I disagree, a CEO does not need to know about technology, they need to know how to run a company. They need to know how to hire the right people who do know about technology, they need to know how to delegate and how to make smart decision. They need to have a clear understanding for their industry and where the future of such industry is going.

The last thing I want is a CEO who is in the middle of production.

Trust me. You don't get to be a CEO by being either stupid or lazy.

On the contrary, I know many CEOs that are both stupid and lazy. If they do not understand technology, they should not argue with the Technology Director who says "What you ask cannot be done".

The reason why people are CEOs is they are put into the position where they can do the least harm. Playing golf and sitting in meetings acting important is where they can do the least harm. Which is why you never see them on the sales floor, or support floor.

Brad: A CEO answers to the Board of Directors; a "stupid" or "lazy" CEO should be fired!

But using your example, if a CEO asks for innovation of his/her Technology Director and the answer is "What you ask cannot be done", then perhaps he has the wrong the TD. A good CEO will know to find a different solution, find a different TD, or has the trust in his/her TD to move on to the next thing.

If a CEO took the TD's word for it, then that would make him/her a bad CEO.

The Army is not far behind. We got Financial Management Technician or "paper b#tch", Shower/Laundry and Clothing Repair Specialist or "Clothes washer/Janitor" and some other interesting and funny job titles.

sometimes having more pleasant sounding titles can help with esteem and productivity. Particularly in a dull job.

As for CEO's, some are lazy and some are not, just like any other occupation. There are some that spend all day on the golf course and don't really care, and there are others that work 60-80 hour weeks, missing their kids basketball games and school plays etc...

Brad M: Actually, anything can be done...it just takes time, money and effort. The Technology Director should have noted the gaps in the idea being presented and offered to spend a week with his/her team and come up with several other possible solutions along with order of magnitude cost, time and labor estimates to exectute on each along with a similar ROI estimate.

That Technology Director was lucky they weren't told, "Can't be done...you mean can't be done by you....find me someone who can...you're fired."

Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians.

Don't let the guy with the broom decides how many elephants will be in the parade.

I agree that many of the newer "C" titles out there are all fluff and ego. But, in my humble experience, "Chief Technology Officer" and "Chief Information Officer" are both fairly well entrenched and typically have significant power, contrary to what's stated in the article.

In addition, if you willingly call your book "Your Marketing Sucks," your credibility is shot before you even open your mouth.

And My VP can be Chief A** Kissing Officer :) Which would differientiate her from the 20 other VP's in my 50 person office

Snake09, the reason the army has all those officious sounding titles is because of "civilian skills integration." Supposedly, the headhunters in civilian life can find a correlation between those titles, and the positions they are looking to fill. What job are you going to get after four years, (or more,) as a "grunt?" "Chief Mechanic" sounds a lot better than "senior enlisted mechanic," or "Chief Armorer," over "senior enlisted ordnance loader." What do you think?

I agree, in this case, it is ridiculous, and actually has little to do with reality. Many companies are giving employees these titles, instead of pay raises. Not in the case of the senior management, the people robbing the stockholders and customers blind though. After all, they are the ones actually making the decisions, just to ensure they get those fat bonuses, when their companies are failing.

In a lot of cases, they do this to make their actual jobs seem "more invaluable," and more important to the boards of trustees and directors, the people actually supposed to approve those assinine and unrealistic salaries and bonuses. Their lawyers have ensured the average stockholders have no real say in the latter.

this article is garbage, they interviewed idiots and wrote drivel to appeal to the 99%. I am not saying titles are the most important thing but there is some reason behind giving them out and if it is a little silly so be it. To say these people have no power is a childish misunderstanding of the purpose of their assignments. of course they aren't the ceo, but they do have a purpose and in most cases it is hinted at by the title. it used to be that companies would just have a bunch of vice presidents now they are getting creative.

And My VP can be Chief A** Kissing Officer :) Which would differientiate her from the 20 other VP's in my 50 person office

so you have 50 people in your office, and 21 are VPs? Theres your problem, you dont need "Cheif" anything you just need ONE VP, 49 other workers and you. The only reason there is need for these stupid titles is because too many people get the same title.

Why cant people be happy being the copy paper replacer, and not the " VP of Image Reproduction Material Management Team? Vanity and childishness , thats why.

The discussion of military job titles reminds me of a story from back when I was in Naval Nuclear Power School (at the now-closed Orlando base). A friend of mine was going through the Machinist Mate tract and had tried to briefly describe the scope of the training to his dad.

He described learning about fluid dynamics, heat transfer, power plant chemistry and how the MM's were responsible for all propulsion, heat exchangers, coolant pumps, valves, etc. His dad paused a second, then asked: "So... you're a plumber?"

Hahaha @ "So... you're a plumber?" Too funny, 234r!

Last I checked, CIO (along with CTO) have been traditional roles/titles since computers became integral to business operations. So, to include IBM appointing a Chief Information Officer in the list of made up titles makes me wonder if these people know what they are talking about.

