What’s the Point of a CPO?
You’ve likely heard by now about the sharp rise — and subsequent fall — of Nancy Killefer’s career trajectory in the Obama administration. The McKinsey & Co. consultant was nominated by President Obama to fill the role of chief performance officer (CPO) for the federal government, but she withdrew her name from contention amid controversy about her payment of taxes. Although she has disappeared from the spotlight, the position remains. Gary Cokins, the global product marketing manager for performance management at SAS, argued online last month that not only is “CPO” a position worth filling, but its existence at such a high level in the U.S. government gives the entire discipline of performance management a certain validation. “Some may argue,” Cokins says, “that creating one more C-suite position excessively distributes the responsibilities of the existing executive team.” However, research suggests that those companies which excel at performance management tend to implement offices of performance management and institute positions such as chief performance officer. Cokins and Bob Paladino — who at one time headed up the office of global performance for communications system provider Crown Castle International — explored this research in an August 2007 article for BPM Magazine. Today Cokins says that the research indicates “the … practice of establishing an OSM [Office of Strategy Management] and CPO is an accelerator to successful strategy achievement” — which he takes to mean that “President Obama’s approach by naming a CPO is effective.” If only the president could find someone with no tax problems to fill the job!







