improving capital utilization and market positioning (Barua et al., 1995), creating learning-based intangibles (Bharadwaj, 2000), and generating market or operations focus (Tallon

* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 617 358 2330; fax: + 1 617 353 5003.E-mail addresses: swatts@bu.edu (S. Watts), jchender@bu.edu (J.C. Henderson).

1 Tel.: + 1 617 353 142; fax: + 1 617 353 5003.

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151

www.elsevier.com/locate/jsis0963-8687/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Business innovation is increasingly being recognized as the critical source of sustainablecompetitive advantage (Drucker, 1998). From a dynamic capabilities perspective, strategyitself is the dynamic process of creating and sustaining innovation options tomeet the chang-ing business environment (Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000).Information technology (IT) is an important source of innovation options thatmay evenpre-cede corporate strategy (Sambamurthy et al., 2003;Wheeler, 2002). The value proposition ofIT today lies less in routinization and automation but rather in the less imitable innovationsthat ITcan support, suchas enhancing cross-organizational synergies (Sethi andKing, 1994),Innovative IT climates: CIO perspectives

Stephanie Watts *, John C. Henderson 1

Boston University School of Management, 595 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA

Available online 17 October 2005

Abstract

In many organizations the CIO is a key driver of business innovation. This research investigatesinnovative CIOs in the context of their organizational climate theory. We explore the concept ofinnovative IT climates through qualitative analyses of interviews with 36 innovative CIOs. We iden-tify and characterize four dimensions of innovative IT climates using a theoretical model based onthe climate literature. Inductive grounded-theoretic methods are then utilized to develop two addi-tional dimensions of innovative IT climates - reality-checking and promoting credibility. Findingsexpand our theoretical and empirical understanding of innovative IT climates and provide practitio-ners with specic examples of how CIOs are actively working to create innovative IT climates. 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Innovative IT; Technology leadership; Climate; CIO

1. Introductiondoi:10.1016/j.jsis.2005.08.001

126 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151et al., 2000). In industries undergoing IT transformation, the mere announcement of the cre-ation of a CIO position has positive ramications on the market (Chatterjee et al., 2001).

The conuence of these two forces - the strategic importance of innovation to the rm,and the critical role that IT can play in driving business innovationunderscores theimportance to CIOs of fostering innovation. CIOs and IT managers need to be able todrive innovation within their IT organizations and throughout the business. This researchinvestigates innovative CIOstheir values, aspirations, and actionsby applying organi-zational climate theory to a model for investigating innovative CIO practices.

More tangible than culture and easier to measure, organizational climate operatesthrough both interpersonal interaction and structural mechanisms to provide a cohesiverationale for underlying micro management levers such as incentives and coordinationmechanisms (Litwin and Stringer, 1968; Leavitt, 1965; Payne and Pugh, 1976; Schneider,1990; Taguri, 1969). Organizational climate research looks at how intangible aspects oforganizational life such as vision, learning, and empowerment function together to inu-ence organizational outcomes (Burke and Litwin, 1992; Kaczka and Kirk, 1968; Litwinand Stringer, 1968; Payne, Fineman and Wall, 1976). It has been associated with positiveoutcomes in domains as diverse as middle management (Frederickson, 1966), manufactur-ing (Lin et al., 1999), healthcare (Wilson et al., 1999), organizational decision makingstrategies (Svyantek, 1996), research and development innovativeness (Bain et al., 2001),and joint venture performance (Fey and Beamish, 2001).

This paper explores the concept of innovative IT climates, describing ndings frominterviews of 36 CIOs identied as highly innovative. Our aim is to esh out how theseleaders build innovative IT climates as they work directly with others and as they designwork processes and structures. We begin by describing the concept of organizational cli-mate and its links to leadership. We then extend this model to the research in IT, discuss-ing the IT climate literature and the role of the CIO in this context. Next we link thismodel to the domain of IT innovation in particular, presenting four important dimensionsof climate that are well developed in the non-IT literature. We then present ndings of aqualitative study of innovative CIOs, using these data to richly describe the four theoret-ical dimensions of climate and two new emergent dimensions that seem to be important inthe innovative IT contextwe call these dimensions reality-checking and promoting cred-ibility. We conclude by discussing the nature and potential impacts of these two newdimensions for fostering innovative IT climates, and the limitations of these ndings.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Organizational climate and leadership

Using a series of experimental studies, Kurt Lewin (Lewin, 1952) developed the conceptof organizational climate during the 1940s. Many denitions of climate have been putforth. The two most accepted of these are climate as cognitive schema and climate asshared perceptions. From the cognitive schema perspective, climate is an outgrowth ofthe basic value systems of individuals in organizations (Ashforth, 1985; James and Sells,1981). This perspective is problematic since it neglects to explain linkages between climateas an individual level phenomenon and the organizational outcomes it can engender. For thisreasonwe adopt the shared perceptions perspective on climate in organizations (Payne et al.,1976), dened by Reichers and Schneider (1990) as the shared perception of the way thingsare around here. More precisely, climate is shared perceptions of organizational policies,

practices and procedures (p. 22). In this view, climate is not an individual-level cognitive

phenomenon but rather a characteristic of the subunit, involving shared representations andconvergent views. It is closer to concepts of distributed cognition (see Weick and Roberts;1993; Hutchins, 1990) than it is to individual schemas or mental models.

This denition claries the linkage between climate and leadership. Leaders shape orga-

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 127nizational climate by engendering shared understandings of organizational values andpractices (Dickson et al., 2001). Leadership aects climate and culture, which in turn aectorganizational outcomes such as performance (Litwin and Stringer, 1968; Ogbonna andHarris, 2000). Climate in this view functions as a mediator linking leader practices andorganizational outcomes, as illustrated in Fig. 1 below.

Climate is simultaneously the product of individual interaction and also a major inu-ence on individual interaction (Ashforth, 1985; Barley, 1986; Giddens, 1979; Poole, 1985).In this regard, like structuration theory, climate functions at multiple levels of analysis,encompassing both individual perceptions and organizational attributes. Individual per-ceptions are considered to be psychological aspects of organizational climate, while orga-nizational attributes are structural aspects of organizational climate (Hellriegel andSlocum, 1974; James and Jones, 1974; Payne and Pugh, 1976).

Organizational climate is closely related to the concept of organizational culture, withsome scholars viewing culture as the non-positivist approach to essentially the same phe-nomenon (see Denison, 1996, for an insightful review of the culture-climate paradigmwars).Culture emphasizes the deep structure of organizations that are manifest in the unconsciousbeliefs and assumptions of organizational members. In contrast, climate researchers inves-tigate observable practices and procedures that are closer to the surface of organizationallife and are consciously perceived by organizational members (Denison, 1996).

2.2. IT climates

Several researchers have asserted that it is meaningless to apply the concept of climatewithout a specic referent (Reichers and Schneider, 1990; Roberts et al., 1978). Conse-quently, organizational climate has been studied in the context of specic domains suchas climates for creativity (Cummings, 1965), safety (Zohar, 1980), decision-making(Svyantek and Kolz, 1996), ethics (Dickson et al., 2001), joint ventures (Fey and Beamish,2001), academic research (West et al., 1998) and service (Bowen & Schneider, 1988). Inter-estingly, very little research has been done on IT organization climate.

An important exception to this is the work of Boynton et al. (1994), who empiricallyinvestigated climate in the context of IT management. They dene IT Management Cli-mate as shared, enduring perceptions of salient aspects of the IT work environment,i.e. the organizational practices, procedures and forms associated with IT-related activi-ties (p. 303). Their 23-item instrument provides a parsimonious assessment of IT Man-agement Climate in the context of cross-sectional survey research. These authors foundthat the organic dimension of IT management climate was most highly correlated withmanagerial IT knowledge and consequent absorptive capacity, and consisted of the fol-lowing items: Clear mission, planning commitment, information sharing, and pushing

Leader Practices

OrganizationalClimate

OrganizationalPracticesFig. 1. Climate as mediator of organizational practices.

CIO Practices

IT Organizational Climate

Fig. 2. IT organizational climate as mediator of IT organizational practices.

128 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151down decision making. While absorptive capacity is necessary for innovation, it is not suf-cient. These authors did not investigate innovative IT climates directly, however.

Because climate is such abroadphenomenon, it is important to investigate it in the contextof a specic referent.Weuse the ITorganizationas that referent. Just as leader practices aectorganizational climate, CIO practices aect IT organizational climate. Fig. 2 above focusesthe previous model of organizational climate on the domain of IT organizational climates.

