both from a theoretical and practical perspective (Karahanna and Preston

2013, Luftmann 2000, Wagner and Weitzel 2012, Wagner et al. 2014). Research findings in several

disciplines, in addition to the above-mentioned IS papers, substantiate the notion that research on CIO-

CEO trust is an important topic, predominantly because mutual trust is an antecedent of critical

organizational outcomes. First, evidence indicates that mutual trust between top management team (TMT)

members positively affects decision quality (Carmeli et al. 2011). Second, research shows that intragroup

trust in a TMT positively affects conflict processes (Simons and Peterson 2000). Specifically, this research

revealed that intragroup trust in a TMT is positively related to task conflict (defined as “a perception of

disagreements among group members about the content of their decisions [involving] differences in

viewpoints, ideas, and opinions”, p. 102) and negatively related to relationship conflict (defined as “a

perception of interpersonal incompatibility [typically including] tension, annoyance, and animosity among

group members”, p. 102). Because task conflict predicts group decision quality and affective acceptance

of group decisions, while relationship conflict negatively affects group satisfaction, group commitment, and

group decision quality (for empirical evidence, see sources cited in Simons and Peterson 2000),

intragroup trust in a TMT is a critical antecedent of several important outcome variables. A study by Rau

1 We emphasize that the current paper focuses on the CIO, and not on related emerging concepts such as Chief Digital Officer (CDO). We refer the reader to Bharadwaj et al. (2013), Matt et al. (2015), and Horlacher and Hess (2016) who provide insights into digital tranformation and corresponding implications for CIOs.

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 3

Volume x Issue x Paper x

(2005) confirmed that a low level of relationship conflict in a TMT positively affects team performance.

Third, research has identified a number of trust-related behaviors with positive valence, such as

cooperation, information sharing, or reduction of control (for a review, see McKnight and Chervany 2001),

suggesting that high levels of mutual trust between top managers, such as CIO-CEO trust, are likely to

positively affect these behaviors. Fourth, evidence indicates that the efficacy of the Management-by-

Objectives (MBO) approach, a major management approach in contemporary organizations (e.g., Wehrlin

2012), is critically related to trust among the acting protagonists (e.g., Scott 1980), such as a CEO and

CIO. It follows that a modern management approach, such as MBO, builds on mutual trust. Fifth,

organizational trust is critical for the success of IT projects (for a recent review, see Jetu and Riedl 2012).

Sixth, it is an established fact that trust is fundamental for all forms of cooperative behavior (e.g.,

Luhmann 1979, Riedl and Javor 2012, Rousseau et al. 1998), which, in turn, determines the success of

groups and organizations (Jones and George 1998, Mayer et al. 1995).

Despite its obvious importance, trust between the CIO and CEO is an under-researched topic. Based on

our literature review (see Section 2.2 and the analysis in Appendix A), we draw the following conclusions:

(i) There is no scientific research study which has a focus on mutual trust between the CIO and CEO (the

identified papers only touch on this topic). (ii) However, the limited number of available research papers

has revealed some insights into the nature of CIO-CEO trust, as well as its antecedents and

consequences. Yet, a cumulative research tradition as we know it from other IS trust research domains

(e.g., trust in e-commerce) does not exist. (iii) Antecedents and faciliators of CIO-CEO trust have been

studied less than the consequences of mutual trust; it follows that more is known about the positive effects

of trust (e.g., CIO effectiveness) than about the determinants of trust. (iv) Except a few notable examples

(e.g., Nelson and Cooprider 1996: MIS Quarterly, Smaltz et al. 2006: IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, or Karahanna and Preston 2013: Journal of Management Information Systems) several

papers are more of the sort of practitioner-oriented papers rather than academic articles. Against the

background of this research situation, the current paper seeks to stimulate academic research studying

the nature of CIO-CEO trust.



This lack of reference to CIO-CEO trust research is problematic, both from a theoretical and a practical

perspective.2 In this paper, we report on an exploratory interview study which is part of a larger research

project in which we investigate CIO-CEO interaction patterns. We report the trust-specific results of this

project, based on interviews which we conducted in twelve Austrian organizations (we interviewed the CIO

and CEO in each company). In essence, the findings of our explorative study reveal crucial mechanisms

through which trust emerges in CIO-CEO interactions. Thus, this qualitative study provides both a

theoretical and a practical contribution.

From a theoretical perspective, the main contribution is the identification of trust mechanisms. From a

practical perspective, understanding these mechanisms enables CIOs and CEOs to actively control and

interpret specific behaviors to positively affect trust. Because trust between the CIO and CEO is critical for

business-IT alignment (Karahanna and Preston 2013), which, in turn, affects organizational performance

(Gerow et al. 2014), the study of trust is essential from an IT management perspective (e.g., Guillemette

and Paré 2012). Importantly, because we have investigated both the CIO and CEO perspectives, the

present study offers a richer picture than a purely CIO or CEO perspective alone could offer.

The structure of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we start with a definition of trust and

describe related work, showing that empirical findings in the research domain of this paper are sparse.

Based on this foundation, we outline our research methodology in Section 3. Afterward, in Section 4, we

present the results of our interviews, and, based on the results, we develop a conceptual framework on

CIO-CEO trust, signifying the explorative nature of our examination. Importantly, in Section 5 we discuss

major findings of our study in the context of three theories (Social Capital Theory, Self-Determination

Theory, and Network Gatekeeping Theory), thereby embedding our results in a larger theoretical context.

In Section 6 we describe limitations of the present study, and outline potential avenues for future research.

Finally, in Section 7, we provide concluding comments.

2 We found that trust has been studied extensively in several other IS areas, a fact that has promoted the development of a sound knowledge base in these areas, including trust in virtual teams (e.g., Jarvenpaa et al. 2004), interorganizational collaboration (e.g., Nicolaou and McKnight 2006); e-government (e.g., Carter and Belanger 2005); IT artifacts such as avatars (e.g., Wang and Benbasat 2008); virtual worlds and virtual communities (e.g., Johnson and Kaye 2009), and e-commerce (e.g., Gefen et al. 2003).



Contribution:

Mutual trust between the CIO and other top managers, particularly the chief executive officer (CEO), is an under-researched topic. This is problematic because it is an established fact that trust is fundamental for all forms of cooperative behavior, which, in turn, determines the success of groups and organizations. Against the background of this significant research deficit, this article reports on an exploratory interview study which is part of a larger research project in which we investigate CIO-CEO interaction patterns. We report the trust-specific results of this project, based on N=24 interviews (the CIO and CEO in twelve Austrian organizations). Our results reveal crucial mechanisms through which mutual trust emerges in CIO-CEO interactions, and we summarize our results in a conceptual framework. In essence, our study shows that informal communication between the CIO and CEO positively affects the development of a common language, including shared narratives such as shared stories and metaphors. This, in turn, positively affects mutual trust between the CIO and CEO, which influences CIO decision latitude (i.e., higher levels of CEO trust in the CIO lead to more CIO decision latitude) and information sharing (i.e., higher levels of mutual trust lead to more information sharing between the CIO and CEO). Understanding the mechanisms which we revealed in our study enables CIOs and CEOs to actively control and interpret specific behaviors to positively affect trust, a fact which is critical in light of the recent calls for improved business-IT alignment.

2 Related Work

2.1 Definition of Trust

In this paper, we adopt a seminal trust definition put forward by Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 395, original

italics removed and new italics added): “Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept

vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another.“ Other scholars

also describe trust as a behavior which makes one party, the trustor, vulnerable to the actions of another

party, the trustee (e.g., Fehr 2009), a notion that has also been adopted in IS research (e.g., Riedl et al.

2014). Trust-related behaviors are, for example, cooperation, information sharing, or reduction of control

(e.g., McKnight and Chervany 2001). This behavior of a trustor is influenced by disposition to trust (i.e., “a

general propensity to trust others”, McKnight et al. 2002, p. 336) and beliefs about the trustee’s

trustworthiness (Mayer et al. 1995). Major characteristics of a trustee are ability, benevolence, and

integrity (Mayer et al. 1995). Thus, a trustee is trustworthy if he or she has skills and competencies that

are important for the relationship (ability), means well toward the trustor aside from an egocentric profit

motive (benevolence), and adheres to a set of generally accepted principles and rules (integrity).3

With respect to the CIO-CEO trust relationship it is important to note that both parties may act in the role

of trustor and trustee. For example, effective business-IT alignment implies that a CIO must develop a

good understanding of the organization’s needs and expectations about IT and hence must trust, at least

3 Note that, if compared to theorizing in the past, doubts exist today that trustors regularly evaluate ability, benevolence, and integrity to assess a trustee’s trustworthiness. Rather, recent laboratory and field evidence indicates that perceived trustworthiness (PT) is, at least in some trust situations, represented by a Boolean relationship, where: PT = f [(Ability) AND (Benevolence OR Integrity)] (Barki et al. 2015, p. 484). Thus, benevolence and integrity are, at least in some trust situations, correlated and lack in significant unique effects (Colquitt et al. 2007, Schoorman et al. 2007). It follows that trustworthiness evaluations are often made based on an “ability + benevolence” judgment or an “ability + integrity” judgment (Barki et al. 2015).



to some degree, the CEO, and a CEO must develop a good understanding of the IT function’s cababilities

and hence must trust, at least to some degree, the CIO (Guillemette and Paré 2012, Karahanna and

Preston 2013).

2.2 Mutual Trust between the CIO and CEO: What We Know

As already outlined in the Introduction, research on mutual trust between the CIO and CEO (and other

executives) is limited. To formally verify this observation, we have conducted multiple literature searches

via EBSCOhost and Web of Science since the beginning of our larger research project on CIO-CEO

interaction patterns several years ago. Based on these searches (the last one was conducted on June 1,

2016), no article with a specific focus on this topic could be identified (search terms and constraint: „Chief

Information Officer”/“CIO” AND „trust”in TITLE). Next, we electronically searched for the term „trust” in all

110 CIO papers which are in our literature database of the mentioned larger project to identify text

passages related to trust (the list of papers may be obtained upon request from the third author of this

paper).

We present our analyses of related work in the following. Our discussion of related work is confined to four

studies in which we identified at least sub-sections related to trust, or passages which go beyond a few

lines of text on trust. In Appendix A, we additionally provide a summary of trust statements that we found

in the CIO literature. Altogether, our literature review shows that research on trust in the CIO domain is

sparse, a fact that holds particularly true if one focuses on high-quality academic papers rather than

practitioner-oriented articles. Yet, the analysis of related work also shows that the importance of the topic

is well articulated in the literature.

Nelson and Cooprider (1996) studied the contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance.

Specifically, they argued that the working relationship between IS executives and managers of other

departments can positively affect IS performance. It was theorized that shared knowledge is achieved

through different mechanisms, one of which is mutual trust. Using path analysis in a study of 86 IS

departments, the results indicate that shared knowledge mediated the relationship between mutual trust

and IS performance. Higher levels of mutual trust resulted in higher degrees of shared knowledge

between IS executives and managers in other departments, and this, in turn, was positively related to IS

performance.



Smaltz et al. (2006) raised the following research question: What are the major antecedents of CIO role

effectiveness? Based on survey data from CIOs and TMT members in the health care sector (136 TMT

members representing 106 organizations completed the survey), it was found that CIOs typically act in six

different roles: business strategist, integrator, relationship architect, utility provider, information steward,

and educator (for details, see p. 216 in the Smaltz et al. paper). Moreover, it was found that business and

strategic IT knowledge, political savvy, and interpersonal communication make CIOs effective,

predominantly in the roles of business strategist, integrator, and relationship architect. From a trust

perspective, the findings indicate that the extent of trusting relationships was significantly correlated with

TMT/CIO engagement, which, in turn, was related to CIO role effectiveness. Thus, this study identified

trust as an important antecedent of CIO effectiveness.

