Reality is overrated.

Not that I have anything against reality. All things considered, it’s a pretty good place to build your house.

I do, however, have a problem with people who claim personal ownership of the joint.

“You have to face reality,” is a dangerous phrase. It lays claim to knowledge about the nature of the universe that’s somehow superior to what the rest of us enjoy. Just as “frankly” usually warns of an imminent lapse of basic good manners, “face reality” signals the approach of ethically questionable advice.

Third-world dictators use the phrase to point out the naivete of Americans who don’t recognize the need for minor unpleasantries like torture, not to mention the dictatorial form of government itself.

Some Americans believe them, too, perhaps to avoid being branded as naifs. I’ve been told more than once in my lifetime that I should face reality and understand that sometimes, while unpleasant, it’s necessary. My response — that when you torture a person, he or she will generally tell you what you want to hear, not what’s really going on — hasn’t yet persuaded any of reality’s owners to reconsider.

The need for dictatorship also requires reality for its justification: “The reality is that these people just aren’t ready for democracy,” the dictator is likely to explain in a patronizing tone. Nobody ever asks these characters what their plans are to prepare “these people” for democracy, probably because they’d be tortured if they did.

I use these examples neither to stir the political pot nor to take sides (if I were to explore examples from current events, I’d stray into the realm of political commentary which is outside the scope of this column) but to illustrate a point — that reality and evidence are, for some reason, mutually exclusive — with examples I trust all readers are able to recognize, and consider clear and unambiguous. That’s been my experience, at least: Those who tell us to face reality do so instead of providing facts and logic rather than doing so as a preamble to providing them.

While I’ve worked in business environments that were sheer torture, they were only metaphorically so. Still, the magic phrase “you have to face reality” is as popular in business circles as in geopolitics. And the actions the phrase is used to justify are, if more banal, just as ethically questionable.

Facing business realities can mean paying executives bloated salaries so they can lead a business to failure. Reality then justifies paying the same executive a golden parachute to go away.

Reality, and the facing thereof, have also been used to justify the wreaking of environmental havoc, unnecessary layoffs, draconian human resource policies, and AT&T’s decision to absent itself from the consumer long-distance market. If these consequences are what happen when you face reality, it makes facing the bizarro dimension instead sound downright attractive.

I mention this for two reasons. The first is purely selfish. This trend — for disagreeable people to preemptively assert sole possession of reality — makes me crabby, and this column is what I do to combat crabbiness, instead of taking mood-altering (let alone reality-altering) pharmaceuticals.

The second is to provide ammunition to the other side. Many people have no idea how to respond when a business antagonist claims ownership of reality. After someone tells me I have to face reality, how am I supposed to respond? “No I don’t!” seems a bit weak.

The whole point of this rhetorical technique is to put you in a box whose only exit is agreement. There are, however, a few other exits you can make use of. Which to choose depends on the circumstances and your business culture.

If you work in a highly sarcastic environment your options are more varied than otherwise. I offer, as an example, “That may be reality on your planet, pal, but here on Earth reality looks a bit different.”

There’s also the ever-popular, “Who died and made you God?” which is very effective in sarcasto-theistic organizations.

In a more businesslike environment, sarcasm just lowers you below the realist’s level — a bad place to be. You need to achieve the opposite, crafting a response that positions you above the fray. To achieve this you need something less combative.

So the next time someone says, in a patronizing tone, “You have to face reality,” just relax, smile, and chuckle.

Then say, “Huh. I guess we have to decide whether to face reality or face facts, because so far as I know the evidence suggests otherwise.”

Before continuing our search for ways IT can do more with less, some business:

  • My new book, Leading IT: The Toughest Job in the World is ready for purchase. For the time being, you can only buy it from IS Survivor Publishing (www.issurvivor.com). You’ll find a discount from the $13.95 list price that won’t be available from the commercial booksellers.
  • Participants in our recent seminars — on IT leadership and how to identify and address organizational performance issues — gave us very favorable comments. If you’d like to bring either seminar in-house for your IT leadership team, let us know.
  • Market research: We based the organizational performance seminar on a model we use in our consulting business that includes 137 factors and their inter-relationships. Because several participants asked to license the course materials for their in-house use we’re exploring ways to make the model available to a wider audience. Among the options: (1) Provide the course materials in PDF format for a license fee; (2) package the model as a set of visual diagrams linked to a navigable Access database; and (3) publish the diagrams, glossary and other material in book form.If you’re interested, please let us know which form would be of greatest interest, and what you think a fair price would be (use seminars@issurvivor.com for mail on this subject).