2.3. Innovation and IT climates

Ongoing business innovation is critical to sustain competitive advantage (Drucker,1998), and recognition of the importance of IT in this regard (Sambamurthy et al., 2003;Wheeler, 2002; Kearns and Lederer, 2003) has given CIOs a seat at the strategic planningtable. Because the IT organization is increasingly a source of business innovation options,it is imperative to understand how CIOs can build innovative IT organizations. Climateplays a key role in stimulating innovation of all kinds, stimulating knowledge sharing (Bocket al., 2005), and engendering organizational change (West, 1990; Anderson and West,1998). In the technology realm, management climate has been identied as key enabler oftechnical innovation (Pugh et al., 1985; Tushman and Moore, 1982). At the team level, ateams climate is important for innovation in management (West, 1990) and research anddevelopment teams (Bain et al., 2001). Innovative organizational climates have been shownto vary across European countries (Susanj, 2000). And as discussed above, the IT climateconstruct is a key contributor to absorptive capacity (Boynton et al., 1994).

These studies underscore the importance of climate to innovation. Innovative IT cli-mates can provide CIOs with an important means by which to enhance the innovativecapability and response exibility of their organizations. Climates that are supportive ofinnovation articulate expectations, approval of and practical support for attempts tointroduce new and improved ways of doing work (West, 1990). Thus we modify Reichersand Schneiders (1990) denition of climate quoted above to dene innovative IT climateas perceptions of innovative IT organizational policies, practices and procedures.Fig. 3 belowadapts the basic model of climate to this focus on innovative IT climates.

3. Research questions and theoretical model

As IT becomes a key driver of organization-wide innovation, and dynamic industrialcontexts challenge CIOs to be agile and exible, there is an increasing need to understandinnovative IT climates. This study was undertaken to answer the following research ques-

tion: What are the dimensions of innovative IT climates and what characterizes them?

InnovativeCIO

Practices

Innovative IT Climate

Fig. 3. Innovative IT climate as mediator of innovative IT practices.

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 129To answer these questions we use organizational climate theory to identify four widelyacknowledged climate dimensions as they have been described in the non-IT climate liter-ature, labeled and dened in italics below using the terminology of Frederickson (1966):Peer relations, support, motivation to achieve, and innovation. Four of these dimensionsare aspects of psychological climatemanifest in people - and are discussed below, Thefth dimension, called structure, refers to organizational climatemanifest in organiza-tional structuresand is addressed below following the discussion of each of the four psy-chological dimensions.

3.1. Peer relations and networking

This dimension refers to the extent that lateral communication processes take place with-in the managerial ranks of an organization or organizational unit. Building relationships is aleadership imperative (McLean and Weitzel, 1991). Networking behavior, in this case bysenior IT managers with their peers (as opposed to subordinates), can sustain mutual ben-ets, commitment, and shared knowledge (Armstrong and Sambamurthy, 1999). Net-working as a means to establish an extended web of relationships is a critical CIO skill(Applegate et al., 1992). CIOs actively cultivate peer acceptance (Stephens et al., 1992,p. 463), and good working relationships between CIOs and their peers tend to increasethe acceptance of innovative IT by these peers (Enns et al., 2001, 2003a,b). The more crit-ical IT becomes, the more CIOs are being called on to reach out to their managementpeers in the business units (Cash et al., 1992; Feeny and Willcocks, 1998) and networkto create positive impressions of themselves and their units (Fiegener and Coakley,1995). This dimension addresses the value and importance of partnering, over both theshort and long term. Note that Fredericksons (1966) denition specied peer relationsbut not networking. We have added the networking component to reect the importanceof this behavior in the more recent literature cited above.

3.2. Support

Dierent leadership styles create dierent organizational climates (Litwin and Stringer,1968). Leaders create innovative climates when they engage their subordinates and enableparticipative safety (Anderson and West, 1990; Deming, 1986). This dimension encom-passes those aspects of the leader role that provide guidance and motivation to subordi-nates (Mintzberg, 1973). The ability to engage followers is a capacity of leaders thatdistinguishes them from mere managers (Burke, 1987). Boynton et al. (1994) found thatCIOs with organic management climates empower subordinates by pushing decision mak-ing down their organizations. Shrednick et al. (1992) view empowerment as the key toachieving high quality information technology. This dimension looks at how IT leaderssupport their subordinates in ways that motivate them to excel.

3.3. Motivation to achieve

This dimension addresses the extent that members of the organization share an outcomeorientation or vision of the future. The widely accepted transformational leadership model(Bass, 1990) emphasizes the need for leaders to develop and then promote their vision. Ste-phens et al. (1992, p. 462) reported a high incidence of such visioning behaviors byCIOs, considered to be a best practice in IT portfolio management (Jeery and Leliveld,

2004). CIOs use coalition tactics to achieve a shared vision with non-IT business leaders

130 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151(Earl and Feeny, 1994). A clear mission and an emphasis on planning for the future areboth signicant predictors of organic and innovative management climates (Boyntonet al., 1994; Gilbert et al., 1999) and innovative work group climates (Anderson and West,1998). By enlisting them in their vision of the future, CIOs motivate both their subordi-nates and their peers to help in achieving that vision.

3.4. Innovation

This dimension points to the extent that the climate supports learning and innovation,dened as the expectation, approval and practical support of attempts to introduce newand improved ways of doing things in the work environment. Clearly, this is a criticalaspect of understanding innovative climates in organizations and in teams (Andersonand West, 1998). By fostering the capacity of organizational members to modify their cog-nitive maps and understandings, such a climate can change the range of potential organi-zational behaviors (Huber, 1991). This implies support of risk takingsince learning andinnovation depend on the willingness to try new ways of thinking and doing. An innova-tive climate is especially important for engendering response exibility in the face of tur-bulent and rapidly changing environments such as those faced by many IT organizations.

The four dimensions above characterize the psychological aspects of organizational cli-mates as identied by a number of climate researchers (Denison, 1996) and serve to frameour investigation of high performing IT organizations. As psychological dimensions, theyimpact organizational work when they are promoted and amplied by IT leaders in theirongoing interactions: As they perform daily tasks with their peers and subordinates, bothtechnical and managerial, CIOs stress some ideas and values over others. To the extentthat people around them absorb these ideas and values, the IT climate is changed.

However, these four psychological dimensions of IT climate depend on the physicalpresence of the CIO as he or she goes about networking, engaging, and motivating othersto share the vision and be innovative. Clearly, CIOs also work to create structures andinstitutions that will support the climate they seek when they are not present. To thisend, organizational climate researchers have identied a fth climate dimension they callstructure (Litwin and Stringer, 1968). Also referred to as stability, this dimension identi-es mechanisms that transcend the individual level of analysis, and provide means for ITleaders to embed their ideas and values into mechanisms of the organization such that theyare incorporated into ongoing work routines and practices. This aspect of climate looks athow IT leaders can extend their sphere of inuence beyond their interpersonal interactionsand temporal frames by creating structures and systems that institutionalize their values.

Interestingly, in the only investigation of this dimension in the IT domain, Boyntonet al. (1994) did not nd a signicant association between the structural dimension of cli-mate and IT managerial knowledge, contradicting ndings of past climate researchers. Inorder to delve further into this contradiction, this investigation seeks structural mecha-nisms that may institutionalize each of the psychological dimensions discussed above.Fig. 4 below presents the full theoretical model as it applied to innovative IT climates.

4. Research method

Data were collected by means of face-to-face interviews with 36 CIOs of companiesidentied as highly innovative. Data analysis followed a two-phase process, in which therst phase was theoretically driven and the second phase was exploratory. In the rst phase

we generated evidence in a deductive mode, with the aim of supporting the theory described

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 131above. Evidence was sought in support of each of the theoretical dimensions at both theindividual and organizational levels for reasons described above. In the second phase, were-analyzed our data in an inductive mode, seeking exceptions that did not t into the fourtheoretically derived categories. This phase represents an exploratory attempt to identifyaspects of innovative IT climates that have not been identied previously. Presentationof ndings reects these two analytical phases. Full details of the research methodologyused for data sampling, collection, and analysis are presented in Appendix A.

5. Findings of deductive analysis

The next section describes the results of qualitative analyses in terms of the four theo-retical dimensions of IT climate described above. Each dimension includes description ofways that CIOs talked about institutionalizing that dimension.

5.1. Peer relations and networkingplaying in the same sandbox

CIOs discussed the value and importance of partnering: Sit patiently [listening to]people who tell you things you already know, smile and thank them for spending the time,because thats important. It is important for CIOs to communicate about IT with topbusiness unit managers (Stephens and Loughman, 1994), since business managers withIT knowledge are more likely to champion IT (Bassellier et al., 2003), and IT innovationsrequire champions.