Karahanna and Preston (2013) investigated the effect of social capital of the relationship between the CIO

and TMT on firm performance. Evidence of this study is based on responses from CIOs and matched TMT

members from 81 hospitals in the United States. Among other results, the study found that CIO-TMT

cognitive social capital (defined as “shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning

among parties”, p. 20) positively affected CIO-TMT relational social capital (defined as “a multidimensional

construct consisting of the TMT’s trust in the CIO and the CIO’s trust in the TMT”, p. 27), which, in turn,

positively affected strategic business-IT alignment and subsequently also financial performance of the

firm. Thus, this study shows that mutual trust between the CIO and other TMT members (including the

CEO, p. 29) constitutes an important determinant of positive organizational outcomes.

In their investigation of CIO behaviors, Spitze and Lee (2012) identified the most critical role-specific CIO

career success factors based on an examination of career biographies of fourteen successful CIOs (who

were selected by a committee of five globally distinguished peers). Specifically, interviews were conducted

using a set of twelve open-ended „conversation provoking” questions. In the results section, Spitze and

Lee summarize six „soft attributes” that are characteristic for all successful CIOs, and having „a trusting

and trustworthy nature” is among them (p. 84). Based on this finding, Spitze and Lee argue in the

conclusions section that CIOs must „become trusting and trustworthy” in order to increase their success

potential (p. 87). However, what exactly might foster trust is not described in the paper.

To sum up, Smaltz et al. (2006), Nelson and Cooprider (1996), and Karahanna and Preston (2013)

identified trust as a critical antecedent of individual (i.e., CIO role effectiveness) and organizational (i.e., IS



performance and firm financial performance) outcome measures, and also revealed mechanisms through

which trust affected these measures (e.g., TMT/CIO engagement or shared knowledge). Moreover, the

Spitze and Lee (2012) study identified trust in other executives and the own trustworthiness as major

characteristics of successful CIOs. However, despite the value of these empirical studies, they did not

reveal comprehensive insight into the root causes and mechanisms of CIO-CEO trust.

We continue with a description of the methodology of the current study.

3 Methodology

3.1 Sampling Strategy

As mentioned, the research findings reported in this paper are part of a larger research project in which

we investigate CIO-CEO interaction patterns. Trust between the CIO and CEO, as well as CIO-CEO

interaction patterns in general, are elusive concepts, not easily amenable by traditional forms of empirical

research such as experiments or surveys. Therefore, we decided to conduct personal interviews with

CIOs and CEOs that allow an in-depth investigation of our research topic. Prior research (e.g., Feeny et

al. 1992) has shown that conducting interviews with both CIOs and CEOs may provide significant insight

into the CIO/CEO relationship. However, as we know from previous research (Riedl et al. 2008), it is not

an easy task to convince top managers to serve as informants, particularly when this involves participating

in a time-consuming qualitative interview. Thus, the sampling strategy is a critical factor for research

success.

To gain access to CIOs and CEOs, we relied on the personal contacts of a well-connected former CIO of

a multinational corporation listed at the Vienna Stock Exchange (this person expressed interest in and

support for our research project). This supporter set up an initial list of 40 CIOs from medium to large

corporations across different industries located in Austria. We contacted all CIOs to explain the research

project and our domain of interest (the supporter was not involved in the contacting process). Out of 40

CIOs, twelve CIOs (whose firms operate in twelve different industries) agreed to participate. All twelve of

these CIOs talked to their respective CEOs about the study, and all twelve CEOs also agreed to serve as

informants. Thus, the final sample in the present study consists of 24 top managers (all male) of twelve

corporations (all managers were interviewed independently from each other). The average number of

employees of our sample organizations is 2,789 (min: 200, max: 7,411) and the average revenue in



million Euros is 632 (min: 19, max: 1,909). Further details on the organizations, as well as profiles of the

participating top managers, are provided in the Appendix (see A2 and A3).

3.2 Interview Design

The interview design was guided by an a priori developed research model (related to the larger project,

examination of CIO-CEO interaction patterns; note that this model does not have a specific focus on trust,

it focuses on CIO-CEO communication processes). Based on this model, which is published in [blinded for

anonymous review process], we derived an initial set of two interview guides: one for the CIO and one for

the CEO (both interview guides are summarized in one document in Appendix E; the two original German

language documents can be obtained from the third author of this paper upon request). A similar

procedure was used by Feeny et al. (1992) in their investigation of CIO/CEO relationships.

Both interview guides are semi-structured and organized in different interview parts (section 1 consisted of

general questions concerning the participating person and the corporation; section 2 comprised free

associations in order to capture the participants’ unstructured representations of CIO-CEO communication

and the IT within their corporation; section 3 consisted of a series of open-ended questions, plus some

Likert-type scales, e.g., to grade the CIO-CEO perception of IT importance for the current and future

business; section 4 provided an opportunity for each participant to add further comments). As it should

turn out during analysis of the interview data, both the CIOs and CEOs provided a number of statements

related to trust, including antecedents and consequences, and these statements form the basis of the

research findings presented in the following sections. It is important to note that the interviewer already

realized during data collection that both the CIOs and CEOs mentioned aspects related to trust. Hence,

the interviewer, in line with the open-ended questions interview style, occasionally integrated questions

directly related to trust into the interviews. As an example, the interviewer asked the CIO of Company H

“Do you completely trust the CEO in what he is doing?” or “Does the CEO trust you?”.

The content validity of the interview guides was examined prior to the interviews. A senior consultant from

a multinational technology and consulting corporation with longstanding experience in our research area

was asked to initially review each interview guide. His comments and suggestions were used to revise the

initial guides. The revised guides were then piloted with an additional CIO-CEO pair from an international

corporation (not part of the sample in the main study). The first and second author of this paper met with

the executives of this corporation for the interview. During the interviews, these two authors took extensive



notes on the entire interview process in order to enhance the accuracy of the data collection instrument.

After completion of the interviews, each executive provided further feedback and comments about the

instrument. This pre-test, along with a discussion of the pre-tested material with the third author of this

paper, resulted in a second revision and adjustment of the interview guides, which were used in the main

study. A similar pre-testing logic was applied in a recent paper on the bilateral nature and effects of CEO-

CIO mutual understanding (Benlian and Haffke 2016, see Section “Survey sample and procedures”).

3.3 Data Collection

The entire data collection process covered the first half of the year 2014 and was conducted by the first

author of this paper. During an initial orientation phase, participants were given the opportunity to ask

questions regarding the study’s purpose and were promised confidentiality. In essence, in this orientation

phase the interviewer indicated that the study’s purpose would be the examination of CIO-CEO interaction

patterns. Interviewees received a one-page information statement via e-mail before the interviews; this

statement included information on the following points: study purpose, planned interview duration of 60

minutes, assurance that data will only be used for scientific purposes in anonymized form, and assurance

that research findings will be provided at the end of the project. A confidentiality agreement was signed by

the interviewer and the interviewee assuring that the data will only be used anonymously for research

purposes. All interviews were conducted in the German language and tape recorded by the first author of

this paper (all interviews took place in Austria). The interviewer worked to elicit an interviewee’s own views

and ideas in order to better understand CIO-CEO interaction patterns. Rather than directing questions

toward identification of the critical interaction attributes, the interviewer asked open-ended questions to

give each interviewee the opportunity to speak in his or her own voice, as well as to guide the discussion

in particular directions of interest. Due to this interview style, the interviews lasted up to 60 minutes and

provided a large amount of data in our domain of interest.

3.4 Data Analysis

Before starting the data analysis procedure, we transcribed all tape recorded interviews and simplified

their accentuation in order to standardize the data and to facilitate qualitative content analyses (Bryman

and Bell 2011). The tape recorded interviews have a total duration of more than 13 hours (more details on

the interviews are provided in the Appendix, see B-E).



For the purpose of the present article, we analyzed the interview data (from the parts 2, 3, and 4 of the

interview guides; see section 3.2) in order to identify text passages that include information about mutual

trust between the CIO and CEO. Moreover, based on interpretation of the interview text, it was our goal to

develop abstractions of the specific statements of our informants. Thus, our approach is best described as

inductive, and by omitting details of the specific statements we derived these more general abstractions of

insight. It follows that abstraction was a major principle underlying our data analysis approach. In general,

abstraction is an important principle of qualitative research. Dey (1993), in his book on qualitative data

analysis, writes (p. 100): “We have to interpret our data in order to analyse it [and we have] to classify and

compare the important or essential features of the phenomena we are studying. This involves a process of

abstracting from the immense detail and complexity of our data those features which are most salient for

our purpose.” Moreover, the same author argues (p. 100): “We think in generalities, we live in detail.”

It is also important to note that while our data analysis approach exhibits features of the Grounded Theory

Methodology (GTM), we did not exactly follow this approach. According to the original work by Glaser and

Strauss (1967), and as later described in a number of Grounded Theory articles, both in organizational

research (e.g., Martin and Turner 1986) and in IS (e.g., Vannoy and Salam 2010), the GTM is rooted in an

interpretivist philosophy and focuses on the development of theory through the analysis of data (without

pre-existing theoretical frameworks in mind). More specifically, GTM typically begins with a question and

then researchers collect and review data. Next, ideas and concepts become apparent and are tagged with

codes. As more data is collected, and as data is re-examined, codes are frequently grouped into

categories, which, in turn, form the foundation of a new theory. Considering this description, it becomes

apparent that our inductive approach is related to GTM, yet different, because we did not formally apply

the generalization levels of ideas, concepts, categories. Moreover, we do not claim that the major

outcome of our investigation, the conceptual framework of CIO-CEO trust (see Figure 2), constitutes a full

new theory as defined by Whetten (1989). To mitigate potential bias due to coding and structuring of the

transcripts, the third author of this paper, who had not taken part in the data collection and interview

transcription, performed the initial analysis (note that all authors were involved into the development of the

a priori developed research model). The third author read all transcripts and marked and coded the

relevant phrases; this person also developed the first list of abstracted insights. Specifically, the third

author (a senior scholar with significant experience in trust research) read the 206 pages of transcripts



(108 pages resulting from the CIO interviews and 98 pages resulting from the CEO interviews; see

Appendix D) and highlighted (with background color) text passages that are relevant from a trust

perspective. No coding scheme was used, because the research team assumed that an experienced trust

researcher is able to directly identify trust-relevant text passages upon reading the interview transcripts.

After coding by the third author, the first author reviewed the results. The two main goals of this review

process were the identification of potentially inappropriate coding and abstraction and the extraction of

additional text passages that contain useful information about mutual trust between the CIO and CEO. At

the end of this review process, the three authors discussed all findings together, and after some minor

modifications and clarifications, agreement was achieved on the final results; that is, text passages that

contain relevant information from a trust perspective (see Section 4) and abstracted insights (see Section

4 and Section 5). The data analysis process is graphically summarized in Figure 1.



