Leading the Art of Positive Change Outweighs Its Science

I spent the day with an extremely bright IT professional capable of creating the type of needed change his company is depending on him to produce. Throughout the day he kept proclaiming "I don't do politics" with equal doses of superiority, ferociousness and judgmental frustration. Perhaps not coincidentally, yesterday I was with a different equally talented IT leader who spent his day encouraging our mutual client to join him in a crusade against paper, chanting "I hate paper" to open and close every session (I'm convinced he tortures a Dwight Schrute voodoo doll each night before going to bed).

Any day now we will start seeing year-end features from all media outlets, and more than one is bound to pay its annual homage to the billions (or is it trillions?) companies waste each year on strategically sound IT initiatives that fail to produce expected returns.  To help get this ball rolling, I'd like to frame the subject through these two different professionals in two different settings trying to solve two different company problems. Especially because their attitudes are quite similar to most highly competent IT consultants and professionals I've worked with over the years, and I believe the experts represent the biggest hurdles for getting better universal ROI on technology projects.

I've previously debunked certain aspects of the cliched "people hate change" myth in this blog, but when ideas and ensuing transformation is managed by someone who arrogantly campaigns against politics as a critical change component, of course the people effected will resist with real hatred! These resisting masses will enlist managers at all levels because every good business leader recognizes humans are political animals that are best motivated to do the right things when they fully buy in-clinically as well as emotionally.  Equally, when a project leader sets his or her sights on the wrong objective, employees will quickly reject the direction and see it as a threat to their collective and individual security.

Eliminating paper is not a widely applicable business objective is, but creating greater cost efficiencies certainly is.  Every successful IT project I've ever been party to ultimately does eliminate paper, but as a by-product not as the goal.  Even if this consultant didn't mean it literally, it was received that way by the vast majority of the people he met with (I know, I had to undo the damage).  Nobody will get others to follow them if the audience believes the person in charge is attacking the wrong problem.

By way of a contrast, I will cite another IT leader that will also dominate the annual year in review features.  Of course, I'm talking about Apple, but not from the product design or consumer market standpoint.  Look around and you will see Apple products becoming a bigger part of the corporate landscape despite the aversion almost all CIO's, CTO's and their staffs have to bringing Apple into the workplace.  Apple's successful penetration of the corporate market is due to their going over the heads of the IT experts, appealing directly to users who ultimately insist on iPads for sales presentations, iPhones for marketing campaigns and the like.  Apple certainly seems to understand that the science of changing minds starts with the art of owning hearts and guts.  That's why they are a great corporation, not merely a great technology company.

The intentions, objectivity and execution of a successful organization

In today's mail I received a very lovely talking birthday card from the NY Jets, with a personal note from head coach Rex Ryan.  Of course my birthday was almost two weeks ago and the card arrived the day after Coach Ryan's team lost 49-19 to their fierce AFC East rival New England Patriots. The Jets have now lost their last 2 home games by a combined score of 79-28, both to fierce AFC East rivals.

The Jets are proud professionals; I have no doubt these Jets want to win every game and even if I pay an absurd price for Jets club seats and personal seat licences, sending me a birthday card is a very nice touch from an organization that clearly wants to do the right thing. But the utter consistency between the lousy play of an utterly undisciplined team and their sending birthday cards two weeks too late is reinforcement the NY Jets is still an organization that can't execute on anything.  At this juncture, I'm rather convinced that Matthew Broderick based his character Jimmy Winter on Jets owner Woody Johnson in the terrific Broadway musical "Nice Work if You Can Get It."

Under-performing companies tend to take operate much the same way the lost and wounded NY Jets do: breakdowns in every facet of the business conspire to keep them from achieving very much. Mediocrity becomes the norm, miscues are rationalized, management does more to justify why they have been victims of bad luck or bad economies rather than engaging the strenuous process that will really fix the apparent and growing structural problems.  Just as Rex Ryan continues to defend the embarrassingly horrible play of his poster boy QB Mark Sanchez, most managers in troubled companies strenuously defend their direct report employees guilty of their own on-the-job fumbles, interceptions and routine bad judgment.

Businesses are a collection of human beings and it is only natural that people who spend so much time together in the same workplace in their chosen field will develop close relationships with one another.  I'm always particularly wary of those proclaiming "we're so close and we so care about each other we're like a family!"--- because they are guaranteed to be the least objective of all.  Just as being a player's coach serves Rex Ryan well when he has talent that can win games, I can't fully blame management for failing to stop a company in decline when it is built on a culture of camaraderie.  Clearly, I'm not suggesting organizations should not foster positive working conditions, but when they are plagued by poor execution it becomes necessary to bring in professionals who do not carry the baggage of established relationships.

Without objectivity even the best intentions won't be sufficient. Bringing in external help to navigate through diminished performance is not a sign of weakness, in fact excellent executive teams recognize its importance.  My experience is only the strongest executives, those with the serious intentions of winning have the good sense to engage objective professionals to align intentions with objectivity that will drive desired results through superb execution on all levels.