The Issue: Immelt's Unpopular Idea

Here's a great example of significant "green" change at the corporate level. One that affects not only I.T. but an entire corporation.

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/mar2008/ca2008034_906295.htm

PWC CEO Survey and Change

More on change. I received a copy of the PWC 11'th Annual CEO Survey from a friend at PWC. You can find it at http://www.pwc.com/ceosurvey.

Section highlights;

• Talent remains a major issue, but results fall short – suggesting competitiveness
  is hampered while opportunities lie within reach.


• Two-thirds of CEOs want recruitment, motivation and development improved.
  But they give HR a low vote of confidence.


• Leaders and all-around performers prove hardest to find, while organisational
  structures get in the way of collaborative people.


• Senior or middle management weaknesses are blamed most often for hindering
  change programmes.


• A gap separates vision from execution. Discipline is needed to drive strategies
  through tactics, structures and results.

This says very clearly (and looking at the detailed survey results confirms) that our CEO's have a focus on change and we are often perceived as obstacles to change.

Business and I.T.

Rule 4 - I.T. is part of the business (an important part) but if we are going to sit at the leadership table we need to understand the business, business environment and challenges. We also need to know what our peers (other leaders of the business) are doing and what they are reading.

The link is to PwC's CEO Survey - which given the breadth, from Global Warming to Technology - I found very interesting. This is something that I'll pass on to my friends, clients and peers.

http://www.pwc.com/extweb/home.nsf/docid/D4D7E2C6F0939E7A8525701A0007EE8B

Leading - the good and the bad

Rule 3 - (this part's not fun - but the results are often very beneficial) be prepared to make changes including moving people out of the business when an organization is not getting the job done. Net is while it's not fun the changes will improve the organization, be better for the business and better for many individuals in the effected group.

Moving people out who cannot (or will not) do the work should be straight forward - if done unemotionally. HR should be able to provide the process - take the time to understand it. It is also easier on everyone if your company provides a transition plan (pay for a few months, outplacement, etc) - if they do - use it. Those plans can be used to ease the transition for the person(s) involved.

Note: I agree that ~10% of every organization will be performing below standard. As a result you have an opportunity to replace those individuals with higher performing people - people that may a better cultural fit as well. Many times you have the opportunity in this case to improve morale - your people know these people are not performing.

Moving people out during downsizing can also be straight forward (10% rule). It only gets painful if it is a significant downsizing that involves putting a lot more work on the remaining people. This situation is problematic - more so if there is no opportunity to "simplify" your operation and processes.

Other changes - reorganizations - can provide real opportunities to reward your best people. The best organization that I've seen at this we GE (actually GE Capital). We regularly reorganized based on the changing needs of the business - I.T. included. Those changes provided opportunities for people that have delivered.

Taking the time to figure out an optimum organization will pay dividends. Organizational changes can improve an organization. Moving people out will be painfull (short term) but could significantly improve your organization if thought through.