That is true. However, it's critical that the CIO possess a sufficiently deep technical background to feel comfortable discussing current technology matters. Someone whose technology familiarity stopped in 1986, or whose background is in finance, cannot function in a role of head of information technology.

Believe me, there is a world of difference between someone who understands technology-and as a result has to weigh alternatives and disputes among different groups involved in a technology discussion-and someone who doesn't really have any technology background and arbitrates by non-technical criteria. The difference between them is the difference between an organization that gets things right on technology-or, when it gets things wrong, can recognize the issue and quickly correct it-and one that makes poor decisions that result in fragile, constrained applications.

Frankly, that issue of talking to the CEO in business language with which he or she is comfortable is a red herring. The fact is, businesses today are technology businesses. Information technology is core to what they do. Something so critical to a company's success imposes an obligation on a CEO to comprehend it. After all, do you think the CEO of GM refuses to engage with the head of manufacturing on supply chain issues even though it's a highly technical subject? Why, then, is it OK for a CEO to deflect an IT discussion because it's highly technical?

Now that I think about it, it might be time to turn the whole argument on its head. The statement shouldn't be that CIOs aren't businesslike enough. It's that too many of today's CEOs are insufficiently technical.