There is something I have been thinking about for some time.

The CIO is increasingly expected to play a lead role in making transformation happen.

That makes sense on the surface.

Technology is now deeply embedded in almost every significant transformation an organisation undertakes. Whether the ambition is digital transformation, AI adoption, business modernisation, customer experience, operational efficiency, data transformation or a major systems replacement, technology is almost always part of the answer.

So naturally, the CIO is involved.

Often, like with Digital / AI transformation, they are at the centre of it.

But here is where it gets interesting.

How much of what determines whether a transformation succeeds is actually within the CIO’s control?

The more I have thought about that question, the more important I believe it is.

Because there may be a fundamental difference between being responsible for transformation and being in control of everything that determines its success.

And that difference matters.

The CIO’s Role Has Changed

There was a time when the CIO’s primary responsibility was relatively straightforward – though they didn’t think it at the time:

• Keep the technology working.
• Keep the systems secure.
• Keep the business running.
• Manage the IT function.

That world is changing.

Technology is no longer a supporting function sitting behind the business. It is increasingly part of how the business operates, competes, serves customers and creates value.

As a result, the CIO’s role has expanded.

Today’s CIO may be expected to:

• Lead digital transformation.
• Enable AI adoption.
• Modernise legacy technology.
• Improve customer experience.
• Strengthen cyber resilience.
• Enable data-driven decision-making.
• Drive innovation.
• Reduce technology costs.
• Improve operational efficiency.
• And, increasingly, demonstrate measurable business value from technology investment.

It’s an exciting role.

It is also an extraordinarily demanding one.

Because transformation is no longer simply about implementing technology.

It is about changing how the organisation works.

And that is where the dilemma begins.

Transformation Doesn’t Happen Inside IT

A CIO can make sure a new system is implemented.

• They can ensure the architecture is sound.
• They can establish programme governance.
• They can manage suppliers.
• They can build the technology capability required to deliver the programme.

But can the CIO make the business adopt new ways of working?

• Can they ensure that executives make the decisions transformation requires?
• Can they change the organisation’s culture?
• Can they ensure that business leaders take ownership of new processes?
• Can they create the leadership capability required for the future operating model?
• Can they make sure that people across the organisation have the capability to work differently?

Not on their own.

And yet these are often precisely the things that determine whether the transformation ultimately delivers the value that was expected.

That is the dilemma.

The CIO may be accountable for the transformation, while many of the conditions required for transformation success sit outside the CIO’s direct authority.

The Usual Explanations

When a transformation struggles, we tend to reach for familiar explanations.

• Leadership wasn’t sufficiently aligned.
• There was resistance to change.
• The business didn’t adopt the new system.
• Communication wasn’t good enough.
• The programme wasn’t governed properly.
• There weren’t enough skills.
• People weren’t ready.
• The organisation wasn’t sufficiently agile.

Again, none of these explanations are necessarily wrong.

They are real problems.

But consider where many of them sit.

• Leadership alignment sits with the leadership team.
• Business ownership sits with the business.
• Culture belongs to the organisation.
• Capability development is a collective organisational responsibility.
• Decision-making happens throughout the organisation.
• Adoption depends on the people who have to change the way they work.

These are not simply IT problems.

Yet when the transformation is perceived to be failing, the CIO is frequently one of the executives expected to explain why.

That is an uncomfortable position to be in.

Responsibility Without Control

I think this is the part of the CIO dilemma that deserves much more attention.

We are accustomed to holding executives accountable for outcomes.

And rightly so.

Accountability matters.

But accountability without sufficient influence over the factors that determine the outcome creates a very different situation.

Imagine being responsible for delivering a transformation whose success depends on capabilities that have never been assessed.

Imagine discovering halfway through the programme that leadership alignment isn’t where it needs to be.

• Or that the organisation isn’t ready to adopt the new operating model.
• Or that critical roles don’t have the capabilities required in the future state.
• Or that people are already exhausted by successive waves of change.

At that point, the CIO is often expected to help solve the problem.

And they will.

That’s what good CIOs do.

But perhaps the question we should be asking is:

Why did the organisation only discover the problem after the transformation was already underway?

This Is Where My Thinking Changed

This question was one of the things that led me to explore the research behind Unitary Development Theory.

One of the principles that particularly caught my attention was the idea that:

An organisation cannot sustainably operate beyond the level of its current organisational capability.