Analysis

step

2nd half

of 2014

Analysis

step

2nd half

of 2014

24 Interviews

(for details,

see Appendix)

Reading of interviews

and abstraction logic

Author 3

(was not involved

in data collection

and interview transcription)

Author 1

24 Inter-

views

Reading of interviews,

selected quotes, and

abstraction logic

(collected the data)

Author 3

Author 1

Analysis

step

2nd half

of 2014

Quotes and

abstracted insights

Author 2

Group discussion(transcribed

the interviews)

Quotes and

abstracted

insights

❶

❷

❸

Figure 1. Summary of Planning, Data Collection, and Data Analysis Processes

WHAT ?

Interviews

with CIOs and CEOs

Reading of

academic literature

and workshops

HOW ? WHO ?

Based on research model(CIO-CEO interaction patterns)

Planningsteps

2012 and

1st half

of 2013

40 contacted CIOs, 12 CIOs

and their respective CEOsparticipated in the study Personal interviews (N = 24)

❷

Develop-ment of

interview

guides

2nd half

of 2013

Data

collection

(incl. CIO

and CEO

selection)

1st half

of 2014

Author 1

Author 2

Author 3

CIO interview guide andCEO interview guide

Author 1

Author 2

Author 3

Author 1



4 Results

In this section, we present exemplary key statements from CEOs and CIOs. We structure the citations

along three general factors which emerged as a result of the abstraction process. Thus, we inductively

derived these three factors based on our analysis of the interview transcripts.

The three general factors are:

• Common language: The fact that both the CEO and CIO have the capabilities to communicate

with the counterpart in appropriate jargon, and this usually requires that the CEO has some

technical knowledge and the CIO has some business knowledge.

• CIO decision latitude: The CIO’s freedom to largely act independently and to autonomously make

strategic decisions without permanent and close control by the CEO. This implies that the CEO

does not exert too much dominance on the CIO.

• Information behavior: All behavioral patterns related to information and communication in social

interaction between the CEO and CIO, such as withholding or manipulation of information.

4.1 Common Language

The first factor which we identified as important for the CIO-CEO trust relationship is common language.

Below we provide illustrative statements. One informant, for example, stated:

CEO (Company A): „In the course of our communication we have developed the intuition to see

the important topics. The only factor which might negatively affect our communication effectivity

is when we are unable to find a meeting date % I completely trust him.“

As described next, what this CEO called „intuition“ was labeled as „a common language“ in two CIO

statements. Importantly, the comment of one informant suggests that non-bureaucratic and hence open

communication, as well as the CEO’s technical competence, facilitate the establishment of shared

knowledge.

CIO (Company C): „We have short official channels and the principle of open doors. Also, we

get along well with each other, because partly we think in the same way und we speak a

common language % he [the CEO] also raises the right counter questions, hence an issue can

be reflected % a common language certainly is a factor, it exists in our case, because we talk



from technician to technician. Against this background we have a common basis.“ [Note: The

CEO of this organization has a university degree in computer science and hence a strong

technical background.]

Another CIO explicitly mentioned a good personal and trusting relationship in the context of shared

knowledge, and we interpret this statement to mean that „being on the same warelength“ (a form of

sympathy; Wispé 1991) also has a positive influence on shared knowledge.

CIO (Company D): „We have a good personal relationship and a common language. Moreover,

personal contact is critical, also to have a congenial relationship. In my opinion this increases

efficiency.“

Altogether, our data suggest that a common language is an antecedent of mutual trust between the CEO

and CIO. The higher the degree of common language, the higher the level of CIO-CEO trust. Next, we

describe major results with respect to decison latitude.

4.2 CIO Decision Latitude

The second factor which we identified as important for the CIO-CEO trust relationship is CIO decision

latitude. Below we provide illustrative statements. One informant, for example, stated:

CIO (Company B): „It seems that [the CEO, the informant mentioned the CEO’s last name] has

high confidence in me, and hence I have much decision latitude, and this, in turn, relieves him

[of work] % He really tries to let staff members in whom he places trust do things on their own

initiative. This cannot be taken for granted because many [other companies] face the issue of

control. Therefore, I think that [the CEO] enables me to take responsibility for running my own

department under basic conditions which he specifies.“

The statement of another informant, a CEO, indicates the potential negative effects of CEO dominance

over the CIO.

CEO (Company C): „My dominance might affect the [communication] efficiency. In his situation

[the CIO’s situation] I would not feel very comfortable, because our relationship is more like a

father-son-relationship. If I do not permit specific things, then I hinder him, and this would

ultimately lead to a loss of [communication] efficiency.“



Another CEO indicates that he trusts his CIO and therefore gives him decision latitude. However, the

following statement also suggests that the CIO does not fully meet the CEO’s expectations, at least not

with respect to realizing new ideas based on IT innovation.

CEO (Company F): „It bothers me that we only have one IT expert in the company. We have to

recruit another person to better distribute the knowledge between them % There is still potential

for process automization where IT could be supportive. Partly, I do not have the knowledge to

understand how this could be realized. It is the CIO‘s responsibility to provide this knowledge.

He ensures that everythings works out well, but hardly ever has new ideas.“

Thus, while trust increased CIO decision latitude, this latitude is not used properly by the CIO in this case,

potentially reducing the CEO‘s trust in the CIO. This potential trust reduction can be explained by a

negative perception of the CIO’s abilities, a major determinant of trustworthiness evaluations (Barki et al.

2015, Mayer et al. 1995).

Another CIO brought in an interesting perspective with respect to CIO decision latitude and trust. First, he

indicated that he does not fully trust his CEO, and he also stated that the CEO does not fully trust him,

because the CEO does not have a high level of general trust; general trust, also referred to as disposition

to trust, is a person’s tendency to demonstrate a consistent willingness to depend on others across a

broad spectrum of contexts (Rotter 1967). Second, the CIO, in his reflection on the CEO position,

indicated that some degree of distrust might be reasonable. It follows that giving decision latitude to the

CIO might be a good thing, but at the same time, at least according to this informant, placing some degree

of „general distrust“ on the CIO seems to be justified, predominantly because a CEO has responsibility for

the entire firm.

CIO (Company H): „ % [Interviewer asked: Do you completely trust the CEO in what he is

doing?] % not absolutely, in some areas more, in others less. [Interviewer asked: Does the

CEO trust you?] No, his general trust is not really existent. However, his position eventually

requires a certain degree of distrust.“

Another informant emphasized that his CEO totally trusts him, and he relates this circumstance to the fact

that while his CEO defines strategic objectives, he can decide how to reach these objectives. This result

suggests that high levels of trust lead to a high degree of decision latitude for the trusted person.



CIO (Company L): „ % [Interviewer asked: Does the CEO completely trust you in what you are

doing?] % yes, but sometimes I get the [CEO’s] message: ‚You have to slash costs by 5

percent‘. However, it is largely up to me where I want to slash the costs.“

Altogether, our data suggest that a CEO’s trust in the CIO leads to an increase in CIO decision latitude,

and this is generally perceived as positive because humans naturally avoid being dominated by other

people (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). Moreover, our results suggest that too much control makes CIOs

feel distrusted. Significant levels of control, in turn, may be a consequence of a CEO’s low trust in the

CIO, and if people feel that others do not trust them, they typically reciprocate this hence also placing little

trust, or even distrust, in the other party (for a review, see Riedl and Javor 2012). It follows that a sign of

distrust by one party may lead to a vicious circle, impeding both the development of a reasonable level of

mutual trust and resulting collaboration. However, this principle of reciprocation also holds true in a

positive sense (Zak et al. 2004, 2005). Thus, an initial signal of trust may lead to reciprocal trust effects,

thereby establishing a foundation for efficienct collaboration (Fehr 2009). Next, we describe our results

with respect to information behavior.

4.3 Information Behavior

The third factor which we identified as important for the CIO-CEO trust relationship is information

behavior. Below we provide illustrative statements. We start with two statements which suggest, on the

one hand, that CIOs proactively inform their CEOs about IT initiatives, but, on the other hand, should not

expect that CEOs, or members of the top management board in general, also proactively inform them.

CIO (Company A): „ % proactively inform him [the CEO] or whether he asks for information if

necessary. I provide information in a proactive way. However, it is my job to gather information

from the CEO.“

CIO (Company B): „Basically it is mostly information that goes from me to the management

board. What I miss from time to time is that business relevant information flows back to me.“

However, one CEO in our sample had a fundamentally different view. This informant argued that

information flow from the CEO to the CIO is of high importance and hence a matter of course, because

without information about strategic plans it is difficult, or even impossible, for the CIO to align the IT

initiatives with the general plans of the organization.



CEO (Company J): „First and foremost my input, such as an explanation of the future

development of our organizational structure, is needed so that the CIO can do his job. Then he

is able to decide how he wants to advance the IT department and how to align it accordingly.“

From the CEO perspective, it seems that specific forms of information behavior, particularly dissemination

of information instead of withholding information, are critical for trust perceptions. Most likely, as

suggested by the following statement, withholding of information might be interpreted as a deficit in

openness, a factor which very likely negatively affects perceived trust. One informant, for example,

tellingly described the situation:

CEO (Company B): „I have a straightforward and very clear leadership style, and hence

openness is the most important thing. If my staff members have the same openness, then it is

very easy for me to put the responsibility for something on them. The human factor is the most

important thing to me in our collaboration. Also, it is critical to have a clear information policy to

discuss problems, this is related to openness % an area where he [the CIO] has some

weaknesses is dissemination of information, despite the fact that he leads the information

department, he has always been a bit hesitant [with respect to information dissemination].“

Our data also show that CIO reporting structure and information behavior are related concepts. CIO

reporting structure determines to which top manager the CIO reports. A reporting structure is a crucial

decision that a company must make, because an inappropriate reporting structure impedes a CIO’s work

(Banker et al., 2011). Older research suggests that the CIO should always report directly to the CEO in

order to promote the importance of IT, and to strengthen the CIO’s influence in the organization

(Applegate and Elam 1992, Raghunathan and Raghunathan 1989, Watson 1990). Reporting to the CFO

(chief financial officer), in contrast to reporting to the CEO, has long been considered to signify a

diminished role of a CIO because the CIO-CFO reporting structure has been chosen in many cases as a

means of monitoring IT spending.

However, recent evidence challenges this notion by arguing that a firm’s strategic positioning

(differentiation or cost leadership) should be the primary determinant of the CIO reporting structure,

irrespective of IT intensity or the role of IT within the organization (Banker et al. 2011). As a rule of thumb,

differentiators should prefer a CIO-CEO reporting structure, while cost leaders should prefer a CIO-CFO



reporting structure (Banker et al. 2011). However, while the Banker et al. (2011) study provides valuable

insights into the effects of an (in)appropriate reporting structure, it did not consider possible implications

for information behavior. The following CIO statement indicates that directly reporting to the CEO inhibits

information filtering by other top managers to which a CIO may report (e.g., CFO):

CIO (Company E): „The hierarchical position has a positive influence. [Note: The CIO reports

directly to the CEO.] If there was a CFO in between, then communication would be more

difficult, just because there would be no direct connection. I know other reporting structures,

where no direct CIO-CEO communication line exists. If a CFO is in between, then it is possible

that the CEO only receives information filtered by the CFO. Fortunately, this is not the case

here. The direct contact with the CEO is critical % if I were not able to discuss issues with the

CEO, then it could be difficult, because he would eventually only receive blurred impressions.“

Against the background of this statement, it is important to consider how a CIO reporting structure may

affect information behavior and trust.