I'm in IT. I'd say CIO is a pretty standard title even for large non-tech companies. Most with a CTO seem to be either IT-based companies, or heavily leveraging IT in their field (some hospital chains have a CTO, for example). CISO (Chief Information Security Officer) is another I see a lot, for companies where infosec is large/important enough to be peeled off from normal IT ops and needs to have separate accountability to the CEO/board. Maybe Zappos needed one of those.

Radical... believe me I know. But what can I say everyone wants a title. When the company started the ones who had been here (upstart company) where allowed to just "pick" their titles... VP and below so of course they are all VP's... only 2 have signing powers though.. so they just have empty titles.. most aren't in in charge of departments. It's laughable you should see our Org Chart lol

How about CCI....Chief Company Idiot or CEI, Chief Excutive Idiot...that'll work

Collectively, these bums are the one killing jobs, the middle class and fleecing the country and blaming the president....

I was the Urinal Colonel when I was in Boot Camp.

Ah yes, the new America.

Symbolism over substance.

Trust me. You don't get to be a CEO by being either stupid or lazy.

Trust me, you do.

Managers who don't manage. A way of life for staff. There is a class system in America and it's called management. Go ahead, hand out titles like royalty hands out titles. You can be as brain dead as the nobility who thinks a title gives you respect.

Good is what you do, not what you're called.

corporate hog wash...don't be a ass kisser...

I am reminded of a word that starts with "C" that describes too many corporate "officers" and their suck-ups. :-)

That would actually be GOM. Like GOMer.

whoops: I wanted to change my title to General Operations Director...

You seem more like Director of Human Resources material to me, GOMer. ; )

I have wondered---when, and why, did Personnel Department become Human Resources. It always sounded to me as if the personnel were to be used up.

Hmmmm. On reflection, I now understand the change.

I'm pretty sure my title would be "Chief Gopher". I've asked to be heralded as "King of all the Lemmings", but I was told "no". :(

"Human Resource Managers" have been some of the biggest a*holes I've met. Exact opposite of their job descriptions.

Good point!

No, not good point. As in entirely missed the point.

Reporter and Correspondant are time-honored titles, whether you find them informative or not.

Senator, Representative, President, and Secretary are titles prescribed by law based off elected or appointed position. Whether you find them deserving of the title is a moot point. Czar is a term invented by the media to make explaining people responsible for different things easier.

The big deal about the private sector is that many of these titles are pulled out of the behinds of Marketing morons. Chief ______— Officer should be a position that is 1) Directly reporting to the CEO 2) A position of power, e.g. the buck stops there for that section of the business. Being titled Chief Officer of something and placed under a Senior Vice President or something, or wonky Chief titles that have no standardization across business is lame and going to be a huge source of confusion. Because I assume if I'm talking to a Chief Security Officer or Chief Officer of any division, I'm talking to the most knowledgable person of that specialty and the person who makes the decisions.

Chief Internet Evangelist is an example of stupidity within the Private Sector.

Personally, the C-Class needs to shrink dramatically and those in those roles need to stop being treated like major leage sports players (paid obscene salaries, traded like sports players, etc.).

Yes Reporter and Correspondants are time-honored titles, the problem is they give them to celelbrity "reporters" instead of keeping them for those who truly worked for and earned those titles.

I believe the point GCCal is making that people who get "elected" or "appointed" aren't getting their jobs done, hence the low percentage approval of our congress (both sides of the isle).

And perhaps you're right this isn't exactly what the article is about, but it's a good point in that titles are only titles - and that if you're not doing your job, the title is irrelevant - regardless of what is granted by law.

In the private sector, the same thing goes, make up all the titles you want, but if the job isn't getting done then the title becomes irrelevant. And yes, they are making up some pretty silly titles.

I would agree, the C-class needs to shrink and if the "CEO" doesn't have the foresight to see this as bad business, then that business deserves to... wait for it... fail.

The article seemed to find CTO (Chief Technology Officer) to be a fluff title. Try running a technology company without a CTO and see where you get. Depending on the type of company, especially in early stages, the CTO can be more important than the CEO.

In the rush to deride Corporate America, the reporter seems to have not noticed that many of these titles do real things. The designation of "chief" should apply to any position where your boss is in a different profession from you. If you adopt that viewpoint, though, most of these titles make sense and then there's no article.

Don't forget the "chairperson," or "member," of many, MANY committees, all the while getting extra pay from John/Jane Q. Public, for doing nothing of any meaningful consequence for the people that hired them.

Excellent point. These are common titles of people who do report directly to the CEO or COO.

Also, a Chief Privacy Officer is important for companies who are charges with keeping other people's data private. This is not a whimsical title.

Danno, I agree - I very nearly added CPO to my list as well!

That was going to be my point exactly. Chief Information Officers in particular are very important to a company (especially to a company like IBM, as cited in the article). CIOs even have their own professional magazine.

I'll be even more critical, though. As the article attempts to point out, titles don't matter; results do. If you achieve those results by conferring titles that cause folks to feel more empowered and imply a degree of authority which allows them to develop a coherent direction for that arm of the company... well, then, I think the companies who are NOT doing this are the silly ones. And invoking Google as your lead example--not a good move.

