Leaderhip Styles

I was recently asked about my leadership style. My immediate response was that I am "collaborative" (participative). As I have considered that response I realize that while I am generally collaborative my style does naturally shift with the situation.


I can, at times, be autocratic. That happens in situations where something has to get done in a very specific way on a short time frame. I can be free rein (delegative) in situations where "the group" knows what they have to do and doesn't require intervention.


I then started looking for articles on leadership style and found (as you might expect) quite a few opinions on the subject. Here are several.


Wikipedia has included 12 leadership styles in the entry on the subject. Many of these strike me as being subsets of the more basic leadership styles that I've encountered. But the overview provided in the article is good description of styles and situations.


The diagram above apparently originated in a the 1973 US Army Handbook - I found it in on the nwlink site (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html). In his article Mr. Clark notes that good leaders use all three styles. I've included the list below - Note: I encourage you to read the entire article because there is substantially more information, it is quite well thought out and well written.

From Mr. Clark's article "A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the followers, the leader, and the situation. Some examples include:

• Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The leader is competent and a good coach. The employee is motivated to learn a new skill. The situation is a new environment for the employee.


• Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their job. The leader knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their jobs and want to become part of the team.


• Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job than you. You cannot do everything! The employee needs to take ownership of her job. Also, the situation might call for you to be at other places, doing other things.


• Using all three: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly and a new one must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new procedure (participative). Delegating tasks in order to implement the new procedure (delegative). "
  

CIO Magazine has several interesting articles on style. "The Best Leadership Style" comes at the question from the point of view of the company's perspective on I.T. Specifically, is I.T. "Strategic" or a "Factory". The perspective was interesting - noting that it's much harder to lead I.T. in a company where the function is viewed as a factory, cost center, etc. The leader in this type of organization must continuously prove the value of I.T. An I.T. leader in a "factory" will require a different style than one where I.T. is viewed strategically.

Earlier in the article author discussed styles required when I.T. is functioning well vs when it is not. In cases where I.T. is functioning well - soft skills, a more participative/collaborative approach and a more strategic view may work well. When I.T. is not functioning well - those approaches won't work.

My take - we all have a leadership style and a strength - we must recognize that style. Since we must use several styles depending on the organization and the situation we have to develop other styles and approaches to meet those situations. As leaders that is the key - recognizing strengths and weakness in ourselves, our staffs and our organizations.

Rumors at work

What do you do when rumors - those that go coursing through almost every workplace start. Worse, what happens when those rumors hurt a member of your staff. The simple answer is you stop the rumors as quickly as possible. But rarely is life or work that simple.

Rumors do start - some because they are true or close (a shred of truth). Many because of fear - the thing that we don't want to happen becomes the reality. Some start to hurt a specific individual.

Most managers who have been around for a while have encountered all of these. Most of us go at the rumor for the simple reason that spreading rumors impacts the company - time. Most of us don't want to see our people waste time on something that is not true or not known. Most of us don't want to see our people hurt.

Whatever the reason that rumors start the goal should be truth - stop the rumor. Stop it quickly before it has an impact on the organization or hurts someone.

Talk to the group publicly if appropriate.
Talk to the individuals who passed on the rumor.
Talk to anyone directly effected by the rumor.

IT Services

Reginald Lo has a great post on I.T. Services in the Advice and Opinion section of CIO (http://www.cio.com/).


The post addresses a common problem - defining exactly what I.T. does for the business. Mr. Lo uses ITIL (ITSM) as a basis for the post but marketing and sales executives would both recognize and readily understand the approach.

1. Catagorize the Service (end user, technical, business),
2. Describe the service,
3. Define the service including value and warranty.

This is a good basic overview of a process that is critical to I.T. success. Get the basics (I.T. 101) - Infrastructure and application set stabilized. Then define what you offer to the business.


There is a lot to the process of defining services and that process will take several months if done properly. But the reward is defined services that your internal customer will better understand and that I.T. can build on in defining services levels, reimbursements/charge backs, improvements and upgrades plus be the basis for governance discussions.

Younger Workers and Technology

Jarina D'Auria's article in CIO Magazine's -"Younger Workers More Likely to Break Corporate Rules for Web Apps" provides a great overview of one of the challenges facing both Senior I.T. Leadership and Organizational Leadership. This generation (born after 1980) is very technologically savvy. They use technology in ways that no previous generation has including the Web Apps that are discussed in the article in addition to more basic technology including cell phones and PDA's. They expect more from technology and they don't expect their company's to get in the way.