With respect to a CEO’s trust in the CIO, one informant made a statement in which he highlighted a CIO’s

communication competence, defined as the ability of the CIO to „communicate clearly, persuasively, and

in business terms” (Smaltz et al. 2006, p. 211). This communication competence, a specific facet of ability

(a component of perceived trustworthiness), cannot be taken for granted; business executives often

complain that their CIOs lack these competencies and this can hinder the ability of the CIO to work

effectively with the TMT on strategic objectives (Tan and Gallupe 2006). Specifically, the informant made

the following comment:

CEO (Company K): „We communicate very efficiently. The CIO [the informant mentioned the

CIO’s last name] is a highly structured person who gets things to the point, and I do not need to

tediously ask around to understand things.“

Our data also reveal that informal communication is important for a trusting CIO-CEO relationship. This

finding confirms prior evidence reported in the CIO literature (Preston and Karahanna 2004). Two

corresponding statements substantiate this conclusion:

CIO (Company J): „If we meet quickly in the hallway, we can also quickly exchange

information.“



CEO (Company L): „Our communication is based on two pillars. First, there is a regular jour fixe

in which we collect and discuss topics. In case of urgent matters (e.g., two years ago we had a

license problem with a large software firm) we have a straightforward approach, where we can

immediately discuss topics % I think personal understanding for the communication partner

constituts a foundation of every conversation, independent of the communication partner % he

knows what I am interested in, and I know if something is bothering him. It is important that you

are a good team. What is also important to me in general is to have a non-bureaucratic

approach with respect to communication. No big structures.“

Altogether, our data suggest that both a CEO’s and CIO’s information behavior may significantly affect

mutual trust. First, specific forms of information behavior, particularly withholding of information, is likely to

result in distrust perceptions. Second, it is important to consider that a formally implemented CIO reporting

structure affects specific forms of information behavior. As an example, if a CIO does not directly report to

the CEO (but to another executive such as the CFO) it is likely that the information received by the CEO is

filtered. It cannot be ruled out that this filtering process in done in such a way that the interests of the

intermediate executive (e.g., CFO) are favored at the cost of other managers (e.g., CEO or CIO). Because

benevolence (i.e., the feeling that one party means well toward the other party aside from an egocentric

profit motive; Riedl and Javor 2012, p. 64), has significant influence on trust perceptions in many

situations (Barki et al. 2015, Mayer et al. 1995), information filtering, if observable, may strongly reduce

trust in the person who has filtered the information. Third, we found that a CIO’s communication

effectiveness is important for the CEO to perceive the CIO as trustworthy, particularly because

competence affects trust perceptions (Barki et al. 2015, Mayer et al. 1995). Fourth, the possibility for

informal communication fosters mutual trust.

4.4 Conceptual Framework

In the following, we describe the relationships among the most important factors that emerged from

analysis of our interview data through a trust lens, namely common language, CIO decision latitude, and

information behavior (specifically, CIO and CEO information sharing). We summarize our theorizing in

Figure 2 and indicate propositions (see P1 - P9).



Common

language

CIO decision

latitude

CEO trust

in CIO

CIO trust

in CEO

CIO

information

sharing

CEO

information

sharing

Mutual trustInformal

Communi-

cation

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5P6

P7

P8

P9

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of CIO-CEO Trust

Our framework indicates that common language positively affects CEO trust in CIO, and CIO trust in CEO.

This finding is consistent with evidence showing that CIOs who are proficient in speaking in business

terms are more effective in creating a shared CIO-CEO vision than are those who use technical language

or frame the issues in terms of technical implications (Feeny et al. 1992, Preston and Karahanna 2009).

Our study also revealed an important antecedent of common language, namely non-bureaucratic and

informal communication. Based on trust in the CIO, a CEO gives decision latitude to the CIO, and this

signal of trust is typically reciprocated by trust, hence increasing CIO trust in CEO. Based on a high level

of CEO trust in CIO, open and trustworthy information behaviors are used in CIO-CEO interaction.

Similarly, a high level of CIO trust in CEO fosters open CIO information behavior. As an example, mutual

trust reduces the probability of detrimental information behaviors such as withholding of information. Thus,

our study revealed that benevolent information behaviors, particularly information sharing and open

communication (Wilson 2010), increase mutual trust, instigating a cycle of trustworthy CIO-CEO

interaction.

Based on our conceptual framework in Figure 2, we formulate the following propositions:

P1: Informal communication between the CIO and CEO positively affects the development of a common

language.



P2: Common language positively affects CEO trust in CIO.

P3: Common language positively affects CIO trust in CEO.

P4: CEO trust in CIO positively affects CIO decision latitude.

P5: CEO trust in CIO positively affects CEO information sharing.

P6: CIO decision latitude positively affects CIO trust in CEO.

P7: CEO information sharing positively affects CIO trust in CEO.

P8: CIO trust in CEO positively affects CIO information sharing.

P9: CIO information sharing positively affects CEO trust in CIO.

5 Discussion of Findings in a Larger Theoretical Context

Based on our analysis of the interview transcripts we inductively derived three factors: common language,

CIO decision latitude, and information behavior. These three factors are major constructs in our

conceptual framework of CIO-CEO trust (see Figure 2). In this section, we discuss the three constructs in

the context of three established theories, thereby embedding the major results of the present study in a

larger theoretical context. As shown in Figure 3, common language is discussed in the context of Social

Capital Theory (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998), CIO decision latitude in the context of Self-Determination

Theory (Ryan and Deci 2000), and information behavior in the context of Network Gatekeeping Theory

(Barzilai-Nahon 2008).

We have chosen these three theories because (i) their “theoretical essence” concerns social relationships

and (ii) their underlying constructs can be integrated into one conceptual framework (see Figure 2). To

identify relevant theories we first screened the list of “Theories in IS Research” (which constitutes a

compilation of “theoretical lenses to explore phenomena of interest” to IS scholars; for details, see

https://aisnet.org/page/ISResearch). Second, we extended our search for relevant theories to related

disciplines. In the list of “Theories in IS Research” we identified Social Capital Theory, and we found two

complementary theories in the literature of related disciplines, namely Self-Determination Theory in social

psychology and Network Gatekeeping Theory in information science.



CIO-CEO

Trust

CIO Decision

Latitude

Self-Determination Theory

Figure 3. Embedding CIO-CEO Trust in a Larger Theoretical Context

5.1 Social Capital Theory

The rationale of social capital theory (SCT) is that networks of relationships constitute a valuable resource

for the conduct of social affairs. According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), social capital is defined as

“the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the

network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit [and] thus comprises both the network

and the assets that may be mobilized through that network” (p. 243). In their article, the authors

distinguish three forms of social capital: structural (e.g., social interaction ties), cognitive (e.g., shared

language and narratives), and relational (e.g., trust).

CIO-CEO interaction is a social activity. Thus, SCT is a theoretical lens through which this interaction can

be analyzed fruitfully. Wagner et al. (2014) write that “social capital theory is a useful theoretical

foundation for understanding how business IT alignment works” (p. 242). Moreover, Karahanna and

Preston (2013) indicate that “there is a dearth of studies examining social capital among members of the

TMT” (p. 18). Thus, analyzing CIO-CEO interaction from a SCT perspective promises to deliver interesting

findings.

It is important to note that SCT constitutes a crucial theoretical foundation for the examination of various

IS phenomena, including the relationship between the business and IT departments (van den Hooff and

de Winter 2011), knowledge sharing in IS development projects (Lee et al. 2015, Xiang et al. 2013),



reading behavior on intra-organizational blogging systems (Li et al. 2015), and usage behavior of

Facebook fan pages (Lin and Lu 2011). In the context of the present study, however, two IS papers which

use SCT as a theoretical lens are of particular importance, namely Karahanna and Preston (2013) and

Wagner et al. (2014).

Using survey data, Karahanna and Preston (2013) examined how Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) three

dimensions of social capital (structural, cognitive, relational) affected alignment between the organization’s

IT strategy and business strategy. Moreover, this business-IT alignment was hypothesized to mediate the

relationship between CIO-TMT social capital and the organization’s financial performance. The data of the

study supported the hypothesized relationships. In their reflection on the findings, Karahanna and Preston

write: “[T]he results of the study provide evidence that the relationship between the CIO and TMT, and

specifically social capital, is consequential to organizational value creation and that IS strategic alignment

is a mediating mechanism by which this occurs. This is consistent with social capital theory that suggests

that knowledge integration, manifested as IS strategic alignment in our context, is an important mediating

variable between social capital and organizational outcomes. Social capital facilitates knowledge

exchange and combination, resulting in knowledge integration, which in turn influences organizational

advantage” (p. 37).

A detailed look into the construct specification (see Appendix B, p. 54) reveals that shared language, in

addition to shared cognition, was used to operationalize CIO-TMT cognitive social capital. Because

shared language was defined as “[t]he degree to which the CIO and TMT share a common language and

terminology in their communication” (p. 54), this dimension resembles what we call common language in

our conceptual framework of CIO-CEO trust (see Figure 2). Moreover, CIO-TMT relational social capital

was operationalized based on TMT’s trust in the CIO and CIO’s trust in the TMT. The results of the

Karahanna and Preston (2013) study indicate that cognitive social capital positively influenced relational

social capital. This result is in line with the qualitative findings of the present study, because common

language was found to positively affect CEO trust in CIO and CIO trust in CEO (Figure 2).

What are possible explanations for this influence of cognitive social capital (common language) on

relational social capital (trust)? Combining the results of our study with theorizing in Nahapiet and Ghoshal

(1998, pp. 253-255) and Karahanna and Preston (2013, p. 22), the following mechanism emerges.

Language is fundamental for the establishment and functioning of social relations, it is the means by



which humans exchange information and ask questions. Thus, to the extent that people have a common

language, including shared narratives such as shared stories and metaphors, this facilitates their potential

to establish relationships and get access to information. Moreover, language influences perception

(Berger and Luckman 1966). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p. 253), in this context, write: “Codes organize

sensory data into perceptual categories and provide a frame of reference for observing and interpreting

our environment. Thus, language filters out of awareness those events for which terms do not exist in the

language and filters in those activities for which terms do exist. Shared language, therefore, may provide a

common conceptual apparatus for evaluating the likely benefits of exchange.”

Based on this rationale, it becomes clear why Karahanna and Preston (2013) argue that “[s]hared

language among organizational members allows for a sense of familiarity, which can foster trust among

these members” (p. 22). Moroever, the same authors argue that a major benefit of cognitive social capital

is solidarity (defined as “the degree to which parties in a relationship subordinate their personal needs to

the goals or the objectives of the relationship”, p. 22). Thus, shared language reduces a person’s

perception that other social actors in a group will act opportunistically (e.g., withholding of information),

thereby fostering mutual trust among group members. This mechanism is supported by our interview data

(see Figure 2).

In this context, we emphasize that our study revealed that informal communication is a main enabler of

mutual trust between the CIO and CEO, mediated by common language. Formal communication of top

managers is typically based on scheduled meetings, whose content and outcomes are formally

documented in protocols, as well as formalized reporting structures (e.g., a written report is sent from the

CIO to the CEO on a monthly basis). This high degree of formalization is, at least partly, caused by legal

regulations. However, it is a well-established fact that the way in which information is exchanged may

significantly affect organizational productivity (e.g., Cross et al. 2003). Informal communication

significantly affects the development of shared language and narratives, which are, in turn, a driver of

mutual trust; formal communication, in contrast, typically does not have such positive effects on the

development of shared language and narratives (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). This theorizing (i.e.,

informal communication → development of shared language and narratives → mutual trust) is supported

by the organization science literature, which has demonstrated the importance of informal organization, as

well as informal communication, for organizational performance. Krackhardt and Hanson (1993), for



example, write: “If the formal organization is the skeleton of a company, the informal is the central nervous

system driving the collective thought processes, actions, and reactions of its business units” (p. 104).

