Why do companies hire non technical people to be their Directors of IT?

Not sure why this typo laden self professed rant rant is on the front page.

Even the single point anecdote doesn't really hang together logically. Is the hiring manager also the director of IT? At most mid-to-large organizations, those roles are distinct.

It's also not clear why he thinks the company hiring consultants to handle day to day tasks is such an obvious financial loss. Financially, full time employees aren't exactly free either. Work product wise, if it's really "script kiddie work" - why is he applying to begin with?

Either way, I think everyone probably agrees that - all else equal - technical proficiency is better than not. IMO, teams led by well-rounded managers/executives are in a better position than those without.

However, it's also true that non-technical skills play a bigger role higher up on the org chart. This includes obtaining the role as well as fulfilling its duties.

Put plainly : it's possible to delegate technical tasks, but impossible delegate the managerial ones (that is, after all, the job).

So there are two parts to this question: why do you end up with non-technical directors of IT and why do you end up with idiots who raise obviously dumb helpdesk calls.

The later one is a fair question and I can't answer it in any useful way beyond the fact that organisations are often structured to allow and indeed reward things which might otherwise be seen as odd.

As to the former, a few reasons spring to mind:

1) Because it's hard remaining technical once you reach a certain level. Sure, you can be the best sysadmin or developer in the company, but when you move up the ladder you will spend more and more time doing non-technical things. As that happens you'll pretty rapidly find that others will surpass you technically - entirely reasonable as they're doing stuff five days a week, you're not. If you're managing a big department then the amount of time you're hands on will rapidly drop to zero and given the pace of technology within three years or so you're probably better assuming you know nothing as what you do know is as likely to be wrong as it is right.

2) Because they should have decent people they can trust to know and do that stuff. People complain that technical people aren't trusted but having a technical manager as often as not results in meddling and second guessing. A decent IT manager should understand high level principals, be able to ask the right questions and help structure thinking and other than that should let their staff do what he pays them to do. As to why they employ consultants to do things their existing staff can do - a lot of the time this seems to be the case but in 20 years I actually can't think of a single place I've worked where this has been true. Sometimes there's a lack of resource (that is people are busy elsewhere), sometimes specialist knowledge is needed or whatever. In my experience people are usually either neutral or positive about consultants coming in.

3) Consider that troubleshooting a VPN isn't the best use of their time. Possibly they could sort out their own VPN connection but if they're earning a six figure salary is it best that they spend half a day sorting it out themselves or that they call in someone who can sort it out in 30 minutes?

The short version: a director of IT isn't some sort of senior, senior sysadmin. It's a different job that needs different skills. Yep having technical understanding would be nice but given the choice between a director of IT who could configure a firewall and one who could manage budgets and keep political crap off my desk I know which one I'd take everytime.

Above a certain level in almost any large organization (and, unsurprisingly, many small ones) company structures are are optimized for highly political corporate sociopaths.

Thus, the op question could be rephrased as "why do companies hire executives unskilled in the role they are nominally obligated to perform?"

The answer is simply that the unwritten primary qualification for any given executive in such an organization is "Political Maneuvering". Everything else is secondary.

You will find that the exception to this is commonly, though certainly not in all cases, finance positions.

If you find a company where this isn't true and where you enjoy working, it's a keeper.

Firstly look at the highest level of management, CEOs are not always experts in their fields but have a broad knowledge of operations, finance, HR, payroll, legal etc.

IT Directors do not need to be highly technical (although some technical knowledge is normally required), to manage outcomes.

Prior to my previous role at a startup, I was in the IT industry for over 15 years. What I learned taking on the CTO role is that it isn't just technical. I went from programming/infrastructure/architecting to doing budgets, recruiting, planning, and management on many levels and importantly relied on the staff underneath me to take on the low-level IT issues and provide knowledge.

Management is taking on a more important role in business in all sectors including IT. The people who fullfil these roles will start being from different backgrounds, and as organisations start to look to turn their IT departments into profit centres, they will take on people from roles like product and project management.

However I fear the day when a sales exec runs IT :)

Given that half of the professional IT people I've ever worked with don't even have IT-related qualifications, I'm really not surprised (but I am disappointed for our industry that the bar is set so low).

Can you work as a lawyer without a law degree? No. As a doctor without a medical degree? No. As an IT worker without a computing-related degree? Sure thing, how hard can it be!

I guess the differences are:

1. IT is still young as a profession. 2. IT lacks professional bodies to regulate the industry (see above).

So we end up with lots of unqualified people pulling the strings :-(

Striking the right balance is tough. As I'm mostly around in and around startups, I can tell though that the ability to manage is just as important if not more important than technical skills. At meetups, I see hordes of ex-CTO's now being much happier in still highly paid specialist roles. Management isn't for everyone, and it's also not much for me. When we were growing, I had to do it, but with more talented folks coming on board I noticed that I'm 4 times as productive with a product manager by my side who's really good in empathy, motivation, keeping track and following up. Those skills are often distributed in counter-balance to high IQ and creativity and I've come to value them a lot.

I think the real question here is "why do support teams not have technical leads?"

No one bats an eyelid at a software project having a non-technical PM because it's a Team/Technical Lead's role to fill in for the PM's lack of technical knowledge; I've never heard of a Support Team/Technical Lead before though.

So that tech folks can enjoy the free time available by running their work scripts and learn new skills to form startups or get better jobs :-)

If you give someone a job that is not their forte, the odds are they may be really good at it, or not.

Well, Jesus is a carpenter, Peter was a fisherman, Bill Gates is an economist, Steve Jobs is a marketing guy. See the pattern here?