Many of us try to accomodate reasonable employee requirements - web use is permitted provided that the work gets done. Security, where I.T. is reasonably sophisticated can handle most of the issues created by Web 2.0 applications and other technologies. Standards may be impacted but much of the technology in use seems less likely to impact corporate networks than earlier versions of the same.

But what is the benefit? Employee engagement, innovation, retention?

While we need to retain an "appropriate" level of discipline - that level has changed during my tenure in I.T. - correctly I believe. Before the 1980's there seemed to me to be very little blending of our personal and work lives. We went to work, we went to lunch, didn't spend much time on personal business during the day and went home when the day was done.

Now my younger employees are engaged in their whole lives through the whole day. Some of my customers are easier to reach via text messages than email or telephone and respond to messages regardless of time. I can find out about potential employees via LinkedIn, Facebook or YouTube. My kids will text me before calling.

What this means for I.T. is an orientation that is very different from the baby boomers. One that may be hard to understand but offers opportunities for improvements in the services that we develop within I.T. along with the products and services that we offer to our customers. Another form of diversity that recognizes the talents of a younger generation and provides an opportunity to demonstrate value.

This change is going to require management innovation that has certainly not been common. Gary Hamel points out in "The Future of Management" that there has been very little management innovation in the past 20-30 years. Management innovation is going to be required to engage GenX "millennials" and to gain the 4-6 hours of productivity that is available according to the Symantec study referenced in the article.

Blogging

I mentioned early in this blog that my purpose in starting was as an intellectual exercise. Based on a couple of months of posting and tweaking plus my own sense that this is starting to come together - I'll give my self a solid C on an admittedly low set of expectations.

I've taken the time to understand the basics of the technology. I've improved and tweaked my initial layout. I've looked at how the technology and the application are being used and I've looked at the pro's blogs.

I've continued to read as much as I can on both Leadership and Technology (as it applies to I.T.) and I've had fun. Each post gets a bit easier - I find interesting subjects in many areas. So while the overall blog is not quite as cohesive as I would like it is gradually coming together.

Comments help and not just those at the end of a post. Suggestions such as Monty's to "watch the grammar and spelling" were very timely. Note: correct grammar's still a problem when I'm in a hurry but I did find the Blogger spell checker. I've also read other blogs and tried to build on the good ideas of others.

I believe that consultants, job seekers or those trying to get ahead should use this new medium because blogging, like any form of writing, forces the writer to learn - it add a new dimension to any career.

Life After (or During) a Merger

The NY Times isn't the only publication that I read - though it is starting to look that way. Here's another story that has implications for I.T. Leadership and the companies that we work for.

Kelly Holland's article from last June 23rd's New York Times - "Life After a Merger: Learning on Both Sides". Has one major theme - keeping good people and two actions that are required to do so - planning and communicating.

Holland: "Managers trying to integrate newly acquired companies and divisions have their work cut out for them. Many current deals are about growth opportunities, which makes keeping key employees especially important."

Further: "So what, exactly, is the best way to persuade members of the new corporate family to stay? The sensible approach is the simplest: plan ahead, communicate often and treat everyone involved in the deal with respect. Say clearly and early when any cuts will occur, and help people feel that they are a part of the combined company’s culture."

This is good advise for every organization in almost any situation but particularly important when merging or significantly changing organizations. Plan for what you want to accomplish and communicate. Plan to keep the key individuals that you need to meet your goals and actively communicate.

The article quotes - Timothy J. Galpin, a senior fellow at Katzenbach Partners and author of “The Complete Guide to Mergers and Acquisitions," - "A year after a deal closes, Mr. Galpin says, managers would be doing well to have retained 80 percent of the employees they wanted to keep."

If 80% is the best we can do - then the worst could be devastating.

Vacations - Stress Reduction

I recently found the Dilbert Blog!

Given my discussion (random rants) on stress and Scott Adams tech background (he knows of what he speaks and speaks well) I found today's post particularly appropriate. Scott Adams takes a vacation..

Although Scott's thoughts were about the "bad of vacation planning" and the "good of actually being on one" his underlying theme seemed to be "vacation is important". It is especially important in I.T. where people ofter put in long or unusual hours. It's important to have the good memories. The stress reduction inherent in taking time off is critical to individual and organizational well being.

As leaders we need to focus the resources (people and time) on the issues and projects that are important to the business. Making sure that those people are at maximum efficiency is equally important as is managing time within our organizations.