They network to build and sustain relationships with those outside of their internal ITorganizations, over whom they have no formal authority. Establishing the business relation-ships early and often is absolutely critical. Sixteen Interviewees discussed the importance of

CIOPractices

Innovative ITClimate

Peer Relations & Networking

Support

Motivation to Achieve

Innovation

Structures

Fig. 4. Full theoretical model.spending signicant amounts of time with business heads on business problems, working tobe viewed as colleagues by their business peers. External to the organization, six CIOs men-tioned the importance of networking with vendors, ve emphasized building relationshipswith customers, and ve mentioned being members of various councils, forums and groups.

CIOs network in order to gather information and knowledge (Armstrong and Sambamur-thy, 1999). Elevenmentioned that they spend a signicant amount of their time taking peo-ples pulses, nd[ing] out what the real scoop is, getting performance feedback frompeers, and accomplishing conict resolution through negotiation. Seventeen intervieweesemphasized the need to inuence senior executives on the business side concerning IT initia-tives: The harder I work the precincts. . .the more power I get to do whatever I want to do.This supports thework ofEnns et al. (2001)who found that such inuence behaviors increasethe acceptance of innovative IT initiatives by peers, especially when the peers preferred inu-

132 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151To accomplish conict resolution Assigning IT representatives to sit within user organizationsTo inuence senior executives Create councils and jam sessions for informal discussionsTo promote their own organizations Personal facilitation

5.2. Support- Its not arrow its archer

CIOs discussed the importance of their relationshipswith their subordinates and the needto let go of the reins of the chariot. This can present personal risks and challenges: One ofthe changes I have to deal with is letting go of the power. To empower implies delegation ofauthority (Burke, 1987), and six interviewees spoke of delegating, hid[ing] in the shadows,pushing decisions down their organizations and giv[ing] them the opportunity to vote.

CIOs also spoke of fostering leadership skills throughout their organizations. Six workto develop leadership capabilities in the ranks below them by challenging subordinatesto accept accountability for new responsibilities: You constantly raise the bar.

Three CIOs spoke of engaging their subordinates creative potential by making themmore fun places to work. Four spoke of the need to project personal charisma: I thinkthats important. . .your ability to charge up people. In addition to supporting the IT pro-fessionals that are their subordinates, they were also very concerned about engaging thosein the user organizations they support, working to provide the kinds of conditions thatenable their users to thrive in their work with IT. I try to create really smart usersthe smarter the better, by engaging them: They have ownership in doing it, theyre apart of it, and they get the recognition for making it happen. Empowering users requiresIn order to gather informationmaintenance of an internal IT cJob rotation

To be viewed as colleagues Alter job positions such that the new job requires networking behaviorWhy HowPeer relations and networkingzation (Mathiassen, et al., 199 ).

that has identied the need to develop managerial skills down the ranks of the IT organi-9ence behaviors were used. A majority of CIOs spoke of networking strategically, like thepolitician, know[ing] what to say when. One interviewee put it this way: Networking goeson in this organization whether I choose to be a player in it or not, so it behooves me to playthe game. They build strawmen, work to get user management to think that [CIOs] ini-tiatives are their own, and present their agendas tomake it clear that userswill benet.As aninuencing technique,CIOs network to promote andmake visible their own organizations: Ifyou dont toot your own organizational horn youre dead. This echoes the ndings of Fie-gener and Coakley (1995) in which CIOs utilize impression management techniques.

5.1.1. Institutionalizing peer relations and networking

CIOs create ways to bring their subordinates together in face-to-face interactions withtheir peers at various organizational levels: I tie them together so that theyre joined atthe hip to solve a problem. Four interviewees have created or altered job positions suchthat the new job requires networking behavior; another uses job rotations for this purpose.Five CIOs talked of creating structural mechanisms to promote networking laterally byassigning IT representatives to sit within user organizations, often on their planningboards. Others described creating councils and jam sessions for informal discussions oftechnology, and six mentioned acting as networking facilitators, getting diverse groupstogether and forcing them to build relationships. These mechanisms support prior researchulture that allows this to happen.

Support

Who

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 133To enhance communication with users Give scal control to usersCreate liaison positionsCo-locate developers and usersCreate single points of contact

5.3. Motivation to achieveIts a question of translating the business. . .vision into atechnology vision

This dimension reects the motivation to strive toward a common organizational goal,as distinct from the motivation to work hard that is a component of the support dimensiondiscussed above. Twenty-one CIOs discussed the importance of having an organizationalvision. Six spoke in terms of specic technological visions, such as architectural platforms,quality service goals, and providing of unlimited data access. They raised the issue ofwhere the vision should originate. Ten CIOs felt that it was their responsibility to takethe initiative, while seven others took the opposing stance; that the only way for us tobe successful is for them to drive. Ten others emphasized the mutuality of the process.There was no consensus on this point.

Communicating the vision involves transferring knowledge of potential future organiza-tional stateschanging the mindsets of others in terms of where the organization is going

and how it will getTo empower usersthere. CIOs communicate their visionKeep the books open

IT usersTo empower themTo foster leadershipTo spur creativityTo motivate them to excelTo capitalize on teamingTo build strong human resourcesTo educate usersDelegate responsibilityAssign challenging projectsRestructure to destabilize and challengeCreate fun atmosphereBe personally charismaticDesign teams carefully Hire wellAppoint users as project leadersIT subordinatesWhyror that of the business functions

Howtions within the business units, and/or co-located their developers with the users they sup-port. Five discussed structuring their organizations to mir

or to create single points of user contact.5.2.1. Institutionalizing support

Twelve CIOs discussed changes they have made to their organizational structures andpolicies to engage their sta, looking at dierent ways of organizational structur[ing]. . . tomotivate people dierently. This also solved another problem expressed by this CIO:Everybody wants to be an innovator and how do you accommodate that?. . .[by moving]people in and out of dierent jobs,. . .you cant let them stagnate. Im here as the stabilizingfactor, and other things around me. . .can be destabilized. Many CIOs discussed theimportance of teams for the kind of work their organizations do, and the need to createteams carefully. Six CIOs emphasized the importance of build[ing] your strength inhuman resources, not technology; and the corollary need to hire well.

To institutionalize engaged user organizations, nine CIOs spoke of creating mecha-nisms such as appointing user-managers as project leaders, keeping the IT books open,giving users choices based on price, and using business-based accountability measuresto give the business organizations more scal control. Six CIOs have created liaison posi-s by networking (Armstrong and

dc

c4

134 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151Sccolatpp

anttna(

5

uwoa12dp

M

W

S

B

5

rkinin

listener and being open to alternative points of view: I try and maintain a fair degree of.

,,

s

..3.1. Institutional motivation to achieve

In addition to having and communicating a vision, CIOs spoke about the tactics theyse to achieve their visions. Twenty-three of them spoke of using planning processes inhich their senior business partners are involved, and that are designed to link long-termbjectives to shorter term IT plans. These techniques clarify resource allocation andccountability issues, a top-ranked issue by CIOs in prior research (Gilbert et al.999), and create competitive advantage through improved alignment (Kearns and Leder003). Others spoke of the diculty keeping the vision in mind and not getting boggedown in the tactical, while others talked of using their planning processes more for theurpose of educating their peers in the technology than for the actual plan produced.

otivation to achieve

ho Why How

ubordinates and business executives Have an organizational vision Formal planning processesHave a technological visionCommunicate the vision Network informally

usiness executives Educate about the technology Create educational forumsSend materials and booksMake presentationsUse common languageUse analogies, examples, and diagram

.4. InnovationWhat can you ask me that I cant tell you?

Interviewees characterized their organizations and the technologies they oversee asapidly changing, which in their view demands constant learning: Dont assume younow the answer, and dont assume what youve done before will work [now]. Tenterviewees mentioned that they are avid readers, and many do their own researchI keep talking about learning organizations and that were trying to get to [be] a learn-g organization. In this context, eight CIOs spoke of the importance of being a goodStephens and Loughman, 199 ).

n important means by which CIOs can communicate ee tively with functional managers

ot call users, users or end users. We call them business partners. Use of metaphors is

heir speech, drawing pictures and diagrams, and enfor ing terminology rules: We do

ion techniques, interviewees mentioned using a lot of analogies, including examples in

eed to demonstrate their und rstanding of the business. Regarding specic communica-

void using technological terminology or acronyms, an three of these emphasized the

Part of knowledge transfer is the use of a common language. Eleven CIOs intentionallyeambamurthy, 1999) and by educating others and sharing information. Mintzberg (1973)alled this the disseminator role in his study of senior executives. Sixteen interviewees dis-ussed educating senior executives about technology; Wewant to be sure. . .theyre technol-gy literate, since initiatives have to stand the light of day of their understanding. CIOsy out technological alternatives and tradeos, generating clear dierent scenarios thathey understand. Three have createdmeeting forums for the sole purpose of educating theireers, while others regularly send out materials and books to other senior managers for theurpose of educating them.Others spokeofmaking strong presentations to larger audiences

Innovation

Why

Create a learning organization

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 135Sponsor conferences and educationBring in consultantsCharter studies

6. Findings of inductive analysisgrounded theory development

The two dimensions described below reect results of inductive analysis of the dataafter chunking out the four theoretical dimensions described above. Since these dimen-sions have not been identied in past climate research, we have included references to priorresearch where relevant.