Wagner et al. (2014), in contrast to Karahanna and Preston (2013), used SCT to examine business-IT

alignment at an operational level, and not at a strategic level (i.e., among high-level executives such as

the CIO and CEO). Specifically, Wagner and colleagues surveyed managers in the banking industry

responsible for the operations of the credit business. However, despite this difference in focus between

the Wagner et al. study on the one hand, and Karahanna and Preston’s study and our examination on the

other hand, this study revealed interesting insights.

First, this study in combination with Karahanna and Preston’s findings shows that social capital

development at a strategic level is a necessary condition for business-IT alignment and resulting

organizational success, but not a sufficient condition. It follows that the development of social capital

(structural, cognitive, relational) is also important at an operational level. A major implication of this

conclusion is that future studies could use our conceptual framework of CIO-CEO trust (Figure 2) as a

basis for the study of trust between IT managers and users in different organizational departments

(thereby moving the focus from the strategic executive level to the operational level).

Second, the Wagner et al. study shows that communication per se (a form of structural social capital,

which was measured based on frequency of meetings) does not guarantee business-IT alignment. Rather,

the influence of structural social capital on business-IT alignment is mediated by cognitive and relational

social capital (this finding confirms prior evidence reported in Karahanna and Preston 2013). Wagner et al.

comment on this result as follows: “[T]he effect of structural capital on business understanding is mediated

through cognitive social capital. In essence, this means that meetings per se have no positive impact but

that those meetings need to be effective in creating and maintaining a common language. The same

argument holds for the relational dimension of social capital: Without trust and openness between

business and IT, communication/meetings can hardly contribute to the creation of a mutual business-IT

understanding” (p. 260).

Wagner et al. do not report the correlation between cognitive and relational social capital (see the

structural model in Figure 2 of their paper, p. 253). Thus, future studies should determine whether

cognitive social capital (common language) has a statistically significant effect on relational social capital



(trust) at an operational level. If support was found for such an effect, this would extend prior findings,

reported in Karahanna and Preston (2013) and in the current interview study, from the strategic level

(interaction among executive managers such as the CIO and CEO) to the operational level (e.g.,

interaction of IT managers with users).

5.2 Self-Determination Theory

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is an approach to human motivation and personality that highlights the

importance of humans’ evolved inner resources for personality development and behavioral self-regulation

(Ryan et al. 1997). According to Ryan and Deci (2000), SDT’s “arena is the investigation of people’s

inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs that are the basis for their self-motivation and

personality integration, as well as for the conditions that foster those positive processes” (p. 68). Research

has identified three needs which are critical for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural human

tendencies for growth and integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal well-

being, namely the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy (for a review of papers in each

domain, see Ryan and Deci 2000).

In this paper, we focus on the need for autonomy because it is directly related to CIO decision latitude, an

important factor in our conceptual framework (see Figure 2). The findings of our study indicate that CEO

trust in CIO positively affects a CIO’s decision latitude, which, in turn, positively affects CIO trust in CEO

(see Figure 2). SDT sheds light on mechanisms which help to better understand these findings and to

recognize potential effects of high, or low, decision latitude.

Motivation concerns all aspects of activation and intention, and it is a major determinant of human

behavior. Research distinguishs instinsic from extrinsic motivation, the former refers to „doing an activity

for the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself“, while the latter refers to „the performance of an activity in

order to attain some separable outcome“ (Ryan and Deci 2000, p. 71). Comparisons between people

whose motivation is intrinsic and those whose motivation is extrinsic have shown that the former, if

compared to the latter, have more interest, excitement, and confidence, which, in turn, often results in

increased creativity, persistence, and performance (Deci and Ryan 1991, Sheldon et al. 1997). Moreover,

high degrees of intrinsic motivation have been shown to result in increased vitality (Nix et al. 1999), self-

esteem (Deci and Ryan 1995), and well-being (Ryan et al. 1995).



Based on these findings, an enhanced interpretation of our results becomes possible, one that goes

beyond Agency Theory (AT), a major theory used to study collaboration in economic and organizational

contexts (Eisenhardt 1989). In essence, AT is based on the assumption of the existence of asymmetric

information, and hence one party is better informed than the other party (e.g., the CIO is better informed

about IT issues than the CEO). Against the background of this situation, the principal (in the example the

CEO) gives decision latitude to the agent (in the example the CIO). To ensure that the agent behaves in

the principal’s (best) interest the latter, according to AT, should set incentives. Importantly, when deciding

on these incentives the anticipated costs of monitoring and controlling the agent must be considered

(Sharma 1997).

First, our study shows that a principal (CEO) does not only give decision latitude to an agent (CIO) due to

information deficits, as suggested by agency theory. Rather, CEOs also give decision latitude to CIOs to

pass on responsibility and to relieve themsevles of work. Second, the results of our study, if interpreted

through a SDT lens, suggest that CEOs do not necessarily need incentives (such as monetary ones) to

reduce opportunistic behaviors of CIOs. Rather, signals of trust from the CEO to the CIO are likely to be

reciprocated by trustworthy and hence non-opportunistic behavior. Importantly, one important trust signal

of the CEO is to give decision latitude to the CIO. SDT explains why such a signal of trust may lead to

positive effects. As mentioned, autonomy (decision latitude) increases intrinsic motivation, which, in turn

positively affects creativity, persistence, and performance, as well as humanistic factors such as vitality,

self-esteem, and well-being (Ryan and Deci 2000).

Deci et al. (1989) conducted a field study to test SDT (“technicians and field managers [>] in the service

division of a major office machine corporation” were investigated, p. 581). Specifically, they explored the

interpersonal work climate created by managers for their subordinates, based on the degree to which

managers’ interpersonal orientations supported subordinates’ self-determination. In this study, self-

determination was conceptualized with three factors: support for autonomy, noncontrolling positive

feedback, and acknowledging the other’s perspective. Among others, the study found that a management

style characterized by appreciation of self-determination significantly correlated with “trust in supervisor”

and “trust in corporation”; in the discussion of their findings Deci et al. write: “The data indicate that

managers’ interpersonal orientations did relate to the target variables, particularly to trust variables” (p.



588). What is the implication of this finding? It explains why CIO decision latitude may increase CIO trust

in CEO (see Figure 2) and why the CEO level of control may decrease CIO trust in CEO.

In this context, it is critical to point to research which has shown that heavy job demands in combination

with low decision latitude frequently lead to negative outcomes, particularly mental strain (a specific

manifestation of stress) (see, for example, a seminal paper by Karasek 1979). Considering the fact that IT

managers and CIOs frequently experience heavy job demands (e.g., Moore 2000, Spitze and Lee 2012),

it follows that CEOs should give high decision latitude to their CIOs in order to avoid negative

consequences such as job stress. Moreover, Moore (2000) argued that the lack of autonomy experienced

by IT managers (measured with items such as “I get few opportunities, if any, to participate in

management decisions that affect significant aspects of my job.”, p. 166) is an important antecedent of

work exhaustion (another manifestation of stress). Considering that research has established a negative

relationship between stress and trust (Ditzen et al. 2009, Takahashi et al. 2005), a major implication for

practice is that CIOs with low decision latitude are likely to experience higher levels of stress, relative to

CIOs with high decision latitude, and this likely results in lowered levels of trust (in other people or in the

organization in general, see Deci et al. 1989). Altogether, ignoring the negative effects of low decision

latitude (from reduced instrinsic motivation to reduced trust, as suggested by SDT) may harm

organizations.

5.3 Network Gatekeeping Theory

Another topic that deserves close attention is information behavior and its relation to trust perceptions, a

fact which is substantiated by recent statements in the CIO literature: “Organizational actors are more

likely to exchange meaningful information, discuss and commit to organizational objectives, and form

strategic partnerships with individuals that they trust > trust facilitates the effective sharing of information”

(Karahanna and Preston 2013, p. 24). Our study has shown that trust affects information behavior (see

Figure 2, particularly information sharing); this finding confirms Karahanna and Preston’s notion.

Importantly, our data also revealed that withholding of information, a specific form of information behavior,

may negatively affect trust perceptions.

While our data mainly relate to withholding of information, other forms of information behavior are well-

known in social interaction. Specifically, the Network Gatekeeping Theory (NGT) (Barzilai-Nahon 2008)

describes different forms of information behavior, several of which might play a critical role in CIO-CEO



interactions, thus also influencing trust perceptions and subsequent outcome measures such as CIO

effectiveness, business-IT alignment, or even organizational performance.

In essence, NGT indicates that gatekeepers in networks (e.g., organizational networks) have three major

functions: (i) to prevent the entrance of undesired information from outside, (ii) to prevent the exit of

information to the environment, if disadvantageous for specific members of the inner circle of the network,

and (iii) to control information in the network. Precursor forms of NGT (Lewin 1947, 1951, Shoemaker

1991) have been used to explain changes in interaction among humans based on the interplay between

power and information. Applications of NGT and its precursor forms are documented in different IS

domains, such as project management (Tushman and Katz 1980), research and development

management (Taylor 1986), and knowledge management (Schultze and Boland 2000).

Within NGT many specific information behaviors are described, including selection, display, manipulation,

repetition, disregard, and deletion of information, among others (we refer the reader to Barzilai-Nahon

2008, Table 2, who describes a list of 13 information behaviors). Future research could focus on specific

forms of information behavior and their influence on CIO-CEO trust. Importantly, as suggested by our

data, such examinations must not ignore the role of other top managers, a fact that holds particularly true

if the CIO does not directly report to the CEO, but to other executives such as the CFO. In such cases, it

is possible that the intermediary executive (e.g., the CFO) acts as a gatekeeper, potentially affecting trust

among the top managers, and hence also outcome variables such as top management team effectiveness

(e.g., operationalized via decision quality or acceptance of decisions). It will be rewarding to see what

insights these potential studies reveal.

It is of particular importance that future research also examines the link between SCT and NGT. Evidence

from IS development projects shows that social capital (particularly relational social capital which is

typically operationalized based on trust measures, Karahanna and Preston 2013) influences knowledge

sharing, a construct which is operationalized based on items such as “I like to be kept fully informed of

what my colleagues know.” (Xiang et al. 2013, p. 1039, italics added). This influence is either exerted

directly (Lee et al. 2015) or indirectly via shared mental models (Xiang et al. 2013); note that shared

mental models imply that social actors in a group can understand and predict the behavior of other group

members based on common interpretation of group processes and goals (Xiang et al. 2013, p. 1026).

Both studies (Lee et al., Xiang et al.) also showed that knowledge sharing predicts team performance.



Thus, connecting SCT and NGT has important practical implications, predominantly because this

connection provides an explanation for performance effects. A look at our conceptual framework (Figure

2) reveals that the link between SCT (see CEO trust in CIO and CIO trust in CEO) and NGT (see CEO

information behavior and CIO information behavior) is inherent in our framework. Thus, interpretation of

findings reported in the extant literature (Lee et al. 2015, Xiang et al. 2013) together with our results (see

Figure 2) suggests a direct link between SCT and NGT. Future research should test this proposition.

6 Limitations and Future Research

This explorative study investigated an important facet of the CIO-CEO relationship, namely mutual trust.

However, we do not yet see this work as complete (as already broached in Section 5 “Discussion of

Findings in a Larger Theoretical Context”), nor do we consider it to be without limitations.