Random rant!

Work Place Stress

Americans are stressed - and work is a big factor. In an article by Kelly Holland in the March 23rd edition of the New York Times entitled "The Tension Builds (It’s Almost Monday)" it is noted that in "Poll results released last October by the American Psychological Association", "one-third of Americans are living with extreme stress, and that the most commonly cited source of stress — mentioned by 74 percent of respondents — was work. That was up from 59 percent the previous year."

In addition "More than half the respondents to the survey said they had left a job or considered doing so because of stress, and 55 percent said that stress made them less productive at work." and "some 48 percent of the employers in the survey said stress created by long hours and limited resources was affecting business performance, but only 5 percent said they were taking strong action to address those areas.

What does this say about leadership? We are knowingly allowing stress to impact our organizations - through loss of productivity and loss of people but are not taking "strong action" to fix the problem! I suspect that many companies are taking NO action.

Several other blogs have picked up on the article and the results. In Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Blog posting "Sunday Afternoons" Mr. Bock notes "If you want to head off the "chronic sadness of late Sunday afternoon," the best way to do that is to give people a great working environment to go to on Monday morning. And the key to that is great supervisors. Select them. Train them. Support them." That's each of us - anyone who is called "the boss" - company leadership.

There are two good examples of companies that have done something about stress - GlaxoSmithKline and PWC. The PWC example I find particularly relevant to I.T. and Technology Organizations. PWC focused on eliminating the interruptions on weekends. I.T. Organizations work weekends - either because of changes that have to be implemented during off hours or project deadlines that won't be met without extra hours or outages. But that doesn't mean that we should expect other work to be accomplished during those times. Giving people the downtime that they deserve, that they need, improves our organization's efficiency, decreases turnover, increases satisfaction.

Finally, in Spherion's blog post "Life in the Cubicle - Burning the Midnight Oil" (from which the graphic in this post was swiped THANK YOU Spherion)they note that "nearly one third of U.S. workers spend between 41 and 50 hours a week at the office, and another 12% clock 50 hours or more weekly.". While we all know that it is often necessary in I.T. to work long hours - it should not constant and leadership has to make sure that we do what is necessary to reduce the requirement for long hours with no break. We also have to make sure that long hours at work are rewarded - not considered normal and expected. A bit of appreciation.

My thanks to the New York Times - many great articles that make me think about leadership, and technology.

Leadership and the Workplace Bully

There is a very good article in today's (3/26/2008) New York Times on work place bully's. That article along with other linked articles and blogs and comments tell a story that we as leaders (manager or not) is important to the success and efficient functioning of our organizations.

A work place bully cuts efficiency, limits effectiveness, increases turnover, reduces communication, hurts our companies, hurts our people - the negatives go on and on. The damage to the individuals being bullied and our ability as leaders to contribute to the success of our company makes quick action a necessity.

Most of us who have been around for a few years have encountered workplace bullies and had to deal with them. My first encounter was at General Electric. At GE (many years ago) the company decided that management by "yelling" was not appropriate and that it was going to stop. We had one manager, in payroll, who had a history of yelling at employees in staff meetings, one-on-one's and occasionally in the hall way. The directive came down - no more yelling. I heard several times from people in that area of the building that he now feared loosing his job - and spent much more time in his office with the door closed. The people in payroll were noticeably calmer and the race to get out of that manager's area slowed.

Since that time I've dealt with situations where one employee didn't like another or where a manager had a problem with a member of his group. My approach has always been to try to take the emotion out of the situation - after all we are professionals. In some cases counselling has worked - either with me or with HR. In one case I moved the person at the receiving end of the bullying to another group where he was much happier and his performance improved dramatically. But I have had people leave - in one case there was a performance issue where despite counseling and changing the individuals position he never recovered. I don't know if I simply intervened to late or whether there were other issues.

Rereading the article I know that I will be more vigilant in the future to insure that this does not happen in my organization.

New York Time article - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/health/25well.html?em&ex=1206676800&en=31b986ad49824972&ei=5087%0A

New York Times blog post - http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/meet-the-work-bully/

IT Infrastructure as a service

My final comment on Gartner's '08 predictions.

This will come to pass just as purchasing software as a service is becoming more common place. This change will impact how we run I.T., how we deploy our resources and who we hold accountable for service.

