All Posts in Strategy and Tactics

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

ATHENS, GREECE — The Parthenon stands on the fields of the Acropolis overlooking this ancient, modern city. Built some 2,500 years ago during the height of Athens’ power and influence, its age and commanding architectural grace and sophistication inspire a sense of awe that requires presence, not mere description. It stood more or less intact until 1687 when a Venetian artillery shell exploded the Turkish ammunition dump stored in its heart, which should give you a healthy dose of respect for its builders.

We can only wonder whether our best structures will last even a fraction of that time to inspire awe among our own successors. The ancient Athenians, lacking our finely tuned understanding of economics, built the Parthenon as well as they could, not merely as well as they could cost-justify.

We in IT work in more ephemeral materials than marble, but even our own modest efforts persist far longer than we expect, or even prefer. Our own legacies … systems … outlast at least the employment of their builders, stubbornly resisting attempts to replace them.

Why are they so hard to replace? They are, after all, just software, aren’t they? Well, no, they aren’t. They, along with such items as factories, warehouses, and the knowledge and experience of non-transient employees, form an organization’s infrastructure — the basic foundational framework on which an organization is built. It’s an overused term these days, but one whose meaning is worth preserving.

Infrastructure, we’re told, is strategic, but it’s deeper than strategy. A company’s infrastructure is its soul if you think in such metaphysical terms. If you’re more hard-nosed, it defines both enablers and constraints — a company can change strategies more easily than infrastructure, but the each company’s infrastructure predisposes it to some strategies while creating severe constraints that inhibit others.

Yeah, yeah, buddy, but how does this affect me today? Deeply and subtly, that’s how. Take stock of your existing infrastructure, what it enables and what it inhibits. It’s part of what a CIO or CTO brings to discussions of company strategy. More, when you’re planning new major systems or system replacements, drive the discussion beyond specific process requirements to explore which future strategies it will enable and inhibit.

It’s fashionable to talk about the compression of business cycles these days, but companies that are in business for the long haul understand that underneath all the nimbleness of rapid change must be an underlying stability.

Let the Parthenon be your inspiration.

Comments

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

One of my clients is a newly merged company. To prepare for the engagement, I did what any self-respecting consultant would do: I called people who have been through a merger themselves.

One related this bizarre story: The leaders of one of two merging companies organized a formal “war school” to game out ways to end up in control of the new company. My source was quite angry about this, considering it unethical and subversive, not to mention sneaky.

Conducting a formal war school is certainly over the top (and made my source’s life quite difficult for a year or two as well). The underlying motivation, though, is predictable, and perhaps even laudable, the result of intense desire to beat the competition.

In the case at hand, one company’s executives considered the merger an opportunity to create a new company with enhanced capabilities and economies of scale. The executives in the other company considered it a stratagem for beating a competitor, albeit not in the marketplace. This might make them untrustworthy; it doesn’t make them unethical. “Untrustworthy” is predictive and therefore useful; “unethical” simply moralizes — a hollow luxury in the executive suite.

The odds are high you’ll go through a merger or acquisition yourself. What should you do? Let’s write some code (it’s going to look like PL/1 — it’s been a long time since I’ve written real code, I’m afraid):

IF [Your future in the merged organization is secure] OR [You’ve been guaranteed a generous severance package] THEN [Concern yourself entirely with making sure the merger succeeds] ELSE;

IF [You expect those leading the merger to reward those who help make it happen through promotions, bonuses and continued employment while making other arrangements for those who resist it] THEN [Concern yourself entirely with making sure the merger succeeds] ELSE;

[Don’t be a schmuck];

Those leading a merger are responsible for aligning the personal best interests of managers and employees with the merger’s success. What’s your role in helping the process?

Don’t ask anyone who works for you to be self-sacrificing..

IF [You want everyone working for you to help the merger succeed] THEN [Make it worth their while to do so] AND [Make sure they know it will be worth their while];

What — you expect them to be loyal to a new employer they don’t know, who shows no interest in being loyal to them?

Don’t be a schmuck.

Comments