6.1. Reality-checkingMy job was to tell them their baby was ugly and had warts

CIOs spoke of the need to uncover illusions and root out fallacieswe call this reality-checking. Whereas, visioning is the process of changing perceptions of where the organi-zation is going, reality-checking changes perceptions of where the organization (or aparticular project) currently is. It removes blinders and alters the way others perceivethe current reality. Thirty-one interviewees mentioned reality-checking-type behaviors oremphasized the need to do this. Three situations mentioned requiring this type of behaviorwere; decisions on whether to scrap or to x problem systems and applications, attempts

to prevent future disasters, and eorts to turnarSynthesize diverse perspectivesForm R&D and environmental scanning functionssponsoring educational programs, all ofsary for eective innovation.

How

Demonstrate active learningRead and do researchBe humblementioned one of more of the following: Sending their sta to conferences, chartering spe-

cic studies, bringing in outside consultants, andwhich support the organizational learning neceshumility. . .I can think back on a number of situations in my career where Ive beenabsolutely dead wrong yet convinced that I was right. Learning to ask the right ques-tions is also important since you have to have a great crap detector when it comes totechnology. One type of learning that was identied specically was the capability tosynthesize diverse types and sources of informationits a job of synthesis not analy-sis. . .Try to interrelate [things. . .] at levels that are not yet knowable, or even imagin-able. Several of these CIOs noted that this type of thinking was foreign to manytechnically trained people, making it sometimes a challenge to explain their views totheir own organizations.

5.4.1. Institutionalizing innovation

CIOs spoke of institutionalizing their innovation processes in various ways. Six haveformed functions whose sole purpose is technological research and development, and/orenvironmental scanning. Since both research and development and environmental scan-ning foster innovation in organizations (Howell and Shea, 2001), by creating and resourc-ing these functions, these CIOs work to institutionalize innovation. Eight CIOsound problem production units.

136 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151In order to be innovative, CIOs have to try new processes and applications, oat exper-iments, implement bleeding edge technologies, etc. Since this requires doing things that theorganization has not done before, deep expertise does not yet exist to ensure high levels ofreliability and prevent failures. This naturally increases the likelihood that a particularproject will fail, relative to projects that are less risky. Thus, the portfolio of projects heldby an innovative CIO, relative to that held by a less innovative CIO, will include more can-didates for early rejection in order to mitigate this risk. Reality-checking behavior is nec-essary to triage these candidates for early rejection before they do actually fail. For thisreason, reality-checking is a more important capability for CIOs that foster innovationthan those that do not.

Further, reality-checking seems to be a particularly important behavior for leading thoseinvolved in design work, since the process of design builds tremendous ownership arounddesign outcomes. Such ego involvement tends to breed resistance to change (Pomerantzet al., 1995) and reluctance to communicate bad news about troubled software projects(Smith and Keil, 2003). Where IT designers of systems, databases and networks take greatpride and ownership in their designs, CIOs are most challenged to overcome high levels ofresistance to their suggestions for design changes. Further, for designs that have not yetbeen implemented, little hard evidence exists for CIOs to use to demonstrate design short-comings. In such cases design quality is subjective, and designers are likely to favor theirown perceptions over those of the CIO. And nally, failing development projects may needto be to scrapped entirely, regardless of sunk costs. For these reasons then, reality-checkingbehaviors serve CIOs well in their attempts to create highly innovative IT organizations.

Theoretically, reality-checking can be viewed as a process of creating a shift in othersaspiration levels (Festinger, 1942) through the mechanism of negative performance feed-back, which has been shown to positively aect organizational outcomes (Florin-Thumaand Boudreau, 1987). Change management theorists view reality-checking as an unfreez-ing behavior (Lewin, 1957). By altering others views of where they have to start from toachieve their goals, reality-checking is the motivational technique underlying eective goalsetting (Campion and Lord, 1982). Sometimes the reality of the situation is clear: Wevegot a fundamental problem. We cant get through the day. . .[and] it aint gonna get anybetter, but other times the CIO has to make a call. The more ambiguous and subjectivethe grounds for the assessment, the more diculty CIOs reported having in getting theirreality-checks to sink in.

Reality-checking isnt always directed toward subordinatethe support of businesspeers and superiors is often needed to rectify a problem. CIOs exposed their peers tosome really bad stu that they didnt want to hear of. This can take the more straight-forward form of; look, this is fundamentally broken, or require a delicate balance ofhonesty and tact: What I didnt want to do of course is make my boss look stupid.Other times salesmanship is necessary: Recognizing that [reality] and then carefully sell-ing that to the business is the hairy ledge Im standing on right now. CIOs discussedusing evidence to buttress their versions of reality when possible: The key is to show themhow broken they [the systems] are, period.

6.2. Institutionalizing reality-checking

Failing projects need to be killed as early as possible, and CIOs spoke of putting metricsand measures in place to be used as evidence should the current reality become unaccept-

able. One way that CIOs promote reality-checking is by making it clear that they them-

Two reasons were given edib

sor to fostering strong olmes, 1991). Trust generates commit-ent peral su (M

One CIO put it this w ur own house in order, its hard to be aconsultant to somebody innoence other peoplein b to

ean verd to oveenti he w

vate others to achieve. And they certainly use their inuence to deliver reality-checks when.behavior. In general, people are more likely to be inuenced by highly credible sourcesthan by less credible sources (Hovland, 1951). Thus credible CIOs are able to garnerenough respect from others to inuence them to undertake the eortful change thatunderlies innovative capability. For this reason, innovative CIOs need to be perceivedas highly credible. Note also that inuence processes underlie the other dimensions of cli-mate discussed above. CIOs network to build peer relationships in part so that they caninuence these peers. They engage their subordinates in part by inuencing their workbehaviors. They use inuence processes to spread their organizational vision as they moti-Thus the more inu al the CIO is, the better s ill be at fostering others innovativeessence of what it mneed to be inuences to be innovative. Howeundertake the eort to, people resist doing new things andrcome inertia and make the change.oth IT and the business do new things. This, after all, is theay: if you dont have yoelse. In order to create vative climates, CIOs have to inu-ment, and commitmAnd trust is a criticaensures eort that is coob dimension of credibility cGinnies, and Ward, 1980).relationships (Boon and H

tive and innovative (Hosmer, 1994).s a whole. Second, credibixecs, including the CEO. eived integrity is a necessary precur-for this. First, personal cr ility works to promote the credibility

CIOs believe they have good personal credibility and work to maintain these perceptionsof the IS organizations a lity helps to foster personal trust betweenthe CIO and other top e Percselves want to hear bad news: Part of their job is to push me and keep me honest. Thisissue involves minimizing defensive behavior (Argyris and Schon, 1978), such as gettingothers to accept negative feedback without deecting the blame: We used to have a lotof duck and cover behavior. We have pretty successfully broken that down. Other mech-anisms are designed to overcome the inertia of the status quo: Three interviewees talkedabout creating processes to monitor problems after they had supposedly been xed.Reality-checking

Who Why How

IT subordinates To shift aspiration levels Bald honestyFor unfreezing to change Diplomacy and tactFor eective goal setting SalesmanshipTo overcome resistance tochanging intangible designs

Use of evidence

Business executives andIT subordinates

For deciding to scrap systemsand projects

Putting metrics in place to generate evidence

For support in preventingfuture disasters

Demonstrate non-defensive behavior

For turning around problemproduction units

Reward for non-defensive behavior

Ongoing monitoring of xed problems

6.3. Promoting credibilityThere are times when you have to push it because you know its

the right thing to do

In their study of executives, Hurwitz et al. (1968) dened eective managers by theircredibility: the known ability to get results. All except four CIOs raised the issue of person-al credibility and/or the need for their IS organizations to be perceived as credible. Most

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 137

138 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151things are going badly. And since credible people are inuential people, CIOs that mani-fest credibility are more likely to succeed at all the dimensions of climate discussed above.

CIOs described the behaviors below as useful for promoting perceptions of credibility.Three categories emerged as important to a number of the interviewees. They are; mani-festing commitment, exhibiting consistency, and having expertise.