By 2011, early technology adopters will forgo capital expenditures and instead purchase 40 per cent of their IT infrastructure as a service. Increased high-speed bandwidth makes it practical to locate infrastructure at other sites and still receive the same response times. Enterprises believe that as service oriented architecture (SOA) becomes common "cloud computing" will take off, thus untying applications from specific infrastructure. This trend to accepting commodity infrastructure could end the traditional "lock-in" with a single supplier and lower the costs of switching suppliers. It means that IT buyers should strengthen their purchasing and sourcing departments to evaluate offerings. They will have to develop and use new criteria for evaluation and selection and phase out traditional criteria.

See all of Gartner's prediction in my earlier post (Gartner's 10 Key Predictions) or at http://gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=593207.

Subscription Service Software Spending

Gartner's 4th prediction..

By 2012, at least one-third of business application software spending will be as service subscription instead of as product license. With software as service (SaaS), the user organisation pays for software services in proportion to use. This is fundamentally different from the fixed-price perpetual license of the traditional on-premises technology. Endorsed and promoted by all leading business applications vendors (Oracle, SAP, Microsoft) and many Web technology leaders (Google, Amazon), the SaaS model of deployment and distribution of software services will enjoy steady growth in mainstream use during the next five years.

While I believe that this prediction represents on "pendulum" item - 1/3 of business application spending for service subscriptions vs license is reasonable. The trend greatly increases financial flexibility and for those buyers who require limited flexibility in the configuration of an application it could be an ideal way to add capability or increase efficiency.

This change will create another challenge for I.T. as we add capabilities including governance to manage these arrangements. It is an opportunity for us to grow a certain segment of our staff and to improve services to the business and potentially to our customers.

Traveling workers - more changes

The next Garter prediction (below) is a bit more mainstream from a technology standpoint. Many of us were experimenting with Citrix and other server based remote desktop technologies in the early part of the decade. But this is a final push to acceptability of these technologies - outside of the firewall.

As a consultant (at least in my current incarnation) I will truly welcome this if I can find a workable solution from a service provider (inexpensive solution - please). I have used blackberry's for years but am not interested in a $50/month solution if I can find a workable answer that uses hotspots securely and can grab my mail off my providers web site. A friend - James Lee - is experimenting with an iPod touch as an answer to this problem and if successful I may go the same route at least for a time.

As a CIO I would welcome the opportunity to provide users with access to services inside the firewall without the burden of hauling a laptop on their regular excursions. The added benefit being the lowered possibilitiy of the loss of that laptop and the information it contains.

Gartner's second prediction.

By 2012, 50 per cent of traveling workers will leave their notebooks at home in favour of other devices. Even though notebooks continue to shrink in size and weight, traveling workers lament the weight and inconvenience of carrying them on their trips. Vendors are developing solutions to address these concerns: new classes of Internet-centric pocketable devices at the sub-$400 level; and server and Web-based applications that can be accessed from anywhere. There is also a new class of applications: portable personality that encapsulates a user's preferred work environment, enabling the user to recreate that environment across multiple locations or systems.

Green Criteria - a big change

The most striking single thing about Gartners 2008 predictions is that three of these "top ten" are about "green" initiatives. Something that we in I.T. have seldom, if ever, consider. We will be buying equipment with the intent of reducing cost but with added rationale of improving our company's green credentials. We'll be buying I.T. products with the intention of reducing our "carbon footprint" and then looking to our suppliers to do the same.

The Gartner Top 10 are about change. These will be a very interesting type of change one that we will be doing for reasons that are somewhat different then other types of corporate driven intiatives - one potentially for the greater good. One that our organizations and our staff should feel good about.

See the full top 10 in my previous post - but here are the green predictions.

By 2009, more than one third of IT organizations will have one or more environmental criteria in their top six buying criteria for IT-related goods. Initially, the motivation will come from the wish to contain costs. Enterprise data centres are struggling to keep pace with the increasing power requirements of their infrastructures. And there is substantial potential to improve the environmental footprint, throughout the life cycle, of all IT products and services without any significant trade-offs in price or performance. In the future, IT organisations will shift their focus from the power efficiency of products to asking service providers about their measures to improve energy efficiency.

By 2010, 75 per cent of organisations will use full life cycle energy and CO2 footprint as mandatory PC hardware buying criteria. Most technology providers have little or no knowledge of the full life cycle energy and CO2 footprint of their products. Some technology providers have started the process of life cycle assessments, or at least were asking key suppliers about carbon and energy use in 2007 and will continue in 2008. Most others using such information to differentiate their products will start in 2009 and by 2010 enterprises will be able to start using the information as a basis for purchasing decisions. Most others will stat some level of more detailed life cycle assessment in 2008.

