It’s Independence Day, and I took the day off. I’m not sure why this re-run seemed like a perfect fit for the occasion, and whether the answer is that it’s just my rationalization or there’s some meta-property the holiday and column share, I don’t know.

I don’t entirely care, either, so long as you give it a read. Whatever else I have to say about it, I like it better than the KJR I was going to write instead.

So enjoy it, and enjoy the occasion, too.

– Bob

###

In the late 1600s, Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz invented calculus more or less concurrently. The question of who published first raged for decades.

In the 1800s, Sir Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace both figured out how new species could arise from existing ones through the force of natural selection. Aware of each other’s work, in 1858 they presented their work together to the Linnaean Society.

In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray submitted patent applications for the telephone within hours of each other.

But in 1968, when Douglas Engelbart, who passed away recently, presented his live demonstration of a computing system that included the use of a mouse, videoconferencing, word processing, cut-and-paste, hypertext, revision control, and collaborative editing, he was the only person in the world who had put it all together (thanks to Randy Cunningham’s Honorary Unsubscribe for providing, not only the details, but a link to a video of the presentation).

Not the only person in the world to have each of the ideas separately, though … Ted Nelson, for example, had been writing about hypertext since 1963.

We celebrate those who invent something important first. We celebrate those who make important scientific discoveries first. And yet, there’s a certain inevitability to all this. From the inside, these inventions and discoveries are more like races, in which the only question is who will cross the finish line first, than they are like the actions of lone explorers, boldly going where no one has gone before.

Maybe this is why we lionize great leaders more than great scientists and inventors: Without Washington, England probably would have defeated the colonists in the Revolutionary War; without Lincoln, and Grant, the Confederacy probably would have succeeded in seceding; without Roosevelt and Churchill the outcome of World War II would almost certainly have been very different.

Those specific, unique leaders were required. It’s doubtful that, with different leaders, we would have ended up with similar results. Take Lincoln: Had Stephen Douglas won the 1860 election the Confederacy might never have formed and slavery might still be legal. Or, more likely, a very different Civil War might have been fought at a very different time and in a very different way.

This is not true of the great scientists. Take Einstein: Had he never published, the current state of physics would be unaltered.

It’s a hard thought to swallow. Collectively, it’s the scientists of the world who have made our modern world possible. Just look around you and start subtracting everything you depend on that wouldn’t exist had the community of scientists never figured out the laws of thermodynamics, the aforementioned calculus, information theory, and another few dozens or hundreds of disciplines. It’s their byproducts that allow the world to operate with more than 7 billion inhabitants.

The secret is that scientists form communities, and it’s these communities that collectively deserve credit for what we as a species collectively know. The individual scientists who get the most credit are the ones who are just a bit smarter, just a bit quicker, and who work just a bit harder than the rest.

And, to be fair, in some cases are better politicians: Modern physics, for example, is a very expensive discipline; in order to make the big discoveries you first have to gain access to the big equipment.

Understand, I have nothing but respect for the great scientists, and you should too. While there’s no doubt many were and are driven by a sense of competition, they are far more driven by the desire to understand the universe just a bit better than anyone has understood it before.

Just as the great inventors, like Douglas Engelbart, were driven by the desire to make the world just a bit more capable than it was before.

The world of business has more in common with scientists and inventors than with the great political leaders: Should a company fail, while it’s hard on its employees and shareholders, otherwise it doesn’t matter a bit. If a department store closes its doors, shoppers will just buy the same merchandise from someone else; the same is true of just about anyone or any business in the market for goods or services.

Perhaps that’s why the self-importance of some CEOs is so amusing. Even those who help their companies win are, for the most part, simply shifting revenue from another company’s coffers to their own.

It’s just a race. What matters isn’t who wins it. What matters is that enough people are willing to run.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins, “Congress shall make no law.” There are those who think the framers should have stopped right there.

Not me. I especially value the part that says, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

But then there’s the missing part – the part advice givers everywhere should adopt. The part that would read, “If you don’t have anything useful to say, refrain from saying it.”

The part our friends at Gartner should pay more attention to. As evidence, I offer this headline and the content that followed it: 72% of High Tech Leaders Expect to Grow Revenue in 2023, Despite Economic Uncertainty.

How might these high-tech leaders go about it? Through relevance. The press release actually said this: “Lower relevance reduces willingness to pay.”

Now let me get this straight: People are less likely to buy products and services that are less relevant to what they need?

No s***, Sherlock.

This pearl of wisdom was, inevitably, accompanied by the results of a survey – the pundits go-to for putting a gloss of faux authority on their otherwise useless conclusions. Strangely, the survey’s conclusion was that the companies in question are focusing on cost-cutting, not revenue generation. I say “strangely” because while the story’s headline was about growing revenue, none of the reported survey questions asked respondents about the revenue-enhancing strategies and tactics they’re pursuing.

Presumably, that’s because no high-tech leader had come up with any growth-oriented strategies or tactics until Gartner explained the value of relevance to them.

Even ignoring this lapse and taking the cost-cutting measures at face value, the main conclusion we should draw is that many high-tech leaders haven’t yet picked up the digital clue phone. As evidence, here’s a sampling of the most important cost-cutting measures these industry-leading firms have been taking:

Slowing down hiring for new positions: More than half the companies surveyed are doing this. For the most part it’s a money-losing proposition. If the open position will, when filled, have a positive return on investment, filling it earlier is more profitable than delaying. If it doesn’t have a positive return, don’t fill it at all. Delaying new hires yields the worst of both worlds.

Implementing spending cuts across the board: More than half of the responding companies are doing this, ignoring the popular analogy that they’re acting like surgeons equipped, not with scalpels, but with machetes.

Reducing marketing spends or programs: If your ad agency isn’t helping increase sales, by all means switch agencies. If you think marketing spends and programs don’t end up increasing sales, the CEO should replace the chief marketing officer, because … well, duh.

Reduced investments on products or services: Why anyone would think investing less in improving what you have to sell will help you sell more of it is … let’s just agree that the connection isn’t even tenuous. It’s non-existent.

At least none of the respondents said their companies were shrinking the sales force.

Why should a CIO care?

Back in the industrial age of information technology, when cost-cutting wore the business-strategy crown, as CIO you wouldn’t care about these absurdities at all. IT’s job was to help the business cut costs. Period, end of discussion, don’t argue.

But digital-as-a-noun has (supposedly) supplanted industrialism as the business’s strategic centerpiece – not only among technology leaders, but in most companies that are paying attention, including yours. And as CIO you’re at the epicenter of turning digital intentions into digital reality.

And digital strategy is, or at least should be, laser-focused on increasing revenue by achieving competitive advantage. In a digital world, cost cutting takes a backseat to making the smartest products and services on the block while providing customers with a superior experience whenever they interact with any part of the enterprise.

Bob’s last word: Did I write backseat? Go further. To the extent cost cutting survives as a business tactic, it should, in the land of digital, result in reducing the price the company charges for its products and services, thereby making them more attractive. Or, the company might figure out ways to re-invest the savings in ways that provide some other competitive advantage.

Bob’s sales pitch: There are weeks I’m not sure what I should write about. To an extent, it’s due to the dissonance between the roles of consultant vs commentator: commentators disseminate answers, while the consultant’s job is to ask the most pertinent questions.

Regardless, if you have questions you’d like me to write about, I won’t view it as an imposition.

Quite the opposite, you’d be doing me a favor.

Now available on CIO.com’s CIO Survival Guide: “4 hard truths of multivendor outsourcing.” If you’re managing more than one or two outsourcers and your aspirin bottle is running low, you might find its advice handy.