First, while our sample size of N=24 interviewed top managers is relatively large and hence probably

covers important facets of the CIO-CEO trust relationship, a different sample of informants might lead to

different findings, possibly also due to cultural or legal influences (note that we are not aware of a peer-

reviewed scientific interview study on the CIO-CEO relationship which has a larger sample size). We

emphasize that this study was conducted in Austria, and it is possible that cultural influences (e.g.,

Preston et al. 2006) or legal regulations may result in further, not necessarily contradictory, findings.

Hence, it is likely that a common language, CIO decision latitude, and information behavior are

complemented by further antecedents and facilitators of trust that future examinations will reveal. In this

context, we indicate that generalizability in our research context is mainly related to what Lee and

Baskerville (2003) termed “generalizing from data to description,” because we used an inductive approach

to develop abstracted insight.

As an example, international surveys (e.g., conducted by World Values Survey) frequently measure

“interpersonal trust”. The measure of trust used is the percentage of respondents in a country agreeing

that “most people can be trusted” against the alternative that “you can’t be too careful in dealing with

people” (Zak and Knack 2001, p. 306). A related and frequently used measure is the trust index (TI),

where TI = 100 + (% “most people can be trusted”) - (% “you can’t be too careful in dealing with people”).

Scores > 100 indicate that a majority of people in a country trust other people, while scores < 100 indicate

that a majority of people think that members of a society cannot be too careful in dealing with other



people. Results of international surveys (data were mostly collected in the 2000s) indicate that

Scandinavian countries have the highest trust scores (> 130). In contrast, Austria has a score of 70.2. The

scores of other example countries are: Germany (75.8), Switzerland (107.4), USA (78.8), Australia (92.4),

and Turkey (10.2) (for details, see http://www.jdsurvey.net/). These results substantiate our call for

replication of our study in other countries, as cultural, political, and legal factors, among others, may affect

peoples’ trust perceptions in a specific country.

Second, we emphasize that this macro perspective (i.e., country level) should be complemented by a

micro perspective, thereby considering an individual’s personality. Research indicates that trust behavior

is also influenced by personality traits such as risk aversion or betrayal sensitivity (Thielmann and Hilbig

2015). It follows that future studies on CIO-CEO trust should measure such personality traits and correlate

them with trust beliefs and intentions, as well as trust-related behaviors (e.g., information sharing). Based

on what is known from prior studies (see Thilmann and Hilbig 2015), we surmise that higher levels of risk

aversion and betrayal sensitivity will predict lower levels of trust beliefs and intentions, as well as lower

levels of trust-related behaviors.

Third, in the present study the unit of analysis is each individual interview, and the findings across the

interviews were inductively generalized to develop a conceptual framework of CIO-CEO trust (see Figure

2). An alternative approach would have been to collect trust-related data on the CEO’s opinion, the CIO’s

perception of the CEO’s opinion, the CIO’s opinion, and the CEO’s perception of the CIO’s opinion. Such

a research design is recommended for future work. A recent research example using a similar research

design (specifically, a matched-pair survey design) is Benlian and Haffke’s (2016) examination of the

bilateral nature and effects of CEO-CIO mutual understanding. This examination, along with related

research on dyadic trust perceptions (Yakovleva et al. 2010), may serve as a conceptual basis for the

design of future studies. Among other reasons, consideration of the Benlian and Haffke (2016) study is

important because this research found that a CIO’s understanding of his or her CEO plays a more critical

role in predicting the quality of CEO-CIO collaboration than a CEO’s understanding of the CIO. This

finding suggests that in order to establish a trusting relationship with the CEO, a CIO should make the first

step to signal trust, thereby insitigating the development of mutual trust based on the principle of

reciprocity (Zak et al. 2004, 2005). Future research should test this proposition.



Fourth, the presented interpretation of the facts and the resulting conceptual framework (see Figure 2)

cannot be free from our own, sometimes even unconscious, beliefs. Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), a

Hungarian-British polymath, argued in his book „Personal Knowledge“ that objectivity is a false ideal,

because all knowledge claims rely, at least to some extent, on personal judgments (Polanyi 1958). Similar

notions can be found in the IS literature. Walsham (2006), quoting the American anthropologist Clifford

Geertz (1926–2006), tellingly writes: ‘What we call our data are really our own constructions of other

people’s constructions [here the interviewed CEOs and CIOs] of what they and their compatriots are up to’

(p. 320). Considering that our work is idiographic in nature, it is critical that future studies, both qualitative

and quantitative in nature, complement and perhaps revise our findings.

Fifth, in Section 3 “Methodology” we outlined that out of 40 CIOs that we contacted, twelve agreed to

serve as informants, and all twelve of these CIOs talked to their respective CEOs about the study, and all

twelve CEOs also agreed to serve as informants. Hence, it can be assumed that our sample mainly

reflects CIO-CEO pairs who have relatively good relationships and hence the level of mutual trust is

relatively high. A post-hoc analysis of data which we collected in the context of the larger research project

shows that this assumption is true. Specifically, we collected data on the CIOs’ assessment of the CEOs’

ability, benevolence, and integrity (the three trustworthiness components), and vice versa, based on a 7-

point scale (1 = lowest value and 7 = highest value). The results are as follows (M/SD): ability CIO:

6.3/0.5, ability CEO: 6.6/0.5, benevolence CIO: 6.4/0.7, benevolence CEO: 6.4/0.8, integrity CIO: 6.8/0.6,

integrity CEO 6.7/0.9.4 Thus, based on our informant selection procedure and the measured trust values

we stress that our findings may not apply to CIO-CEO pairs with low levels of trust (despite the fact that

several informants of the present study provided comments on antecedents and consequences of low

trust levels).

In this context, it is important to note that NeuroIS research has shown that trust and distrust perceptions

activate different brain areas (Dimoka 2010, Riedl et al. 2010). This finding suggests that trust and distrust

are not the two ends of one single continuum, but rather constitute two different constructs, each of which

4 Also, we collected data on the CIOs’ and CEOs’ disposition to trust (self-reported, based on a 5-items instrument developed by Gefen 2000, p. 735). Each item (e.g., “I generally trust other people.”) was measured with a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). It follows that the maximum disposition to trust is 35 and the minimum is 5. The results for disposition to trust are as follows (M/SD): CIOs (27.4/3.9, max: 33, min: 19) and CEOs (27.1/4.6, max: 32, min: 17). Thus, the analysis showed no extreme outliers (i.e., values smaller or larger than 3 × SD, Barnett and Lewis 1994), and the disposition to trust values are comparable to results reported in the IS literature (e.g., Riedl et al. 2010).



may have different antecedens and consequences. It follows that future studies on CIO-CEO trust could

be based on a 2 (CIO, CEO) × 4 (trust: high, low; distrust: high, low) factorial design. However, we foresee

that it might be extremely difficult to get access to a sample of CIO-CEO pairs who provide their honest

opinion on a highly sensitive topic such as distrust, which we even consider as more sensitive than trust.

Hence, survey and interview are presumably not the best methods to study CIO-CEO distrust. Rather, an

ethnographic approach is recommended because direct observations in organizations are likely to reveal

(more) credible research findings on a highly sensitive issue such as distrust among members of a firm’s

management board.

Finally, because the present study specifically examined CIO-CEO trust, an open question is whether the

results presented in this paper also pertain to a CIO’s trust in (i) other executives (e.g. CFO) or (ii)

executives in general. We call for broad participation in investigating this important question in future

studies.

7 Concluding Comments

Despite its obvious importance, trust between the CIO and other top managers, particularly the CEO, has

hardly been studied by IS research. This paucity of CIO-CEO trust research is problematic considering

that trust is critical for successful business-IT alignment (Karahanna and Preston 2013, Wagner et al.

2014). Against this research background, we have analyzed a rich dataset that we have collected in the

context of a larger research project examining CIO-CEO interaction patterns. Specifically, we analyzed the

transcripts of 12 CEO and 12 CIO interviews. We identified common language, CIO decision latitude, and

information behavior as crucial factors in the CIO-CEO trust process, thereby complementing the view

existing studies in this research domain. Based on our findings we developed a conceptual framework of

CIO-CEO trust. Moreover, we discussed the three major factors of our framework in the context of

established theories (Social Capital Theory: common language, Self-Determination Theory: dedicion

latitude, Network Gatekeeping Theory: information behavior), thereby embedding the major results of this

interview study in a larger theoretical context. It is hoped that the present study instigates future

examinations into the nature of trust in CIO interaction with other top managers.



Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the twelve CEOs and twelve CIOs who spent their valuable time and served as

informants. Also, we thank two anonymous reviewers, as well as the editor, for their work in providing guidance on ways to improve the paper.

References

Applegate, L. M., & Elam, J. J. 1992. New information systems leaders: A changing role in a changing world. MIS Quarterly, 16 (4), 469-490.

Armstrong, C. P., & Sambamurthy, V. 1999. Information technology assimilation in firms: The influence of

senior leadership and IT infrastructures. Information Systems Research, 10 (4), 304-327.

Banker, R. D., Hu, N., Pavlou, P. A., & Luftman, J. 2011. CIO reporting structure, strategic positioning, and firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35 (2), 487-504.

Barki, H., Robert, J., & Dulipovici, A. 2015. Reconceptualizing trust: A non-linear Boolean model. Information and Management, 52, 483-495.

Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. Outliers in statistical data, 3rd. edn., Wiley, Chichester.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. 2008. Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring

Information Control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (9), 1493-1512.

Bashein, B. J., & Markus, M. L. 1997. A credibility equation for IT specialists. Sloan Management Review,

38 (4), 35-44.

Benlian, A., & Haffke, I. 2016. Does mutuality matter? Examining the bilateral nature and effects of CEO-CIO mutual understanding. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, in press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. Penguin Press, London.

Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. 2013. Digital business strategy: Toward

a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37 (2), 471-482.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. 2011. Business research methods, 3rd edn., Oxford University Press, New York.

Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. CEO relational leadership and strategic decision

quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from failure. Strategic Organization, 10 (1), 31-54.

Carter, L. & Bélanger, F. 2005. The Utilization of E-government Services: Citizen Trust, Innovation and

Acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15 (1), 5-25.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Lepine, J. A. 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92 (4), 909-927.

Cross, R., Parker, A., & Sasson, L. 2003. Networks in the knowledge company. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74 (4), 580-590.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1991. A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (237-288). University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1995. Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (31-49). Plenum, New York.

Dey, I. 1993. Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge, London.

Dimoka, A. 2010. What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. MIS Quarterly, 34 (2), 373-396.



Ditzen, B., Schaer, M., Gabriel, B., Bodenmann, G., Ehlert, U., & Heinrichs, M. 2009. Intranasal oxytocin

increases positive communication and reduces cortisol levels during couple conflict. Biological Psychiatry, 65, 728-731.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review,

14 (1), 57-74.

Enns, H. G., Huff, S. L., & Higgins, Ch. A. 2003. CIO lateral influence behaviors: Gaining peers' commitment to strategic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 27 (1), 155-176.

Feeny, D. F., Edwards, B. R., & Simpson, M. K. 1992. Understanding the CEO/CIO relationship. MIS

Quarterly, 16 (4), 435-448.

Fehr, E. 2009. On the Economics and Biology of Trust. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7 (2-3), 235-266.

Gefen, D. 2000. E-commerce: The Role of Familiarity and Trust. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 28, 725-737.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. 2003. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model.