By 2011, suppliers to large global enterprises will need to prove their green credentials via an audited process to retain preferred supplier status. Those organizations with strong brands are helping to forge the first wave of green sourcing policies and initiatives. These policies go well beyond minimizing direct carbon emissions or requiring suppliers to comply with local environmental regulations. For example, Timberland has launched a "Green Index" environmental rating for its shoes and boots. Home Depot is working on evaluation and audit criteria for assessing supplier submissions for its new EcoOptions product line.

Gartners 10 Key Predictions for 2008 and Beyond

Gartner, Inc. has highlighted 10 key predictions of events and developments that will affect IT and business in 2008 and beyond in a January press release.

Daryl Plummer, managing vice president and Gartner Fellow noted - "These areas of focus imply a significant groundswell of change that may in turn change the entire industry."

According to Gartner "The predictions highlight areas where executives and IT professionals need to take action in 2008. The full impact of these trends may not appear this year, but executives need to act now so that they can exploit the trends for their competitive advantage."

I'm going to spend the next few posts on these predictions because I believe that several of them are critical to the broad trends that we will see in I.T. over the next several years.

These predictions include:

By 2011, Apple will double its U.S. and Western Europe unit market share in Computers. Apple's gains in computer market share reflect as much on the failures of the rest of the industry as on Apple's success. Apple is challenging its competitors with software integration that provides ease of use and flexibility; continuous and more frequent innovation in hardware and software; and an ecosystem that focuses on interoperability across multiple devices (such as iPod and iMac cross-selling).

By 2012, 50 per cent of traveling workers will leave their notebooks at home in favour of other devices. Even though notebooks continue to shrink in size and weight, traveling workers lament the weight and inconvenience of carrying them on their trips. Vendors are developing solutions to address these concerns: new classes of Internet-centric pocketable devices at the sub-$400 level; and server and Web-based applications that can be accessed from anywhere. There is also a new class of applications: portable personality that encapsulates a user's preferred work environment, enabling the user to recreate that environment across multiple locations or systems.

By 2012, 80 per cent of all commercial software will include elements of open-source technology. Many open-source technologies are mature, stable and well supported. They provide significant opportunities for vendors and users to lower their total cost of ownership and increase returns on investment. Ignoring this will put companies at a serious competitive disadvantage. Embedded open source strategies will become the minimal level of investment that most large software vendors will find necessary to maintain competitive advantages during the next five years.

By 2012, at least one-third of business application software spending will be as service subscription instead of as product license. With software as service (SaaS), the user organisation pays for software services in proportion to use. This is fundamentally different from the fixed-price perpetual license of the traditional on-premises technology. Endorsed and promoted by all leading business applications vendors (Oracle, SAP, Microsoft) and many Web technology leaders (Google, Amazon), the SaaS model of deployment and distribution of software services will enjoy steady growth in mainstream use during the next five years.

By 2011, early technology adopters will forgo capital expenditures and instead purchase 40 per cent of their IT infrastructure as a service. Increased high-speed bandwidth makes it practical to locate infrastructure at other sites and still receive the same response times. Enterprises believe that as service oriented architecture (SOA) becomes common "cloud computing" will take off, thus untying applications from specific infrastructure. This trend to accepting commodity infrastructure could end the traditional "lock-in" with a single supplier and lower the costs of switching suppliers. It means that IT buyers should strengthen their purchasing and sourcing departments to evaluate offerings. They will have to develop and use new criteria for evaluation and selection and phase out traditional criteria.

By 2009, more than one third of IT organizations will have one or more environmental criteria in their top six buying criteria for IT-related goods. Initially, the motivation will come from the wish to contain costs. Enterprise data centres are struggling to keep pace with the increasing power requirements of their infrastructures. And there is substantial potential to improve the environmental footprint, throughout the life cycle, of all IT products and services without any significant trade-offs in price or performance. In future, IT organisations will shift their focus from the power efficiency of products to asking service providers about their measures to improve energy efficiency.