Yes, this practice can be overdone, especially in very small companies or when it's obvious a position was invented to accommodate a friend of the boss. I automatically place no confidence in anyone who hands me a business card that says "CEO" when I know for a fact there aren't more than five people working for him. But once you start employing thousands, it's not out of the way at all to have several officers concentrating on different aspects of the business.

What title would you give to that small company "leader"?

Depending on the type of business, CEO may be the appropriate title. If it is a small grocery store, the title would probably be owner, but if the person is running an insurance agency (and not the owner), it may be appropriate.

seems more have forgotten, being worth mega-millions in any business should mean you have the knowledge, the skills, and the intelligence to perform each and every possible job within said business - better than those hired to do so, for who else might train them on proper method of doing your business?

Finding an employee improperly trained, simple to just dismiss that employee hire a new one - or properly train the individual yourself.

Too much reliance on others to take charge - departments fail to see what is happening within other departments, oh sure, we can trust everyone.

".... one hand doesn't know what the other one is doing... "

Too many fingers in the pie also comes to mind. The most difficult job for any CEO is in the ability to not only higher people one can trust, but to also higher a trustable candidate having abilities in all areas of their business.

Far too many have 'specialized' in simply a portion of their industry, rather than learning all aspects to provide an all around better servicing knowledge for a company's needs.

With only the 'oil-change expert' currently on duty, one in need of a complete tune-up not only must wait for the 'tune-up expert' to return to work, but it takes longer for the company to obtain that 'bottom-line' by forcing customers to wait.

Let's just put them on that 'next-in-line' company call waiting till we can get that specifici specialist on the line.

Business has laxed, in attempt to provide jobs? They specialized the people. Cardboard, book fed individuals knowledged in one or a few subjects. Doctors are unable to perform as before - medicine has taken over with minions to distribute, for having never to see the doctor face to face... save ten or so minutes he takes to listen to your chest - maybe.

Let's not forget how awful G.Q. Public treats the working individuals.... G.Q. expects results, and NOW, not a second, NOW!

The trumped titles discussed.... are just that, trumped. If the boss doesn't know enough in that area of his business - how would he ever know if that department is raking too much from his pocket?

These titles are to present 'fronts' to rebuff the angered customers, hey confuse the masses enough - we can get rid of the Indy customer call centers completely.

What title would you give to that small company "leader"?

Depending on the type of business, CEO may be the appropriate title. If it is a small grocery store, the title would probably be owner, but if the person is running an insurance agency (and not the owner), it may be appropriate.

I would say "manager" would be more appropriate, as you are managing, but not owning said business.

Seems to me that if you have actual Chief Officers reporting to you, (who each have underlings reporting to them), then you get to be Chief Executive Officer. While this may technically apply to a guy running a five man incorporated business, most people associate the CEO title to the head of a large board of directors, over a large company with a long chain of command. Styling yourself a CEO over a corporation of five people, is like calling yourself a "doctor" when you have a Ph.D. in zoology, knowing full well that people think of doctors as those who administer to the sick.

I used to work for Major Decision (he was a Major and couldn't make a decision).

I worked for an IT fellow with a sense of humor. He designated his own title, which was Director of Information Technology Services.......or DITS.

I would change it just a bit: Chief Officer in Charge of Ego Overinflation (or, CO-CEO!) ;)

then they wouldn't be so "special"............... but then again there are a whole lot of folks that work for far less thanks in a large part to these exact people.

What do you call people who jump on the latest buzzword---e.g. 1%er? Sheep.

the 'sheep' are the ones not recognizing when, where or exactly what has gone wrong with their society. Choosing to remain blinded and follow the herder... as sheep do.

Those 'jump on the latest buzzword - e.g. 1%er'..... have awakened, from the 'sheep' state.

Guess we know which state you're currently in.........

"...Guess we know which state you're currently in........."

The state of, Reality!

Are you refering to some kind of job?

many paramed many. that's yet another title "multi skilled" as i am certified in 7 different fields

I still have no clue what a road warrior or whore is. Are you a prostitute? Do you do bicycle or truck delivery? Do you do some kind of road maintenance? Are you a truck driver? Do you scoop up road kill? Do these 7 different fields all have something to do with being a road warrior or a road whore? Or do they have equally unkown names?

good one geno

or perhaps The chief advertologist of the chief czar

I'm the "Emperor of Asshatedness."

Not only that but in my company stupid titles provoke derision and ridicule by the rest of us. Especially since in my company the Peter principle is running rampant.

That reminds me of my college job at a sandwich shop... I believe even our shirts proclaimed we were 'sandwich artist's.

For those of you who can remember it, there was an episode of Cheers that gave everyone in the bar a new title....but not more money.

my mother has most women in the 50's and 60's

pssssss.........your "paralegal" is showing..............:)

That's just a plain old oxymoron...

..some kinda moron anyway...

Yes you are correct Peters cited that title as an example that if having a certain title make a person happy they will be more productive and it is really an incentive that costs the company nothing so why not. This was part of his is search of excelance program which profiled some of the countries best managed companies.