This week’s article extends the series of reflections partly stemming from my professional experience. During my years as a strategy consultant, occupying the role of Director of Strategy or Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) in the corporate world was one of the favored exit opportunities. Over the last decade, an increasing number of companies have appointed Chief Transformation Officers (CTO), for whom former strategy consultants also appear to be good candidates. However, behind these seemingly simple terms, a wide variety of roles and missions seems to be hidden, to the extent that McKinsey, among others, felt obliged to clarify what a Chief Transformation Officer is. The purpose of this week’s post is to enrich the reflection.
On paper, the roles of each position seem clear: the CSO must define and implement the company’s strategy, while the CTO must transform it. Both operate at a high level and are generally part of the company’s executive committee. These definitions, though appealing, do not hold up to pragmatic examination. What does “implementing” a strategy concretely mean? Few CSOs indeed content themselves with purely intellectual reflection exercises, without any grasp on reality. As highlighted by the Harvard Business Review, the CSO must convince all levels of the company of the strategy’s validity, structure, and orchestrate a corresponding implementation plan. A role not so different from that of a CTO after all…
In fact, more than the precise terminology, I believe the CSO/CTO role is more defined by the context of the company and the people, especially at the highest level, that compose it. Without claiming to be exhaustive, some factors seem to play a predominant role:
- The company size: At the beginning of its life cycle, a startup primarily seeks to develop its business, find new customers, and establish partnerships. The CSO/CTO role is implicitly occupied by the CEO himself and/or the sales director. As the company grows, the need for process implementation and operation structuring becomes more important. The CSO/CTO must then create and bring to life an original framework, robust enough to support the company’s future growth without stripping it of its dynamism. In more mature companies, the CSO/CTO relies on the existing to carry out their mission, both in strategic reflection and in the pursuit of operational excellence.
- The company dynamics: Growth and decline obviously bring very different challenges. In the first case, the CSO/CTO must ensure that the company can withstand the increased load while keeping an eye on future growth opportunities. In the latter, the CSO/CTO supports the entire management team in a painful but healing exercise of “downsizing,” balancing financial constraints and the opportunities for redeploying existing resources. It’s necessary to cut, but not to the extent of obliterating chances for a restart. Needless to say, in this latter case, the skills of the CSO/CTO are as much intellectual as they are emotional.
- The genesis of the role: Did the role exist before? If not, what event triggered its creation? The catalyst event might be a symptom of the company’s dynamics: for example, particularly disappointing quarterly results. The event may also be in the future: for example, an investment fund aiming to take one of its holdings public.
- The composition of the executive committee: Often, the CSO/CTO brings a versatility that few members of the executive committee possess. It is, therefore, naturally (and sometimes unconsciously) called to complement the existing range of skills. For example, if the executive committee is very focused on commercial development, the CSO/CTO could enrich the debates by taking into account the operational aspect, and vice versa. This reflection is also entirely relevant on the individual scale of the CEO. A visionary CEO will need a CSO/CTO capable of helping to deliver on their “intuitions,” while a CEO very focused on the daily management of affairs will need an interlocutor capable of making them take a step back, structuring their thought, and optimizing the allocation of their resources (and their time). The origin of the members of the executive committee is also interesting. If this committee is mainly formed from internally promoted individuals, the CSO/CTO can bring in good practices from other companies and/or industries. Conversely, within a committee composed of people from various backgrounds, the CSO/CTO also has the role of performing a synthesis between diverse viewpoints.
The role of “Chief of Staff” would also deserve special consideration, as its conception is protean. Historically, this denomination was rather the prerogative of certain senior officials working directly for the President of a State. Over time, the private sector has appropriated this role and broadened its spectrum to the point that, in some cases, the Chief of Staff is seen only as a “Glorified Secretary.“
This week’s post aimed to demonstrate that the importance and added value of an individual within an organization depend less on his/her title than on the responsibilities entrusted to him/her. The roles we have briefly mentioned here are perfect examples: behind a seemingly simple designation lies a multitude of interpretations. Ultimately, it’s up to each CEO to position themselves accordingly.