All Posts in Organizational Effectiveness

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

And now, a dumb CIO story:

A division of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise embarked on a business redesign. Because the redesign was expected to have technical repercussions, an IS analyst was part of the team.

Among its findings, the team recommended replacing a core legacy system, so the head of internal consulting called the CIO to ask if he was comfortable with the team’s findings.

The CIO hadn’t seen the team’s recommendations, but when the head of internal consulting explained them he responded that he could not support them, explaining that his analyst really didn’t understand the system, the environment, or the situation. Further, he instructed the head of internal consulting to keep him informed of the positions his analysts took in all future projects, to prevent a recurrence of the problem.

Nice solution, don’t you think?

We’re continuing our series of columns on managing change. We’ll take a break after this one, which explores the fascinating issue of restoring IS’s reputation as a sponsor of change from its current status as grumpy change resistor.

Restoring? Yes. Back when IS was EDP (electronic data processing) and consisted of a lot of programmers and computer operators with a couple of managers to keep enough coffee, coke and pizza in stock, we wrote all the legacy systems we now can’t figure out how to replace, transforming our companies from top to bottom as we did so.

Now we have business people in charge and, obsessed with tangible returns on investment and avoidance of risk, we’re paralyzed.

Since every business change from this moment forward will require the active support of IS, we need to be better than this. How can you change your own organization from a sullen group of change resistors to an energized team of enthusiastic supporters?

Step one: Look in a mirror. Do you like the challenge of doing things differently, or are you obsessed about what will break in the process? Do you wake up with ideas on how to improve the business, or do you wake up grousing about end-users who install their own software? Do you complain that NT just isn’t as stable as the mainframe, or do you explain to your system administrators that since some data centers manage to create highly reliable server environments, you’re going to do so also?

Is your habit to say yes or to say no?

Here’s how to turn your organization into a supporter of change: In your next all-hands meeting explain that from this point forward, nobody will ever turn down a request from the business. Ever.

No matter what the request, the answer will be, “We can do that. If you’ll sign up to the cost, we’ll figure out how to make it happen.”

Need to replace a core legacy system? We can do that. It will be expensive because conversions are never cheap, but if you’ll sign up to the cost, we can do it.

Want to integrate multiple legacy systems into an integrated call center? We can do that. We’ll have to engage an outside development partner because we don’t have a lot of the expertise we’ll need, and right now our resources are stretched pretty thin, but that’s okay. There are lots of good systems integrators out there and we’ll find one to work with us to get your job done. If you’ll sign up to the cost, we can do it.

Need a Macintosh instead of an NT workstation? We’ll have to install a Mac gateway onto one of our servers, but if you’ll sign up to the cost, we can do it. Will the Mac user want help desk support? Since we don’t have Mac expertise in-house, we’ll find you outside support … if you’ll sign up to the cost, of course.

How do you embrace change instead of resisting it? Make change part of every employee’s job description, that’s how. If their job is figuring out what it will take to make change happen, they will.

Comments

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

“It’ll never fly, Wilbur!”

That’s standard response to questions about harebrained ideas that clearly won’t work.

Why? To put my pessimism in context, that’s why. Punditry doesn’t have much of a track record. Since humankind’s pundits resisted not only the airplane but also the automobile, the steel plow, and every other useful innovation in history, it’s safe to speculate that when Glock first fished out a chunk of meat that had accidentally fallen into his fire and ate it anyway, his troglodyte neighbors warned him that “Ock narb blishk kank gack nork!” ( “You’re going to die! Fire poisons meat!”).

For the most part, people resist change. Our entire evolutionary history tells us change is bad. Although we got lucky last time the comet hit, clearing out the dinosaurs so we mammals could take over the planet, this time, unless Bruce Willis comes through, we’re the goners.

Which is why major changes need sponsors to succeed: People resist change.

There is no way to emphasize the need for a sponsor strongly enough. If you’re involved in a major change initiative right now, take a second to reconnoiter. Do you see a high-level corporate executive sponsoring it?

If not, recruit one immediately. If you can’t, run away. Hide under a rock until the dust settles. Politely decline. Get transferred to another department. Whatever you do, disassociate yourself from the impending disaster, because major change requires consistent, active leadership … in other words, a sponsor.

Not just anyone can be a sponsor. Here’s what it takes:

  • Authority: Sponsors must be in a position to make decisions. What is a decision? It’s the commitment of time, money, and resources. (This is a useful definition in other contexts, too. Whenever someone delegates a decision to you, confirm your delegated authority by asking if you can commit time, money, and resources to the result. If not, you’ve only been asked to make a recommendation.)
  • Personal benefit: Sponsors must benefit from the proposed change personally. Business schools talk about business benefit, return on investment analysis, and lots of other side-issues, but what drives change in real corporations is personal benefit, which is as it should be in a capitalist, market economy. What, you expect altruism? Sorry — capitalism is based the expectation that individuals maximize their “utility” — they do what’s best for themselves. So your sponsor must personally benefit from the proposed change or one of two things is true: Either your sponsor is two beers shy of a six-pack, or your “sponsor” is merely a figurehead who will cut and run at the first sign of trouble.
  • Emotional commitment: Lots of things are good for you. Most, like tofu, are things you’d rather avoid. (Honk if you love tofu, but not near me, OK?) Change involves risk, so sponsorship requires emotional commitment to the result. If your sponsor doesn’t want the change passionately, your sponsor won’t put his or her neck on the chopping block when the time comes to take the risks and make the commitments major change needs from time to time.

    In return for all this, you have one responsibility to the sponsor of any change you’re involved in: Communicate. In particular, don’t withhold bad news. Sponsors take significant personal risks on behalf of the change they’re sponsoring; don’t let them get blindsided. If the schedule is going to slip, tell your sponsor. If you need more staff, tell your sponsor. If you’re out of your depth and need help, tell your sponsor. If you just keep saying, “We’re doing fine, chief!” until the ship sinks, all you’ve done is drag someone underwater with you who could have saved your neck.

One more thing: Sometimes, sponsors leave in the middle of the change. It happens. What should you do? Keep working on the change, but don’t take any risks. Keep your head down. Assign your sponsor’s successor to the sponsorship role by setting up regular status meetings. You need to find out if you have a new sponsor because if you don’t … go looking for that rock to hide under — you’re exposed.

Comments