6.3.1. Manifesting commitment

Commitment is the impassioned expression of a leader advocating his vision (Aguilar,1988). Mintzsbergs (1973) liaison role is strengthened by development of professional rep-utation through making and following through on commitments. Eleven CIOs describedcommitted behaviors, and/or mentioned the importance of making and fullling commit-ments: Initiatives fall apart because of a lack of real commitment. Examples of commit-ted behaviors mentioned include: Recommending a vendors superior product to a userover the same product built by the CIOs organization; stock ownership; and taking per-sonal risks (I almost got red. . .because I stuck to my guns). Many interviewees stressedthe importance of knowing the limits of their organizations: Dont over commit. Andmake sure you set appropriate expectations.

6.3.2. Exhibiting consistency

Behaviors that exhibit consistency inspire the condence and trust of others (Boon andHolmes, 1991). Consistency is necessary to the leadership role of culture formation, in whichvalues are transmitted to the organization consistently over time (Schein, 1985). Badaraccoand Ellsworth (1989) dene integrity as consistency between what the leader believes, howshe acts, and her aspirations for her organization, as in: I walk and talk in terms of institut-ing quality management. Subordinates and peers know what to expect from a consistentCIO and know what he expects of them. They learn to trust him by trusting his behavior.Four other CIOs emphasized the importance of being consistent, both personally and orga-nizationally: If we have a spotty, inconsistent response, we have no credibility.

6.3.3. Having expertise

Nine CIOs stressed the importance of understanding the business. They believe theCIO needs to have substantive knowledge of how the business operates. Five CIOs alsobelieve that CIOs need to have a technical background. You are not going to succeedwithout being rooted in the technology. Interestingly, this contradicts the ndings ofEnns et al. (2003a,b) that suggests that CIOs successfully use their technical backgroundsto inuence their peers. Eleven interviewees stressed the need to understand the technologyand keep up with technological trends, especially the need to know the best in practices ofapplied technologies.

6.3.4. Institutionalizing the promotion of credibility

Selznick (1957) views the maintenance of institutional integrity as the main responsibil-ity of leadership, and also as a means to defend the organizations distinctive competence.Nine CIOs discussed the importance of building perceptions that their organization hasthe capability to deliver and provide consistent quality service. A subset of these (six)had turned around their IT organizations, restoring organizational credibility where therewas none. CIOs talked of assessing the risk of new projects for credibility maintenance as

well as for technical feasibility. Several interviewees stressed the importance of standards:

s, subordinat

his case in thecum, 1974; Bpecic examplly. The themiscussed abo

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 139edge work and inuence processes are a critical component of managing knowledgework (Sussman and Seigal, 2003). Specic techniques used by these leaders are describedthroughout the ndings section above and summarized in table form at the end of eachsection. They range from enforcing terminology rules, to the need for personal humility,to co-locating IT and business sta. They are not intended to represent a single unied per-spective, but rather present a composite of the beliefs and actions of the 36 CIOs inter-viewed, describing views held by more than ten percent of them.

For researchers, this study applies previously validated dimensions of organizational cli-mate to the innovative IT context, using rich description to esh them out at both the psy-chological and institutional manifestation levels. The major contribution of the work lies inthe two inductive dimensions that emerged in addition to the theoretically-derived onestion underlie many of the six dimensions dreality-checking and promoting credibility. We believe thve, since IT innovation is knowl-For practitioners, this research presents swork, both interpersonally and institutionales of ways that innovative CIOses of communication and educa-and dynamic capability (Hellriegel and Slo urke and Litwin, 1992).

tory of organizational action over time, in t direction of increased innovative

beliefs systems aect subsequent behaviors , climate has impacted the trajec-

ence the shared belief systems of their peer es and others. When these shared

tutions they build, CIOs promote certain perceptions and values over others, and so inu-and activitiescredible organizations maintain policies of standardization despite complaints from usersand subordinates.

Another theme around institutionalizing credibility was the need to be pro-active.In credible organizations, keeping up isnt enoughyou have to be able to antici-

pate. 14 CIOs emphasized the need to make sure the organization is ready to deliverwhen called upon.

The ultimate in preparedness was discussed by one CIO who transfers her credibility tothe organization by nurturing successors: What youre trying to do is institutionalizeyour values and expectations, process and style. . .to be able to grow up multiple choices[of successors].Promoting credibility

Why How

To be able to inuence others to change & innovate Manifest commitmentTo foster positive peer relations and networks Exhibit consistencyTo motivate subordinates to excel Have expertiseTo promote the vision for the organization Risk assessment processesTo eectively deliver reality-checks Standardization policies

Pro-active preparedness

7. Discussion and implications

This study was undertaken to explore the work of innovative CIOs in order to identifydimensions of innovative IT climates. We present evidence supporting the existence of thefour climate dimensions deduced from prior literature, and describe two emergent dimen-sions. The 36 CIOs interviewed here articulate the values, behaviors and mechanisms thatthey believe foster innovation and agility. While the capacity to innovate exists withinmost organizations, it is the work of leaders to create a climate in which this capacitycan manifest itself and ourish. Both in their interpersonal interactions and with the insti-ese are particularly important for

140 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151innovative IT climates and deserve future attention. Reality-checking is a skill for managingtechnical risk, both present and future. It is a means for organizations to cut their losses. Toinnovate, CIOs take on new technologies, platforms and applications. This creates risk, andunderscores the need for risk management skills. Reality-checking is most relevant to infor-mation technology innovation when the failure is intangible and cannot be measured or evi-denced. For example, much information technology cannot be seen, either because it hasnot been developed yet, or because its processes are hidden to users. In such instances, lead-ers must convince others to make a change without the support of objective evidence. With-in the IT organization, reality-checking is linked to the creative process of IT design work,since designers tend to identify themselves with their designs and are biased in favor of theirquality. It requires leadership skill to get them to see the limitations of their designs in waysthat do not raise their psychological defenses, particularly since, at the design stage, qualitytends to be subjective. The reality-checking dimension addresses the challenge of simulta-neously managing risk, IT innovation and creativity.

The promoting credibility dimension underscores the role that inuence processes playin knowledge work. Knowledge work, and particularly IT knowledge work, is often highlycomplex, and this limits behavior-based contracts (Eisenhardt, 1989) and process controls(Ouchi, 1979). This makes hierarchical control dicult, with consequent increased relianceon leader inuence processes. And where support must be generated from lateral businessunit leaders, inuence processes become paramount. Thus in the context of complex ITknowledge work, inuence processes are critical to the ve other dimensions of climate:networking with peers, engaging subordinates, building a shared vision, fostering innova-tion and reality-checking all depend on the CIOs capacity for inuencing others. Andbecause credible sources are inuential sources (ref), credibility seems to be an importantsixth dimension of innovative IT climate. At the organizational level, credibility seems tobe linked to the consultative role that IT plays in the rest of the organization. IT units thatare perceived as credible have their own house in order, a necessary but not sucient con-dition for prescribing innovative solutions to others. At both the individual and organiza-tional levels, perceptions of IT credibility underlie eective inuence processes and suggestan important avenue for future information systems research. They are most relevant to ITinnovation where the CIO does not have the hierarchical or budget authority to mandate aparticular change and must lobby for it.

It is no stretch of the imagination to see where IT leaders that are poor reality-checkers orhave little credibility are likely to fail. Those that cannot eectively reality-check will havehigher failure systems rates, since they were not cut early in development. And, since the costof xing an IT system increases the later in the development cycle it is addressed (Boehm,1989), they will have higher development costs. Those that cannot leverage their credibilityand that of their organizations will not be eective at inuencing their subordinates andpeersa crucial skill where hierarchical authority is absent or dicult to implement dueto the complexity of the work. Yet these are not skills that technical sta are trained in,and so may be dicult to engender in subordinates being groomed for future leadership.The question remains how these two capabilities can be fostered in up and coming IT leaders.

This study is not without its limitations. The interviews were conducted in 1996, at a timeof tremendous enthusiasm for the innovative capacity of IT. During the subsequent eco-nomic slowdown there was less emphasis on IT innovation (Burrows, 2001), but interestin IT innovation is being rekindled (c.f. Swanson and Ramiller, 2004), creating a need tounderstand it better. This study addresses this need by moving prior expertise into the pres-

ent. We focus primarily on large organizations since they are most likely to be able to pro-

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 141vide the resources necessary to support innovative IT climates. IT departments do not func-tion in isolation, and certainly other business units and the environment impact their cli-mate (Montes et al., 2004). However, we did not collect data from non-CIO stakeholdersor managers so our ndings cannot address this issue, except to explore ways that CIOs net-work to make other parts of the business receptive to innovation. Finally, ndings aredescriptive and are not intended to be generalizable beyond this sample. While relevant the-ory has been put forth to support the emergent dimensions reality-checking and promotingcredibility, further validation of these is necessary to establish their external validity.

