That is an interesting question Dave, something I had not really thought much about because I try so much to live in the moment. But thinking back, I think it depends on the type of business.
If they are technically avant garde, then ideas are accepted and moved on. While if the business sees tech ( and my role consequently ) as purely an "aid" then I have had less success in influencing new ideas. No matter how brilliant.
This is where it gets tricky. If the company does not understand tech, it has been my experience that they don't even appreciate it (tech) even though they love their iPhone.
I don't understand this - Do these types of CEO's think tech is magic ? It's funny it goes something like this, CEO: Who is that new guy ? Trusted Overpaid Advisor better know as VP of Whatever responds , "He is in the engineering department. Brilliant CEO responds, "Oh. When is lunch ? "
And I love this one, when you cross paths later and you get the look of Who is he again ?
I am thinking of my most recent CEO, who was exactly like this. They have some perception of what tech and tech professionals are, which are usually erroneous on both counts. But strangly they can seem to understand the revenue the use of it brings.
This particular CEO was more fortunate than able and sadly I think that is more the norm rather than the exception.
CEO's and the companies they run are influenced by many things that one would think they would be immune to - Economy of Scale ( and Daddy's money ) is the only thing that keeps them (CEO's) from being exposed as the inept "leaders" they think they are.
I digress somewhat, but the relationship of the CEO's views regarding tech permeates the entire company. Of course this is a multi-faceted question which I have only taken the liberty to skim yet in my case the negative has not always the case in the adoption of recommendations to improve systems, which is probably why I get so incensed when it happens now.