MIS Quarterly, 27 (1), 51-90.

Gerow, J. E., Grover, V., Thatcher, J., & Roth, P. L. 2014. Looking toward the future of IT-business strategic alignment through the past: A meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 38 (4), 1159-1185.

Glaser B. G. & Strauss A. 1967. Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press.

Guillemette, M. G., & Paré, G. 2012. Toward a new theory of the contribution of the IT function in organizations. MIS Quarterly, 36 (2), 529-551.

Horlacher, A., & Hess, T. 2016. What does a chief digital officer do? Managerial tasks and roles ofa new

C-level position in the context of digital transformation. HICSS Proceedings, IEEE, 5126-5135.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. 2004. Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Information Systems Research, 15 (3), 250-267.

Jetu, F. T. & Riedl, R. 2012. Determinants of Information Systems and Information Technology Project

Team Success: A Literature Review and a Conceptual Model. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 30, 455-482.

Johnson, A.M. & Lederer, A.L. 2005. The effect of communication frequency and channel richness on the convergence between chief executive and chief information officers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 227-252.

Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B. K. 2009. In Blog We Trust? Deciphering Credibility of Components of the

Internet Among Politically Interested Internet Users. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (1), 175-182.

Jones, G. R. & George, J. M. 1998. The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 531-546.

Kaarst-Brown, M. L. 2005. Understanding an organization’s view of the CIO: The role of assumptions about IT. MIS Quarterly Executive, 4 (2), 287-301.

Karahanna, E. & Preston, D. S. 2013. The effect of social capital of the relationship between the CIO and

top management team on firm performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30 (1), 15-55.

Karasek, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.

Kettinger, W. J., Zhang, Ch., & Marchand, D. A. 2011. CIO and business executive leadership approaches

to establishing company-wide information orientation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10 (4), 157-174.

Krackhardt, D. & Hanson, J. R. 1993. Informal networks: The company behind the charts. Harvard Business Review, 71 (4), 104-111.

Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. 2003. Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14 (3), 221-243.



Lee, S., Park, J.-G., & Lee, J. 2015. Explaining knowledge sharing with social capital theory in information

systems development projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115 (5), 883-900.

Leidner, D. E. & Mackay, J. M. 2007. How incoming CIOs transition into their new jobs. MIS Quarterly Executive, 6 (1), 17-28.

Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: Channels of group life, social planning and action research.

Human Relations, 1, 143-153.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harper, New York.

Li, N., Guo, X., Chen, G., & Luo, N. 2015. Reading behaviour on intra-organizational blogging systems: A

group-level analysis through the lens of social capital theory. Information & Management, 52, 870-881.

Lin, K.-Y., & Lu, H.-P. 2011. Intention to continue using Facebook fan pages from the perspective of social capital theory. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (10), 565-570.

Luftman, J. 2000. Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4 (14), 1-50.

Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and power. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Martin, P. Y. & Turner, B. A. 1986. Grounded theory and organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 22 (2), 141-157.

Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. 2015. Digital transformation strategies. Business & Information Systems

Engineering, 57 (5), 339-343.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709-734.

McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. 2001. Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In: R. Falcone, M. Singh, & Y.-H. Tan (Eds.): Trust in Cybersocieties, LNAI 2246, Springer, 27-54.

McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. 2002. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13 (3), 334-359.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. 1998. Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review 23 (3), 473-490.

Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. A. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press.

Moore, J. E. 2000. One road to turnover: An examination of work exhaustion in technology professionals. MIS Quarterly, 24 (1), 141-168.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.

Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-266.

Nelson, K. M. & Cooprider, J. G. 1996. The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20 (4), 409-432.

Nicolaou, A. I. & McKnight, D. H. 2006. Perceived Information Quality in Data Exchanges: Effects on Risk, Trust, and Intention to Use. Information Systems Research, 17 (4), 392-414.

Nix, G., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. 1999. Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 35, 266-284.

Peppard, J. 2010. Unlocking the performance of the chief information officer (CIO). California Management Review, 52 (4), 73-99.

Peppard, J., Edwards, Ch., & Lambert, R. 2011. Clarifying the ambiguous role of the CIO. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10 (1), 31-44.

Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy, Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.



Preston, D. S. & Karahanna, E. 2004. Mechanisms for the development of shared mental models between

the CIO and the top management team. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems, Paper 37.

Preston, D. S. & Karahanna, E. 2009. How to develop a shared vision: The key to IS strategic alignment.

MIS Quarterly Executive, 8 (1), 1-8.

Preston, D. S., Karahanna, E., 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 Transactions on Engineering Management, 53 (2), 191-206.

Preston, D. S., Leidner, D. E., & Chen, D. 2008. CIO leadership profiles: Implications of matching CIO authority and leadership capability on IT impact. MIS Quarterly Executive, 7 (2), 57-69.

Raghunathan, Bh. & Raghunathan, T. S. 1989. Relationship of the rank of information systems executive

to the organizational role and planning dimensions of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6 (1), 111-126.

Rau, D. 2005. The Influence of Relationship Conflict and Trust on the Transactive Memory: Performance

Relation in Top Management Teams. Small Group Research, 36 (6), 746-771.

Riedl, R. & Javor, A. 2012. The Biology of Trust: Integrating Evidence from Genetics, Endocrinology and Functional Brain Imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 5 (2), 63-91.

Riedl, R., Kobler, M., & Roithmayr, F. 2008. On the Rate of Board Members with IT Responsibilities in Firms Listed on the Stock Exchange: Results of a Content Analysis (Original in German: Zur personellen Verankerung der IT-Funktion im Vorstand börsennotierter Unternehmen: Ergebnisse einer

inhaltsanalytischen Betrachtung). Wirtschaftsinformatik, 50 (2), 111-128.

Riedl, R., Hubert, M., & Kenning, P. H. 2010. Are there neural gender differences in online trust? An fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of eBay offers. MIS Quarterly, 34 (2), 397-428.

Riedl, R., Mohr, P. N. C., Kenning, P. H., Davis, F. D., & Heekeren, H. R. 2014. Trusting humans and avatars: A brain imaging study based on evolution theory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30 (4), 83-113.

Rotter, J. B. 1967. A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), 651-655.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not So Different After All: A Cross-discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393.404.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. 1995. Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to

development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D, J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and methods (618-655). Wiley, New York.

Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. 1997. Nature and autonomy: Organizational view of social and

neurobiological aspects of selfregulation in behavior and development. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 701-728.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. 2007. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past,

present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 344-354.

Schultze, U., & Boland, R. J. 2000. Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practices. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 193-212.

Scott, D. 1980. The causal relationship between trust and the assessed value of management by

objectives. Journal of Management, 6 (2), 157-175.

Sharma, A. 1997. Professional as Agent: Knowledge Asymmetry in Agency Exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22 (3), 758-798.



Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. 1997. Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation

in the Big Five traits and its relations with authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393.

Shoemaker, P. 1991. Gatekeeping. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams:

The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1), 102-111.

Smaltz, D. H., Sambamurthy, V., & Agarwal, R. 2006. The antecedents of CIO role effectiveness in organizations: An empirical study in the healthcare sector. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, 53 (2), 207-222.

Spitze, J. M. & Lee, J. J. 2012. The renaissance CIO project: The invisible factors of extraordinary success. California Management Review, 54 (2), 72-91.

Stemberger, M. I., Manfreda, A., & Kovacic, A. 2011. Achieving top management support with business knowledge and role of IT/IS personnel. International Journal of Information Management, 31 (5), 428-436.

Takahashi, T., Ikeda, K., Ishikawa, M., Kitamura, N., Tsukasaki, T., Nakama, D., & Kameda, T. 2005.

Interpersonal trust and social stress-induced cortisol elevation. Neuroreport, 16, 197-199.

Tan, F. B. & Gallupe, R. B. 2006. Aligning business and information systems thinking: A cognitive approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53 (2), 223-237.

Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. 2015. Trust: An integrative review from a person-situation perspective. Review of General Psychology, 19 (3), 249-277.

Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. 1980. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26 (11), 1071-1085.

van den Hooff, B. & de Winter, M. 2011. Us and them: a social capital perspective on the relationship

between the business and IT departments. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (3), 255-266.

Vannoy, S. A. & Salam, A. F. 2010. Managerial interpretations of the role of information systems in competitive actions and firm performance: A grounded theory investigation. Information Systems

Research, 21 (3), 496-515.

Wagner, H.-T., Beimborn, D., & Weitzel, T. 2014. How social capital among information technology and business units drives operational alignment and IT business value. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 31 (1), 241-271.

Wagner, H.-T., & Weitzel, T. 2012. How to achieve operational business-IT alignment: Insights from a global aerospace firm. MIS Quarterly Executive, 11 (1), 25-36.

Walsham, G. 2006. Doing Interpretive Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (3), 320-

330.

Wang, W. Q. & Benbasat, I. 2008. Attributions of Trust in Decision Support Technologies: A Study of Recommendation Agents for e-Commerce. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24 (4), 249-273.

Watson, R. T. 1990. Influences on the IS manager's perceptions of key issues: Information scanning and the relationship with the CEO. MIS Quarterly, 14 (2), 217-231.

Watts, St. & Henderson, J. C. 2006. Innovative IT climates: CIO perspectives. Journal of Strategic

Information Systems, 15 (2), 125-151.

Wehrlin, U. 2012. Management by Objectives (MBO). Munich: AVM.

Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 490-495.

Wilson, T. D. 2010. Information Sharing: An Exploration of the Literature and Some Propositions.

Information Research, 15 (4).

Wispé, L. 1991. The Psychology of Sympathy. Perspectives in Social Psychology Series. Plenum Press: New York.



Xiang, C., Lu, Y., & Gupta, S. 2013. Knowledge sharing in information systems development teams:

Examining the impact of shared mental model from a social capital theory perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32 (10), 1024-1040.

Yakovleva, M., Reilly, R. R., & Werko, R. 2010. Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic

perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), 79-91.

Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. 2001. Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 111, 295-321.

Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. T. 2004. The Neurobiology of Trust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1032, 224-227.

Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., and Matzner, W. T. 2005. Oxytocin Is Associated with Human Trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48 (5), 522-527.



Appendix A: Statements in the CIO Literature Related to Trust

In addition to the four discussed studies (see Section 2.2 “Related Work”), other statements in the CIO literature also substantiate the conclusion that (i) trust is a key determinant of CIO success and resulting

organizational performance (see statements 1-6) and (ii) important antecedents and faciliators of trust in the CIO domain do exist (see statements 7-12). We identified these statements based on a systematic keyword analysis („trust”) of the 110 CIO papers in our literature database.