By 2010, 75 per cent of organisations will use full life cycle energy and CO2 footprint as mandatory PC hardware buying criteria. Most technology providers have little or no knowledge of the full life cycle energy and CO2 footprint of their products. Some technology providers have started the process of life cycle assessments, or at least were asking key suppliers about carbon and energy use in 2007 and will continue in 2008. Most others using such information to differentiate their products will start in 2009 and by 2010 enterprises will be able to start using the information as a basis for purchasing decisions. Most others will stat some level of more detailed life cycle assessment in 2008.

By 2011, suppliers to large global enterprises will need to prove their green credentials via an audited process to retain preferred supplier status. Those organizations with strong brands are helping to forge the first wave of green sourcing policies and initiatives. These policies go well beyond minimizing direct carbon emissions or requiring suppliers to comply with local environmental regulations. For example, Timberland has launched a "Green Index" environmental rating for its shoes and boots. Home Depot is working on evaluation and audit criteria for assessing supplier submissions for its new EcoOptions product line.

By 2010, end-user preferences will decide as much as half of all software, hardware and services acquisitions made by IT. The rise of the Internet and the ubiquity of the browser interface have made computing approachable and individuals are now making decisions about technology for personal and business use. Because of this, IT organizations are addressing user concerns through planning for a global class of computing that incorporates user decisions in risk analysis and innovation of business strategy.

Through 2011, the number of 3-D printers in homes and businesses will grow 100-fold over 2006 levels. The technology lets users send a file of a 3-D design to a printer-like device that will carve the design out of a block of resin. A manufacturer can make scale models of new product designs without the expense of model makers. Or consumers can have models of the avatars they use online. Ultimately, manufacturers can consider making some components on demand without having an inventory of replacement parts. Printers priced less than $10,000 have been announced for 2008, opening up the personal and hobbyist markets.

See Gartner's January 31 Press Release...

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.

More on Change

Some additional thoughts about change and Rule 4.

Change - necessary, good for the business but as Bill pointed out in his comment change can’t be indiscriminate it has to be thought through.

This weekend I celebrated my sister in law’s birthday – with a group of very intelligent, very articulate people working in and around the U.S. government. Aside from a great party - we talked about the challenges in working with government. We also talked about the challenges in dealing with all the levels of a large organization. Specifically – how do we deal with wide range of ability and need to deal with change.

We have people – frequently at the lower levels who are not interested in change. People who we rely on to get the daily reports out, to resolve issues with our systems, to change code in our primary systems and other routine jobs that have to get done to serve the business and maintain our service levels. We frequently don’t think about these people or the processes that they follow when making changes to our organizations or to our processes.

As a Sr. I.T. leader - it’s clearly difficult to think about the impact of an organization change on people who sit several layers below us in the organization. But in an organization that relies on process to operate key systems day after day – we have to think about those processes, those people and the impact.

More later.

Change is good..

Rule 4 - Change is good - use it to the benefit of the business and your organization.

One of the issues that I have seen over the past 30 years is that companies and organizations that make up those companies are unwilling to change or reorganize to meet the changing needs of the market or the business. GE was the exception (in my career).

We, as managers and team members, must be constantly looking for ways to improve the business - directly (increasing revenue or decreasing cost) or indirectly (improving efficiency or doing new functions with the same $). That is very difficult to do if it's not built into the culture. The only time that it is done consistently is when the organization is under financial pressure and downsizing is used as a way to cut costs. That should not be the case.

We should be using change and reorganization as a means to improve the business, change a trend, reward our people, send a wake up message to others or move people out who cannot perform. The net is positive - it can be disconcerting to those who don't like change but I the overall effect is positive - especially if it becomes part of the culture (and not while downsizing).

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.

Know where you are going.

Rule 2: Know where you (personally) are going and make sure that your key people also know where they are going.

When I was first starting my career - as an Analyst at GECC (General Electric Credit Corporation). My boss's boss made a point of having one-on-one's with everyone in his area. He asked me where I was going in my career (what I wanted to do) in a year, then 5 years, 10 years, 25 years and by the end of my career. I didn't know. He told me to think through it, write it down, and come back to him when I was done.

It took a while - but I finally came back to him with several pages of notes. We didn't really discuss the specifics but we did discuss a process - every time I had a career decision to make I had to open that notebook and look at what I had written. Did the decision at hand fit in the roadmap that I had created. If it did, great - if it didn't - was the roadmap wrong (needed revision) or was it right. Either way it made the decision making process easier (not easy). I've made mistakes - but for the right reasons.

I have (still have) a map, and I have a process. I've used that process throughout my career. I've put 10's of people who worked for me and those who I've mentored through it. It works.