Ongoing innovation is necessary for sustainable competitive advantage (Teece et al.,1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000) and IT plays a critical role in enabling it (Sambamur-thy et al., 2003; Wheeler, 2002). And because innovative IT climates foster ongoing inno-vation, it is important to understand them, both practically and theoretically. Thisresearch seeks to address this need descriptively, identifying values and actions of innova-tive CIOs that they believe contribute to their success.

Appendix A. Details of research methodology

A.1. Sampling strategy

Because the phenomenon of interest is innovative IT climates, the sample was based ona theoretical criterion, proceeding in three phases as follows. First we identied rmswhose IT organizations had been cited as highly innovative in the practitioner press. Thisgave us a very current picture of rm activity, as opposed to, for example, the delayedeects of sampling for structural characteristics. We utilized the NEXIS online databaseto search for stories that described IT organizations using the word innovative, and thathad been published in the prior three months. This process yielded 105 stories whoseauthors perceived them to have innovative IT organizations-92 from large multinationalsand 13 from smaller nationally based organizations. This process was not intended todetermine that these IT organizations were innovative, but rather as a means to identifya list of innovative CIOs as in put to the next phase of the sampling strategy.

In phase two of the sampling process, we compiled a list of the CIOs of these rms andthen asked a senior partner of an executive recruiting rm to rank these CIOs in two sub-sets (those from large multinational corporations and those from smaller national organi-zations), in order of their reputation for innovativeness. We then contacted those CIOsranked in the top half of this list by telephone and requested an interview. Of the 105 orga-nizations originally identied, we contacted the CIOs from 53 of these, 39 of whom agreedto be interviewed. Attrition and scheduling conicts reduced this number further to thesample of 36 reported on here. See Table A1 for further information on samplecomposition.

In the third phase of the sampling process, we performed a post-hoc re-readings of theinterview transcripts in search of one or more of the following three terms: ApplicationService Provider(s) (ASP), Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system(s), andmobile/wireless applications. Since these technologies were on the distant horizon duringthe mid-1990s when these data were collected, we reasoned that non-prompted use of theseterms by CIOs reected an awareness of IT innovation on their part. No interviews wereeliminated on this basis, as all of the nal 36 interviewees mentioned one of these technol-

ogies at some point during the interview.

A.2. Data collection

During an initial orientation, informants were given the opportunity to ask questionsregarding the studys purpose and were assured of condentiality. We then conductedin-depth, semi-structured interviews (Berg, 1989) with each CIO. They were also informedthat they could refuse to answer questions during the interview if they so desired. Theinterview format included a set of structured questions but also incorporated probes forelaboration. The interview structure enabled a degree of comparability across informants.At the same time, open-ended questions allowed interviewees to take the discussion in par-ticular directions of interest. Following Lincoln and Guba (1985), we worked to elicitCIOs own views and ideas in order to understand their perspectives. Rather than directingquestions toward identication of the climate dimensions, we asked open-ended questions

Table A1Organizational characteristics of interview sample

Innovativeness rank Industry No. employees 95 Revenues

1 Financial services 4300 882 M2 Logistics services 7900 1.5 B3 Insurance 29,740 6.2 B4 Consumer goods mfr./dist. 26,000 18.0 B5 Electronics mfr./distr. 85,200 16.6 B6 Logistics services 50,600 4.6 B7 Electronics mfr./distr. 8,400 3.5 B8 Insurance 38,600 13 B9 Consumer goods mfr./dist. 103,000 33.5 B10 Financial services 9200 1.4 B11 Petroleum products 28,500 36.8 B12 Retail 200,500 21.1 B13 Financial services 15,300 817 M14 Telecommunications 50,000 15.3 B15 Financial services 1,800 782 M16 Industrial mfr. 47,500 14.3 B17 Electronics mfr./distr. 59,900 11.4 B18 Industrial mfr. 27,700 3.1 B19 Industrial mfr. 11,500 5.9 B20 Industrial mfr. 27,000 5.5 B

142 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 12515121 Electronics mfr./distr. 3500 650 M22 Retail 60,000 4.4 B23 Insurance 6900 4.1 B24 Entertainment services 81,700 11.7 B25 Retail 80,000 15.5 B26 Logistics services 9800 940 M27 Electronics mfr./distr. 86,000 13.5 B28 Industrial mfr. 41,000 5.3 B29 Financial services 70,350 15.8 B30 Retail 675,000 82.5 B31 Restaurant franchise 212,000 9.8 B32 Consumer goods mfr./dist. 480,000 30.4 B33 Financial services 58,300 16.3 B34 Pharmaceuticals 8700 4.3 B35 Telecommunications 63,800 14.8 B

36 Retail 275,000 34.9 B

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 143to give each interviewee the opportunity speak in his or her own voice. We encouragedinterviewees to describe their work in terms of whatever they thought was most relevantto their success, as opposed to leading them toward identication of innovative climateelements. In this way we solicited informants views in a way that provided thick datain areas of relevance to the phenomenon without directing them to it. Interviews were taperecorded and then transcribed verbatim. See Appendix B for the interview guide.

A.3. Deductive content analysis

As discussed above, data analyses proceeded in two parts, the rst aimed at generatingevidence to support the theoretically deduced dimensions, and the second to analyze theremaining data for additional insights. First, one researcher performed content analysison the transcribed interviews, utilizing a deductive initial coding scheme based on the veclimate dimensions described above, as prescribed for grounded theory development(Glaser and Strauss, 1988). This researcher located evidence for the four psychologicalattributes via this initial pass through the data as follows:

For data pertaining to Peer relations, the following keywords were identied: peers,colleagues, business executives, networking, politics.For data pertaining to Support, the following keywords were identied: support, subor-dinates, report, works for me, empower, engage, manage.For data pertaining toMotivation, the following keywords were identied: vision, goal,strategy, plan, future, transform, aspire, inspire, motivate.For data pertaining to Innovation, the following keywords were identied: innovate,learn, research, knowledge, wisdom, design, think, reect.

Sentences around these keywords were clipped and grouped into themes based on thefour dimensions described above. When these words were used to describe a structuralmechanism or organizational design attribute, the sentences they were in were organizedto describe an institutional aspect of that particular dimension. A representative sub-sam-ple of these sentences is presented in the ndings section below, with the remaining sen-tences displayed in non-paragraph form in Appendix C.

A second researcher then worked to conrm the organization of these sentences into thetheoretically deduced themes in three passes. A nal pass was performed by four expertstwo academics and two practitionerswho read the categorizations for face validity andlogical coherence. Finally, member checks were performed by sending results to a sub sam-ple of the CIOs (12), who read the categorizations for representativeness.

A.4. Inductive qualitative analysis

The second part of data analyses also relied on content analysis but in an exploratorymode, using procedures outlined by Spradley (1979). First, a domain analysis was per-formed by one researcher on the verbatim interviews, with the aim of picking up majorthemes that did not fall within the theoretically deduced dimensions. These data wereinductively memoed, coded and placed into rst-order domains under a single cover term(Spradley, 1979). Domains were selected on the basis of key identiers that were men-

tioned by a subset of informants and possible related terms were identied. The next step

identied connections betweeof key terms, as was performelinked to the data itself, seconthese second-order themes wetively with reference to relevtechniques (Glaser and Strausinto several analytical dimensndings. As with the deducti

, the

144 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151with member checks.In these ways, the deep structure of the data was delineated, synthesized, and integrated

into the two categories (deductive and inductive) presented here. Through adherence torobust qualitative analyses techniques, we believe ndings are theoretically and conceptu-ally coherent, are relatively free from researcher bias, reliable and auditable, and are inter-nally valid and externally transferable.

Appendix B. Sample interview guide:

1. How do you spend your time?2. What advice do you have for other CIOs? Dos and Donts?3. What indicators would you use to determine whether a CIO is going to be successful

or not?4. What do you see as your most signicant accomplishments? What do you anticipate

being most proud of having accomplished, in the future?5. What techniques or personal attributes do you see as making a dierence for you in

your work?6. How do you see your role as CIO as having changed over the past few years?7. What are your major objectives in the foreseeable future?8. What kinds of events trigger you to abandon your old ways and develop new ways of

behaving?9. How do you stay current?10. How do you measure performance?

