Send us a text

CIO and CFO alignment does not break because of personalities or communication styles. It breaks because your governance structure never forces the real trade-offs to be defined. When one leader optimizes for capability and the other for capital, "alignment" becomes nothing more than expensive theater.

In this briefing, I explain why alignment is not agreement—it is a structure. I break down the three questions that must be forced before any material technology spend to restore capital discipline and board confidence.

What this briefing delivers:

The Translation Problem: Why the CIO must learn the language of business economics instead of expecting the business to learn technical jargon.

The Shadow IT Vacuum: How leadership delays of 6 months force the business to stop waiting and start signing unauthorized SAS contracts.

The Three-Question Framework: What are we optimizing? What downside are we accepting? And who owns the outcome financially?

Case Study: How a financial services firm cleared an 18-month backlog in 90 days by shifting from "business cases" to "explicit trade-offs".

Chapters: 0:00 A Governance Failure, Not a Personality Problem 1:12 Authority Flash: 18 Years in the Boardroom 1:53 Why Alignment Fails 4:08 The Real Cost of "Alignment Theater" 5:10 The CIO Translation Problem 7:09 Alignment is a Structure, Not an Agreement 8:52 Case Study: Reframing the Backlog 11:02 How Governance Restores Clarity 11:37 Next: Why Board Confidence Collapses

Next in the Series: Stay tuned for the final briefing in this ROI series, where I explain why board confidence collapses even when every function is performing well.