Thanks! And now, on with the show.

You’ve been asked, which is to say told, to “do more with less.” You controlled your initial impulse, which was to apply direct pressure to the speaker’s carotid arteries with your thumbs. You successfully left the room having made enough of a commitment to get by politically but not such a specific commitment that you’re politically vulnerable.

Now you have to do something. Where do you look for savings?

Last week’s column looked at the relationship between IT and the rest of the business — probably the single most important factor driving IT effectiveness, and the one that lets you achieve anything else of any importance. That relationship is the informal half of what drives strong alignment between IT and the rest of the business. The formal half is IT governance — how the enterprise makes decisions about its use of information technology. As with the business/IT relationship, IT governance can’t help you do more with less, but it can help you achieve more with less, which is at least as good and probably better.

One area of opportunity has already been mentioned here a few times: Screening out any and all requests for IT effort for which the requesting business area has committed neither to the benefit nor to providing the business staff required for the effort to succeed. This takes guaranteed failures off IT’s to-do list, a sure way to achieve more with the same IT staffing.

That’s screening out guaranteed failures. Here are a few other notions for improving IT governance that can help you make sure every IT effort is devoted to achieving something worthwhile for the business:

  • Stratify the process: Create separate funding and staffing budgets for non-discretionary maintenance, small enhancements, and large initiatives. Set priorities within each group, not across all groups.The alternative is trying to decide whether updating the tax tables in your payroll system is more or less important than investing in a supply chain optimization initiative that has the potential for a 438% return on investment. If you’ve ever been in this kind of discussion you know just how pointless it is.
  • Think of small enhancements as low-risk, high-return opportunities, not annoying distractions. IT rarely fails at 30 hour requests, which is why these are low risk. As for the high return, I’ve seen examples where (for example) three hours of IT effort have eliminated three hours a day of business staff effort.There are those who claim there is no business benefit unless a headless corpse is tossed out the door. There are also those who claim the earth is flat and the Apollo missions were special effects frauds. Ignore them all.

    If it needs saying: A business that ignores any process improvement that doesn’t eliminate headcount is a business that tells its employees it doesn’t care about streamlining its processes, only about eliminating headcount. It’s that simple: You either care about running your business better or you don’t. If you don’t, there’s a deeper root cause for the company’s profitability problems than IT governance.

  • Re-label the results of the prioritization process. Most companies have three possible results: Yes, no, and maybe. Eliminate maybe and yes, but for different reasons.Maybe is the worst of all possible answers. It wastes everyone’s time for no good reason other than decision-makers lacking the courage to make decisions. Yes is a problem because it’s meaningless. Unless an effort has been scheduled, with the start and finish dates based on the availability of all resources needed for success, it won’t happen.

    The only two outcomes for any request should be no and on the schedule.

    Well, not quite — there is a third outcome which is entirely valid: “This requires more work.”

Want a good way to not make decisions about IT priorities? Divide requests into needs, wants, and desires, only funding needs. It’s one of those notions that’s superficially plausible but which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Why? Go back to that supply chain initiative with the 438% ROI. Does the company need to do it? No, it’s manufacturing and selling products now, and making money doing so. Should the company do it anyway, even though it doesn’t need to? Well, yes, of course it should.

Businesses don’t have needs, wants and desires. Those are consumer responses — the psychological notions of individual human beings. A business isn’t just like a person only bigger. It’s an entirely different kind of animal.

At least I hope that’s true. Otherwise, just as business make decisions through a consensus of key decision-makers, readers of this column will make decisions on their own priorities based on votes taken by their internal organs. I imagine the stomach, intestines, pancreas, liver and spleen forming a voting block to get their way.

Maybe that’s what people mean when they say they base their decisions on their gut.