Appendix C. Additional data

Peer relations andNetworking

You have to be a condante of some of the business leaders (i11). Ispend hours and hours and hours and hours and hours listening to the VPof operations telling stories about XYZ; listening to the guy who developedXYZ tell me all about that. . .they have to become convinced that you are acolleague of theirs and that you share common values and beliefs, commonobjectives, and that you have common interests, and a common orientation.OK? You change the way you dress (d3). groups where they exchangewar stories (k6). The things that have to be managed externally are thecustomer relationship and the supplier, the vendor relationship (q5), butmanaging those externals is a talent that is. . .very foreign to thetechnology side (l18).these procedures by, rstn these terms and the remaining data based on identicationd in the deductive analysis phase. Once all domains had beend-order analysis was performed by the researcher. Labels forre derived from the primary domains, and developed itera-ant theory, as prescribed by grounded theory developments, 1967). Finally, these second-order themes were aggregatedions to provide a super ordinate framework for the emergentve content analysis above, additional passes were made onother researcher, second, by a panel of experts, and third,

Information gathering:

Inuencing:

Institutionalizing NetworkingBehaviors:

Support

Engaging the IT professional:

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 145couple of times, hey, they feel great about it (M25).What Im trying to get them to do is own something; think about it, planfor itnot have to be told, do that and do it (r8); Im an individual thatlikes people to do their own thing. I council as to what I would have done inthat role, but by and large theres too much going on for me to be involvedin the decision making process anymore (K3). have a little more fun inwhat youre doing. Its not always a constant battle (m7). Give them anopportunity to put their input into this thing [via e-mail] (g6); make themuse their own applications (G8).from happening, than allowing [it to happen] (D19). You have to letpeople go, let them make mistakes (D19); and allow people to do thingscreativelyto not just coo-coo things but allow [things] to germinate beyonda certain level, to almost go into trail and error (K6). Growing leaders inthe ranks below: its leadership at all levels that has to happen (r12); wevery much encourage our guys to take leadership initiatives (i11); wevegrown some young folks into very good managers, professionals. . .its kindof a process that were into, is bring them in, develop them, grow them(M25). All kinds of decisions are pushed down to the division level (M2).Challenging them to accept greater responsibility: you constantlychallenge them, but you do it in ways that they can see that theres anachievable process (n14); sometimes you stretch these people, they do it aempowerment down in the organization a little more (K2); dont act likea dictator (h13); I think also the willingness to quote give up power[within the IT line organization] is going to be key to survival of thecompany and survival of the company and IS [executives] (L11). You[can] probably do more harm in over controlling, prohibiting somethingregarding technology, regarding their business, [etc.] (g8).I think being able to enunciate how the information adds value. . .[is] reallythe leadership issue. . .Because you dont get the funding otherwise (P7).You have to nd ways to open the minds of your management (k12).What I found to be the most important thing is not whats being saidanymore, its how its being presented (g5). Theyve got all the time in theworld for you if they think youre going to help them make some money(P20). We like to let our products and services speak for us. Were not bighorn tooters; if we were wed be in the marketing department someplace.But if you dont let them know they dont know. They just dont know.(m11). You have to manage the spin of this function within theorganization. If its not consciously managed, its managed for you (q8).Its important that they dont dislike me (S2).I have worked hard at trying to get my people out. . .Its helped a lot intheir relationships (N10); Im pushing them up to the front end of thevalue chain, almost, so they can have these dialogues with the customers(r7). I made them all shake hands (I7); and, I spent three years justgetting a wall down so theyd talk to each other (K6).Most technology management issues are people issues that arent thatdierent than any other organizational issues (A13); focus on yourpeople rst and second. . .youre only as good as your people (e14); and, Ithink a lot of the job of the CIO is. . .a people job. . .youre very heavilyengaged in the discussions of a lot of the people (i8). Were pushingwandering the halls (J3n). out on the street (g12). spending time onthe turf of the business units, in the plants, in the eld, [in the] salesorganization (e5). Im assigning a full week a month. . .on what Icallworking the precincts (d6). Ive probably spent half my time indirect contact with the senior management group (p7). to nd out whoreally runs the business (d11). Youve got to get to know their strengthsand weaknesses. . .as it relates to technology and their proles. Its calledtheir technology propensity proles; what they would or wouldnt do

Engaging users:

Institutionalizing EngagingBehaviors:

Motivation/Visioning

CIO vs. business driven

146 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151agenda that management buys o on (e2); The general manager. . .is theone who calls the shots (h3); and IT needs to follow the organizationalmodel of the corporation. If the model changes, IT has to change with it(a5). Mutually driven: No damn way should I as a CIO dictate things ormake decisions regarding things that eect their destiny without them beingfully a partner and an understanding partner (Q2); its our responsibilityto. . .enable the business strategy (d1). knowing the business plans rst, inorder to then be able to build a technical strategy to support them: Ifyoure not privy to the plan. . .and something comes in later on, it doesntwork (P9); it all comes down to saying what do you want to invest in, soyou need that business strategy rst (f14); make sure that whatever I amstrategizing, architecting; this is where the company is going (H4); youmajor decisions without them (Q17).Keep the overall goal in mind (R4); Be a strong advocate. Have apassion. And then change can happen without a crisis (q14). We need toshare that vision with the business units (S2); Becoming the mostproductive company in the industry (r7); the vision was to be $2.5B in theStates alone (i1); keeping the business focus rst (N7); mak[ing] surewe increase members protability (K4); we are an information basedbusiness. . .And therefore well inventory our data, manage data, distributedata (a5). Technical visions: Youve got to lay out a vision. Youve got totake your main applications, which in our case are DEC VMS, AS400, IBMMVS mainframe type applications and then our PC LAN environment.And you say this is our target architecture (I5).CIO driven: Were saying heres where the business needs to go and Impart of driving this business (G2); I think youve got a higherresponsibility to the organization than just necessarily what the CEO mightstate or even [what] some of the other senior ocers might say (n3); Idont feel that we need to wait for the chairman or the president to tell useverything we ought to be doing (j5). The only agenda that works is thebe accomplished by a team. The complexity of what weve done over the lastcouple of years could not be doneby a bunchof individuals running around indierent directions, divvying up their jobs (q13); if you really get goodpeople togetheryeah, theyre all high charged, they all come to the table andtheyve already got all the answers (o3). The most important thing [is] toacquire the right type of talent (i2); I try to get goodpeople and rely on theirjudgment (h12); the right people in the right places (e11). thatssomething youve got to stay on every single day - are you hiring the rightpeople? (L8). Creating user structures: The have control of. . .what projectsthey want us to work on, where they want us to put focus (L4); theyunderstand that theyre in charge and we dont make major expenditures orThey really are in charge (Q4); we began making it part of theirproblem. . .it gave them full accountability and control (a6). One of thethings that I have to always caution my people on is to not take back thatownership. There are a lot of people who would love for us to take it back(N7). We had changes, fundamental changes we needed to make in ourreplenishment process in order to do the empowering (R8). For every oneof the line applications that they processed, we determined an appropriatebusiness measure. . .And so the user[s] knows what theyre going to spend.Theyve got a choice whether theyre going to spend that money or not(c29). Does that mean that every user becomes an application developer?Ithink. . .absolutely (L10).We cant aord to have a traditional hierarchical approach to organizing.Weve got to get people working in informal groups; weve got to get a highlyteam-oriented kind of organization. And really part of my job is to build thatculture that says it does notmatterwhere you happen towork (J1). OneCIOmakes eorts to not let the management layer get in the way of the people(g6). Creating teams: what Ive accomplished. . .is demonstrating what canhave to be two years ahead of the operating requirements (J1).

Communicating the vision

Institutional VisioningBehaviors:

Innovation

Going the extra mile

Learning to synthesize

Integrity/Credibility

Manifesting commitment

S. Watts, J.C. Hendersonboils down to a trust. . .and you either have the personal credibility or youare given a rope to go out on that limb to hang yourself (c7). You dontget a ticket to sit at the table if you dont have some credibility (q9). Forthe IS organization: You can have a very good executing organization,and if the leader isnt any good, personally, nobody ever really understandsthat the organization is really good. . .They evaluate it by the person whosesitting in front of them (P9). The rst stage is personal credibility thenyou begin to institutionalize some of these things (r11).I mean, its a personal commitment - I cant just delegate it (D18). On stockownership: If you dont have enough faith to own part of the place, youprobably shouldnt be running it (d13). [Youve] got to take risks, you haveto take a stand (g8). You have to look them in the eye and say if you dontcome to the table Im not going to support you (o9). I committedto. . .cutting costs and response time by half (F2). Written operating valuesway it operates, and that also extends to the industry,. . .[and] do take timeto understand the organization readiness of your user community,. . .theirability to execute (I10).I have some credibility (h3). I had a good reputation. . . and goodcredibility (o2). It also gave me some credibility with the operationspeople, which is extremely critical in our business (P4). It fundamentallyabout my style, so I consciously manage that slice of what works, in whatcircumstances and why, and how do I build on the successful ones (r17).My industry is long on analysis, short on synthesis. And so one of the jobsof a CIO to me is to pick out disparate facts, discard the ones that arentimportant and to relate the ones that arent just already related for me(01). Do take time to understand the culture of your company, and thecan never learn too much (P19). Im always learning new things - Imexcited about it (H12). Always I want to understand more (b7).Youve got to look at [and ask], what do we not know? (R5). Just makingsure youve asked the right questions and you really understand - is probablythe biggest key (N7).Youhave to avoid get[ing] sold down the river by yoursta,who [are]well intentionedbut. . . (c3). make sure that youre cognizantof them [yourweak spots] and you acknowledge them (g12). I got reectiveprojects really t into nine strategies (R8); everything must supportbusiness objectives. You have to be able to track something to a businessobjective, no matter how remotely (Q8).Ive learned out of that process to kind of listen to whats being said. Immore concerned about getting to the right answer than I am about beingright (c23). I surround myself with people, all of whom report to me, whoI expect to be better at what they do than I am at what they do. && Youtime,my seniormanagers are engaging seniorbusinessmanagers and trying toeducate them as to the importance of investing in information systems (m2).The more business knows about what were doing and what were trying todo and is part of it, the less amystery I am and therefore they invite me to be abigger part of the business (H6). Use videoconferencing to tell themwhatsgoing on and where Im at. . .with technology at that point in time (d12).You try to speak to themat their level, or at least in their language (g7).Twoof these interviewees referred to this process as translating.We launched another formal initiative a year ago. . .whereby we developeda model for examining and assigning value to each element of businessvalue that a particular IT project contributes (E5); all of these 200Theres a lot of need to interchange information (i11). Speak the plain andsimple truth (B2). people are afraid to share information (K14). There isa process of education from the chief technologist to the senior leadership ofthe organization (b20); I have to educate them and bring them to the pointwhere they know the right questions to ask (I2). I spend a lot of timein. . .senior educational opportunitieswith our executives (P1). For the rst

/ Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 147serve as my commitment to the organization as to how I would lead them(I7). Dont set agendas that cant be met (09). Make schedulecommitments (E12). weve got enough on our plate for this year (M14)).

Integrity:

Reality-checking

Communicatingthe reality:

Institutionalizingreality-checkingbehaviors:

References

anageAnderson, N.R., West, M.A., 1998.

of the team climate inventory. JApplegate, L.M., Elam, J.J., 1992. N

Quarterly 16 (4), 469489.Argyris, C., Schon, D.A., 1978. OrgArmstrong, C.P., Sambamurthy, V.,

turesmatio

148 S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151leadership and IT infrastrucAshforth, B., 1985. Climate forMeasuring climate for work group innovation: development and validationournal of Organizational Behavior 19, 235258.ew information systems leaders: A changing role in a changing world. MIS

anizational Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.1999. Information technology assimilation in rms: The inuence of senior. Information Systems Research 10 (4), 304327.n: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management Review 10, 837847.Aguilar, F.J., 1988. General Mto me, whom I respect, and say youre making a major mistake (b10).

rs in Action: Policies and Strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.little cartoon skeleton (M13).Im here to tell you that in two years well be busted (L6, q3). Youvegot to Fig. out what the reality is (d14), and you have to have a veryhonest baseline assessment of where you are (I2). Youve got to knowwhen to bag it (j15). The key thing I can do is position for the executivemanagement of this company, the real situation theyre up against (I6).It was on their watch that it happened, so part of the deal was getting themcomfortable with that fact (I2). Youre not going to nd someone to giveyou an opinion about technology who is not potentially conicted (l18).Youll think youve made a change, and people are back there doing thesame old thing (m11); you cant assume that any problem youve solved issolved (n8). Structures: Measurements are very important. . .keeping trackon an ongoing basis (b20); somebody is real unhappy, so you do theprocess of, well, lets look at the data and nd out (S3). Down the line: Partof their job is to pushme and keepme honest (d11). Often people will comeguilty. But good thing (j18)). Proactive capabilities: [Be] ready forwhatever comes down the pike (m7). Part of our role. . .has to be pickingupon the trends. . .Id hate to be starting with client server from scratchright now (k2). This may require taking initiative without ocial sanction:If you wait for somebody to bring you a memo on something youll be aunit should have (E9). [Credibility] becomes the base to take o from(M20). Non-manipulatable policies: Do what needs to get done in the faceof conict (e.g. we got some people mighty angry at us for a while, becausethey thought [we were telling them]. . .how to run the business. And wereyour resource doing it, but thats a process that you have to manage (q7).It was obvious credibility was the problem. And the way to x thecredibility problem was to rst, provide a decent production service (c6).If you dont have your own house in order, its hard to be a consultant tosomebody else (k8). You have to demonstrate continuous improvementin terms of internal processes to show. . .that you, in fact, are capable ofdoing the same kind of productivity improvement that you say the businessyou have to keep some track of that explosion. You cant spend 90% ofAsserting InstitutionalExhibiting consistency My sta knows that I go ballistic when. . . (c20). You try to maintainconsistency over time. . .You cant stop and start stu (M10). . . .makingsure the basics are attended to (g11). . . .motto: no system before itsready (c8). Acting as a team player: Youre not punished for taking anidea and trying to make it work, but youre punished if you did it so thatyou could beat someone else (A17). Im fundamentally saying to my bossand everybody else that I have too much power (m10).

Having expertise I [know] every process, high level enterprise model, high level casebasically and how the whole company was run (H4); You have to be veryknowledgeable of all the functional components of the business (G1).This constant barrage of changes and technology[ies] that are available -

S. Watts, J.C. Henderson / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2006) 125151 149Badaracco Jr, J.L., Ellsworth, R.R., 1989. Leadership and the Quest for Integrity. Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

Bain, P.G., Mann, L., Pirola-Merlo, A., 2001. The innovation imperative - the relationship between team climate,innovation and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research 32 (1), 5573.

Barley, S., 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Observations on CT scanners and the social order ofradiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31, 78108.

Barua, A., Kriebel, C., Mukhopadhyay, T., 1995. Information technologies and business value - an analytic andempirical investigation. Information Systems Research 6 (1), 323.

Bass, B.M., 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share a vision. OrganizationalDynamics 18 (3), 1931.

Bassellier, G., Benbasat, I., Reich, B.H., 2003. The inuence of business managers IT competence onchampioning IT. Information Systems Research 14 (4), 317336.

Berg, B.L., 1989. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.Bharadwaj, A.S., 2000. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and rm performance:

An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly 24 (1), 169196.Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G., Lee, J.N., 2005. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:

Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MISQuarterly 29 (1), 87111.

Boehm, B., 1989. Software risk management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 387, 119.Boon, S.D., Holmes, J.G., 1991. The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty in the face of risk. In:

Hinde, R.A., Groebel, J. (Eds.), Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior. Cambridge University Press.Bowen, D., Schneider, B., 1988. Service marketing and management: Implications for organizational behavior.

In: Staw, B., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Boynton, A.C., Zmud, R.W., Jacobs, G.C., 1994. The inuence of IT management practice on IT use in large

organizations. MIS Quarterly 18 (3), 299318.Burke, W.W., Burke, W.W., 1987. Organization Development. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Burke, W.W., Litwin, G.H., 1992. A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of

Management 18 (3), 523545.Burrows, P., 2001. The era of eciency. BusinessWeek 18, 9298.Campion, M.A., Lord, R.G., 1982. A control systems conceptualization of the goal setting and changing process.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30, 265287.Cash, J.I., McFarlan, F.W., McKenney, J.L., Applegate, L.M., 1992. Corporate Information Systems

Management, 3rd ed. Irwin, Homewood, IL.Chatterjee, D., Richardson, V.J., Zmud, B., 2001. Examing the shareholder wealth eects of announcements of

newly created CIO positions. MIS Quarterly 25 (10), 4370.Cummings, L.L., 1965. Organizational climates for creativity. Academy of Management Journal 8, 837847.Deming, W.E., 1986. Out of the Crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Denison, D., 1996. What is the dierence between organizational culture and organizational climate? A natives

point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review 21 (3), 619654.Dickson, M.W., Smith, D.B., Grojean, M.W., Ehrhart, M., 2001. An organizational climate regarding ethics: the

outcome of leader values and the practices that reect them. Leadership Quarterly 12 (2), 197217.Drucker, P.F., 1998. The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review 76 (6), 149.Earl, M.J., Feeny, D.F., 1994. Is your CIO adding value? Sloan Management Review 35 (3), 1120.Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review

14 (1), 5765.Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal 21

(10/11), 11051121.Enns, H.G., Hu, S.L., Higgins, C.A., 2003a. CIO lateral inuence behaviors: gaining peers commitment to

s