In practical terms, every transformation asks an organisation to operate differently in the future than it does today.

Every transformation therefore raises the level of capability required to achieve that future state.

If those capabilities do not develop alongside the transformation, achieving and sustaining the desired outcomes becomes progressively more difficult.

I found myself thinking about that in relation to the CIO.

Perhaps the problem isn’t that CIOs aren’t managing transformation well enough.

Perhaps they are being asked to manage organisational transformation while having only partial visibility of, and influence over, the organisational capabilities that transformation depends upon.

That is a very different problem.

What If the CIO Could See the Risk Earlier?

This is where I believe the conversation becomes much more interesting.

What if a CIO could identify, before or early in a major transformation, the organisational capabilities that would be critical to achieving the desired outcome?

• What if they could understand where significant gaps existed?
• What if those gaps could be made visible to the executive team as transformation risks, rather than emerging later as project problems?
• And what if the responsibility for addressing those risks could then sit where it belongs—with the organisation as a whole?

That would change the CIO’s position considerably.

Instead of being expected to solve every organisational problem that threatens the transformation, the CIO could help the organisation see the risks that need to be addressed.

That is a very different form of leadership.

And, importantly, it doesn’t require the CIO to take on even more responsibility.

It gives them a better way of exercising the responsibility they already have.

From Firefighting to Foresight

I suspect most CIOs don’t need yet another responsibility.

What they need is better visibility.

They need to know where the transformation is vulnerable before those vulnerabilities become crises.

They need to be able to have a conversation with the CEO and executive team that goes beyond:

• “The project is behind schedule.”

And instead ask:

• “What organisational capabilities does this transformation require, and do we currently have them?”

That is a much more strategic conversation.

It also changes the nature of transformation governance.

Traditional governance tends to focus heavily on the programme itself:

• Are we on schedule?
• Are we within budget?
• Are the risks being managed?
• Are the technical deliverables being achieved?

All important questions.

But there is another question that is often much harder to answer:

Is the organisation developing fast enough to support the transformation it is investing in?

The CIO Doesn’t Need to Own the Problem

Let’s be clear on one thing.

I don’t believe CIOs should become responsible for organisational development.

Nor should they be expected to fix every capability gap themselves.

Organisational capability belongs to the organisation.

Leadership, people, processes, operating models, culture, decision-making and other organisational capabilities are collective responsibilities.

But that doesn’t mean the CIO should be blind to capability risk.

In fact, I believe the opposite.

The CIO may be uniquely positioned to recognise the relationship between the transformation being undertaken and the organisational capabilities required to realise its intended value.

That creates an opportunity.

Not to take on more responsibility.

But to make previously invisible risk visible.

Perhaps This Is the Real CIO Dilemma

The dilemma may not be that CIOs have too much responsibility.

It may be that they have responsibility for outcomes without sufficient visibility of all the organisational conditions that determine those outcomes.

That is a subtle difference.

And it matters.

Because if we can identify those conditions earlier, we can begin to address them before they become transformation problems.

• We can stop treating capability gaps as surprises.
• We can stop discovering organisational readiness issues halfway through expensive programmes.
• And we can begin treating organisational capability as something that belongs within transformation governance.

For me, this is where the conversation gets particularly interesting.

Because the question is no longer:

• “How can the CIO fix transformation?”

It becomes:

• “How can we give the CIO the visibility and governance mechanisms needed to help the organisation manage the risks that determine transformation success?”

That feels like a much fairer question.

And potentially a much more valuable one.

A Conversation I’d Like to Continue

This is one of the ideas behind The CIO Dilemma.

I’m exploring what happens when we start looking at transformation risk through the lens of organisational capability—and what that might mean for the CIO’s role.

I don’t think this means adding another layer of bureaucracy to transformation.

I think it means making something that has always been there more visible.

The organisational capabilities that transformation depends upon.

Because perhaps the CIO doesn’t need to become responsible for more.

Perhaps they need a better way to govern what they are already responsible for delivering.

And if that can help reduce transformation risk, improve value realisation and take some of the unnecessary pressure off the people leading these journeys, I think it is a conversation worth having.

I’d genuinely like to hear your experience.

As a CIO or transformation leader, have you ever found yourself accountable for a transformation outcome where some of the most important factors determining success were outside your direct control?

I’d be very interested in your perspective.