Table A1. Statements in the CIO Literature Related to Trust

Source Statement

1. Enns et al. (2003, p. 168) „> trust was a key factor underlying the success of personal appeal behaviors. If the CIO had a good track record with IS projects and had established a relationship of trust with a peer, then it was likely that the peer would be swayed by personal appeal behaviors. As one of the executives remarked, ‘a lot of people do not understand much about technology; it costs a lot of money, and they want someone they can trust’.“

2. Kaarst-Brown (2005, p. 297) „In some cases, IT projects may need to be „railroaded” through, especially when competitive advantage or organizational survival is at stake. However, it’s better to encourage involvement and trust these business folks to see the weaknesses and risks in plans. They might even become strong supporters.“

3. Kettinger et al. (2011, p. 158) „Leadership scholars > consider leadership as a function of being aware of yourself and your situation (sensemaking), having a vision that is well communicated (charting the map), building trust and influence among colleagues and subordinates, and taking effective action toward your vision (mobilizing).“

4. Preston and Karahanna (2004, p. 475) „ > the CIO should focus on formal mechanisms rather than focusing on engaging in social interaction with the TMT to build SMMs [shared mental models]. However, informal interactions may be important in terms of building trusting relationships that may facilitate the development of SMMs.“

5. Preston et al. (2006, p. 202/203) „ > a CIO’s credibility, communication ability, and political savviness, as well as the level of trust between the CIO and the TMT may all be important antecedents of shared understanding and their relative importance may be culturally dependent.“

6. Watts and Henderson (2006, p. 137) „Perceived integrity is a necessary precursor to fostering strong relationships > Trust generates commitment, and commitment ensures effort that is cooperative and innovative.“

7. Watts and Henderson (2006, p. 137) „ > credibility helps to foster personal trust between the CIO and other top execs [executives], including the CEO.“

8. Johnson and Lederer (2005, p. 233) „ > it is reasonable to expect that frequent communication between the CEO and CIO would result in exchanges of information about the organization's future domain. Frequent exchanges would promote mutual trust and understanding about the organization’s strategy and how IT could be deployed to support or enable that strategy.“

9. Stemberger et al. (2011, p. 430) „ > membership of the top management board and informal interactions with it also strengthen the business knowledge of a CIO > and increase the trusting relationship the CIO has with top management.“



10. Peppard (2010, p. 86) „A leading European academic suggested that a CIO can assess how his/her contribution is viewed: „If the CEO of your business unit is putting together people for golf and business discussion over the weekend, would he consider the CIO amongst one of those foursomes, not because the CIO is a golf player but because at the 19th hole, there’s going to be a lot of business discussion and the CIO has to be a trusted member of the team—a colleague, not just a supporter of the team.“

11. Bashein and Markus (1997, p. 43) This paper argues that expertise alone does not inspire trust and credibility. Rather, successful IT executives work on their trustworthiness and build good relationships with non-IT people. Based on this argument, the authors describe antecedents and facilitators of trust, including (i) similarity and likability (i.e., humans tend to trust similar humans more than dissimilar ones; for example similarities that positively affect likability are common interests and language), (ii) prolonged interaction (i.e., frequent meetings, particularly one-to-one meetings, promote development of trust), (iii) appropriate behavior (i.e., behaving according to others’ expectations increases trust), and (iv) consistent behavior (i.e., behaving consistently makes people more predictable and hence trustworthy). In the concluding section of their article, the authors offer a list of nine factors that IT people should consider to build trust, such as „establish[ing] regular, one-on-one meetings with line managers” or „us[ing] business jargon [and] not > technical jargon that customers do not already use correctly”.

12. Preston and Karahanna (2009, p. 5) The authors state that many business executives do not have enough IT knowledge to appropriately evaluate the value of IT investments; hence, it is often unclear what may be achievable through IT adoption. Against the background of this knowledge deficit, CEOs and other top managers must trust their CIOs. Thus, trust is a mechanism to compensate for kowledge deficit. From a CIO perspective, developing and maintaining a trusting relationship with the TMT is critical. The authors describe four actions to develop trust with the TMT: CIOs could (i) engage in social networking with other executives, (ii) establish personal credibility through successful IT projects, (iii) avoid opportunistic behavior (i.e., behavior that benefits IT at the expense of other departments within the organization), and (iv) manage non-IT people’s expectations (which are often unrealistic).



Appendix B: Organizational Characteristics of the Sample

Table B1. Organizational Characteristics of the Sample

Corp. ID

Industry Number of

employees* Revenue in € millions*

Top management consists of*

A Manufacturing 1,500 800 CEO, CFO, CTO

B Manufacturing 800 250 CEO, CTO

C Manufacturing 500 150 CEO, CFO

D Retail Trade 2,500 1,000 CEO, CFO, 4 x head of division

E Retail Trade 3,500 500 CEO, COO, CMO

F Manufacturing 200 20 CEO

G Manufacturing 6,500 2,000 CEO, CFO, COO, CCO

H Manufacturing 400 80 CEO

I Manufacturing 6,000 1,000 CEO, CFO, COO, CMO

J Manufacturing 2,500 800 CEO, CFO, CTO

K Manufacturing 1,500 250 CEO

L Manufacturing 7,500 1,000 CEO, COO, CMO

Notes: * Data collected from the annual reports. CCO = chief commercial officer, CEO = chief executive officer, CMO = chief marketing and sales officer, COO = chief operating officer, CTO = chief technology officer. In order to guarantee anonymity, classification of industry is based on the highest possible abstraction level; also, we rounded the number of employees and revenue.



Appendix C: Profile of the Participating Top Managers

Table C1. Profile of the Participating Top Managers

CIO absolute

frequency

CEO absolute

frequency

CIO relative

frequency

CEO relative

frequency

Educational level

doctorate 1 3 8.3 % 25.0 %

diploma and master 8 6 66.7 % 50.0 %

bachelor 0 0 0.0 % 0.0 %

lower educational level 3 3 25.0 % 25.0 %

Educational field

computer science 2 1 16,7 % 8,3 %

economic sciences 3 6 25,0 % 50,0 %

engineering sciences 2 2 16,7 % 16,7 %

information systems 4 1 33,3 % 8,3 %

law 0 2 0,0 % 16,7 %

mathematics 1 0 8,3 % 0,0 %

Years of employment in current organization

13 or more 3 2 25.0 % 16.7 %

10 to 12 1 1 8.3 % 8.3 %

7 to 9 4 1 33.3 % 8.3 %

4 to 6 3 5 25.0 % 41.7 %

3 or fewer 1 3 8.3 % 25.0 %

Former field of work

business 1 7 8,3 % 58,3 %

IT 10 3 83,4 % 25,0 %

technical 1 2 8,3 % 16,7 %

Type of recruitment

internal hire 5 8 41.7 % 66.7 %

external hire 7 4 58.3 % 33.3 %

Gender

male 12 12 100.0 % 100.0 %

female 0 0 0.0 % 0.0 %



Appendix D: CIO/CEO Interviews and Transcripts Length

Table D1. CIO/CEO Interviews and Transcripts Length

Corp. ID

CIO interview length (h:m:s)

CIO transcript page length*

CEO interview length (h:m:s)

CEO transcript

page length*

A 00:47:41 11.5 00:44:46 10.5

B 00:32:30 10.5 00:36:44 10.0

C 00:50:09 9.0 00:39:25 8.0

D 00:42:18 9.0 00:27:16 8.0

E 00:36:45 9.5 00:51:30 8.5

F 00:15:19 7.5 00:20:15 7.5

G 00:48:35 10.5 00:19:26 7.5

H 00:22:40 7.0 00:20:46 7.5

I 00:39:30 9.5 00:21:32 8.0

J 00:28:01 8.0 00:28:22 8.0

K 00:29:00 8.5 00:16:50 7.0

L 00:48:44 7.5 00:16:05 7.5

Sum 7:21:12 108.0 5:42:57 98.0

* We use the font Arial with size of 11 points and line spacing at 1.5 for all transcripts.



Appendix E: CIO/CEO Interview Guide

Please note that the two original German language interview guides (CIO, CEO) are available from the third author of this paper upon request.

Part 1: General questions regarding the interviewee and interviewee’s company

1.1) Only CIO: What is your current position called?

1.2) How many years have you been working in your current position? What position did you have before?

1.3) Only CIO: Are you a member of the top management board? If not, at which management level do you work?

1.4) Only CIO: To which manager do you report?

1.5) Only CIO: Are you also responsible for other functions beside IT (e.g., organizational development)?

1.6) What is the highest qualification you hold? In which area do you have this qualification?

1.7) How do you define the term information technology (IT) in your company?

Part 2: Associations

2.1) When you think about IT within your organization, what do you spontaneously associate with it? (max.

five terms)

2.2) When you think about the communication with your CEO/CIO, what do you spontaneously associate with it? (max. five terms)

Part 3: Main part

3.1a) How do you rate the effectiveness of your communication with your CEO/CIO?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

completely problematic

mostly problematic

rather problematic

moderate partly

informative mostly

informative fully

informative

3.1b) Please give an example that illustrates your point of view.

3.2) Do you communicate directly with your CEO/CIO about IT issues? If not, with whom do you

communicate about them? If so, with who else do you communicate about it?

3.3) How often do you communicate with your CEO/CIO about IT issues during a typical month? How frequently communication take place (in your opinion)?

3.4) Which communication channels do you use with your CEO/CIO (face-to-face, videoconference, telephone, e-mail, memo)? Please estimate their frequency of use (as a percentage).

3.5) About which IT topics do you communicate with your CEO/CIO?

3.6) What influences the effectiveness of the communication with the CEO/CIO from your point of view? What could be improved?



3.7a) How do you rate the importance of IT for your business?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

completely

unimportant

largely

unimportant

rather

unimportant indifferent

partly a competitive

factor

largely a competitive

factor

fully a competitive

factor

3.7b) Please describe how IT supports the business areas and strategies of your company?

3.7c) How do you rate the future importance of IT for your business?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

completely

unimportant

largely

unimportant

rather

unimportant indifferent

partly a competitive

factor

largely a competitive

factor

fully a competitive

factor

3.7d) Please describe how IT should support the business areas and strategies of your company in the future?

3.8) How would an IT breakdown affect the business activities of your company? In the short-term? In the long-term?

3.9) Please describe the contribution of IT to your business success (in your opinion)?

3.10) How do you measure the performance of IT?

3.11) Who decides whether an investment in IT is made or not? How is it decided?

3.12) Only CEO: Do you participate in IT discussions about IT use within the organization? If so, how?

3.13) Only CEO: How satisfied you are with the organization’s IT?

3.14) Only CEO: How strong was your influence on the selection of the CIO?

Part 4: Summary and conclusion

Have we forgotten something important? Do you have any questions? Thank you.



About the Authors

Thomas Arnitz is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Business Informatics – Information

Engineering, University of Linz, Austria. He holds a master degree in business informatics and works as

the chief executive officer (CEO) of an Austrian Internet firm. His current research interests include information technology management, information technology leadership roles, and business value of information technology.

Alexander Hütter is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Business Informatics – Information

Engineering, University of Linz, Austria. He holds a master degree in business informatics and works as a project manager in an international software development company. His current research interests include

information technology management, information technology leadership roles, and business value of information technology.

René Riedl is a Professor of Digital Business and Innovation at the University of Applied Sciences Upper

Austria and an Associate Professor for Business Informatics at the University of Linz. Moreover, he serves on the executive board of the Institute of Human Resources and Organizational Development in

Management (IPO) at the University of Linz. He has published in the following outlets, among others: Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Behavior Research Methods, BMC Neurology, Business & Information Systems Engineering, Communications of the AIS, DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of Management Information Systems, Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, Journal of the AIS, MIS Quarterly, and PLoS ONE. He holds or has held various editorial positions (AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, Business & Information Systems Engineering, DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, Information Systems Research, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, Journal of Management Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, and Journal of the AIS).



Copyright © YEAR by the Association for Information Systems. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not

made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than the Association for Information

Systems must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to

publish from: AIS Administrative Office, P.O. Box 2712 Atlanta, GA, 30301-2712 Attn: Reprints or via e-mail from [email protected].

JITTA Editorial Page goes here (at time of publication)

Zur Beziehung zwischen Chief Information Officer (CIO) und ...

Documents

Transcript of Zur Beziehung zwischen Chief Information Officer (CIO) und ...