All Posts in Strategy and Tactics

|In: Office Politics|Last Updated:

This, of course, is an election year, so we’re subjected to the usual array of ridiculous, mutually contradictory promises, none of which will last beyond the inaugural ball. They must think we’re smoking something, and probably think we inhale, too.

Since this is an election year, you’ll also be subjected to commentators and columnists of all persuasions shamelessly exploiting the subject in their ongoing, desperate attempts to create “hooks” to draw you into the main subject.

So why should I be any exception?

Bill Clinton and Bob Dole aren’t the only ones to make promises in their jobs, of course. (And you thought connecting this lead to an IS management topic would be a stretch.) Haven’t you, in a tight spot, ever made a promise in a meeting, only to go back to your office wondering how you’re ever going to deliver on it?

This week we begin a series on interaction between IS and the end-user community. Let’s set the stage with some basic insights:

Insight #1: Visibility = Dissatisfaction

When the quality movement picked up steam we all heard about delighting, rather than just satisfying customers. Most of us in IS shook our heads sadly, knowing the futility of this goal (along with the unfortunate “internal customer” concept that goes with it). The problem? “Quality” lumps lots of completely dissimilar issues into a single amoeba-like lump. We can mitotically divide this lump into two smaller chunks by recognizing that some forms of quality are only recognized by their absence, while others really do delight customers.

Genuine Corinthian leather delights a certain group of automotive customers. We can call this kind of quality “positive quality” (PQ, for those of you who, James Martin-like, enjoy acronyms). We can focus ingenuity, creativity, and all those other right-brain attributes on generating PQ-enhancing ideas.

Telephone dial tone doesn’t generate customer delight. Absence of dial tone, though, generates quite a bit of high-decibel-level conversation. We’ll call this kind of quality, where you’re only visible when things go wrong, negative quality (NQ). A lot of what we do falls into the NQ category.

Insight #2: The Need for Stealth End-User Satisfaction

IS interacts with the end-user community at all levels. Executives want you to focus on big strategic projects. Middle managers want you to build enhancements to their core information systems. Secretaries need help recovering their trashed memos. These requirements compete for resources, of course, and while the executives may agree to some tradeoffs in principle, those agreements vanish like vacation money when exposed to the sunny disposition of a secretary with a damaged document. (Rule #37 of organizational behavior: executives are terrified of secretarial dissatisfaction.)

If you expend visible effort supporting day-to-day end-user computer use, executives and middle managers will wonder who’s taking care of their strategic initiatives and production system enhancements. If you don’t take care of the day-to-day sturm unt drang, they’ll wonder … aloud … if you’re competent to handle the big issues when you can’t even take care of their secretaries.

So you need stealth efforts for optimal NQ.

Insight #3: IS isn’t the expert when it comes to personal computers.

Personal computers are more than a way to reach the company’s business systems. They’re more than a universal information access utility. They’re more than a general-purpose tool for improving effectiveness.

For some employees, they’re a hobby.

A friend of mine earned a PhD from his hobby, which happened to be creating a stochastic model of international banking. (He showed it to a friend who happened to run a graduate program in industrial engineering over lunch one day, and had his PhD a week later.)

Some people put a lot of effort into their hobbies. They read a lot, experiment a lot, think a lot. Within their self-imposed boundaries, they know more than you do. Disparage their expertise at your peril.

These insights represent the landscape. You have to build on it. Next week we’ll start to explore ways you can do so.

Comments

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

Bob Dole, in presenting his proposed budget cuts, supposedly said, “I’m not betting the farm. I’m betting the country!”

Who wrote this? Dole isn’t betting the country, nor should he. We’re in pretty good shape in these parts, bucko, and you only bet the country if it’s on the verge of collapse. Otherwise the downside risk vastly outweighs the upside gain.

I’m not going to debate budgets, deficits, or tax policy, tempting as that may be. Form your own opinion and vote accordingly. Election-year nonsense sounds pretty similar to management nonsense, though, and management nonsense is my stock and trade.

Ever hear an executive talk about betting the company on a new strategy? I have. I figured it was a bunch of hooey intended to energize the troops, so I ignored it. Betting the company only makes sense for companies in untenable situations.

Any number of executives also say they want to encourage risk-taking among their employees. Encouraging risk is faddish right now, but unless your corporate leadership is sincere in wanting you to bet some of the corporate coffers, you can usually ignore this as just more ManagementSpeak.

How can you tell? Here are some telltale signs:

1. The capital spending approval process. Who approves it? What does it get approved for? And most significantly, does your company impose a fixed annual limit, or just a rough guideline?

Capital, if you’re not familiar with the concept, is money companies invest, as opposed to operating expenses, which are costs of doing business. When companies impose a fixed capital spending limit they’re far more likely to allocate that money to safe, cost-reducing investments than on riskier, revenue-enhancing ones. Companies looking to enhance revenue won’t let a pre-set budget limit get in the way of profits.

Companies that are tight with capital rarely encourage real risk-taking. It’s too … well, risky.

2. Non-managerial employees have no spending authority. Here’s a great message: we want you to take risks, but we don’t trust you with a twenty-five buck spending decision.

One of the great moments of my management career was when I delegated the whole budgeting process to each work team reporting to me. I was free! The scary part: the team was far tighter with a buck than I ever was, and they complained every time I sent out a purchase order without asking them first.

3. People have to “take responsibility for their decisions.” Well of course they should, and yes, people who do dumb things should be help accountable for having done them – if those actions really were dumb, irresponsible, or otherwise wrong-headed.

The phrase in question too-often ends up as a euphemism for fixing blame and punishing failure. Want to eliminate risk in your organization? Find someone who stuck his or her neck out and give them a poor performance appraisal because, with perfect 20/20 hindsight, you can see they made the wrong call.

Word will get around.

4. Promotions go to people who “get along well with others.” You want to promote risk-taking in your organization? Then promote risk-takers, so they have more influence over your organization.

Don’t make the mistake of promoting people just because they take risks. You don’t want gamblers running your company. Promote them for the character and judgment they’ve shown by taking a risk and being right (but don’t punish them for being wrong, unless it’s clear they made an avoidable mistake).

Remember the second rule of management, “Form follows function”? Here’s a perfect example. If you want to encourage risk-taking in your organization (and don’t gripe about your company leadership until you’re sure your own house is in order) make sure your social systems reinforce and reward it.

People will take risks if their expected reward from success greatly exceeds their personal risk from failure. As my grandmother used to say, “Actions speak louder than words.”

How come my grandmother was so much smarter than so many corporate executives?

Comments