9/24/2007
Work hard and keep your nose clean.
That's good advice if you want a sweaty proboscis. For career advancement, hard work and an unsoiled schnoz give you a stable place to stand while you get your bearings and plan your strategy. At best. At their worst they stereotype you as cannon fodder -- trustworthy, reliable, and useful, but ultimately disposable.
Unless you work for a well-run company. If you do, a reputation for integrity and going the extra mile or three is the best way I know to rise to executive ranks.
Which brings us to this week's question: Lots of people would like to achieve executive rank. Many are smarter and more talented than the relatively few who succeed. What's the difference?
Since there are as many answers as there are types of executive, answering the question requires a list of the various types of executive you're likely to find (and, perhaps, be). Did I say types? Think of these as archetypes -- styles of leadership in a pure form. Real executives blend one or more of the archetypes that follow:
Visionary: The Visionary has, or has adopted, a new idea and wants passionately to turn it into reality.
The Visionary's best path to the executive ranks is entrepreneurship. Excellent at selling their vision, Visionaries build a business around themselves, surrounded by managers and employees who buy into the vision, and the possibility of making it happen.
Visionaries are usually better at defining what has to happen than at making it happen. The successful ones, through luck or skill, have a second-in-commands to do that.
More don't. The world has no shortage of unfulfilled visions.
General: Generals view every situation as a battlefield, and everyone else as a soldier or officer who is with them or against them. As a result, Generals are likely to be ruthless. Winning is the measure of all things.
Some are Generalissimos -- in charge. Generalissimos are often better at achieving and holding onto power than at leading a successful organization. Among the reasons: Generalissimos see everyone in the world as being either friend or foe and treat every foe as a threat to be neutralized. All that's required to be classified as "foe" is to disagree.
Other generals accept civilian leadership -- perhaps from a visionary -- and see their role as making sure their side wins.
The best generals are excellent strategists, tacticians, and logicians, and recognize the value of smart, well-trained, disciplined men and women throughout their organization.
The worst fight unnecessary battles because fighting battles is what they know how to do.
And because winning battles builds loyalty among the troops, whether or not the battle was worth fighting.
Head Coach: Head coaches have a lot in common with generals. Highly competitive, they build organizations that are good at winning, and know how to choose winning strategies and tactics.
Head coaches share a limitation with generals -- they see the world as a zero-sum game, where if they want to win, someone else has to lose. Head coaches are, however, less ruthless than generals. They are more likely to recognize and accept the rules of the game, and know that losing a game doesn't mean losing a season.
The best aspect of Head Coaches is that, as is the case in football and basketball, they recognize that they aren't the stars. The worst is their fondness for illustrating every conversational point with a sports metaphor.
Prairie Chickens: Every spring, male prairie chickens congregate in acre-or-so areas called "leks." In each lek they carve out small territories and do the prairie chicken dance to attract females. The male in the center of the lek is most successful. Females ignore those at the periphery entirely.
The center males aren't, as you might think, the meanest, toughest prairie chickens around. My former colleague in ethology, Henry McDermott, proved this through years of careful observation: Those male prairie chickens that don't die from disease or being eaten move closer to the center by taking the territories of the dear departed.
Many corporate executives achieve high rank in much the same way [particularly where I work!]: They avoid failure rather than achieve success, drifting upward by filling the holes left by bolder executives who slipped up and were asked to vacate the premises.
Visionaries, generals, head coaches and prairie chickens. See yourself anywhere on the list?
If you don't, never fear. You still have a chance. Seven, really.
That's how many C-archetypes are left - assuming I don't think of any more.
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
got rain?
Lake Lanier sinking to a 50-year low?
As level drops, Atlanta faces the fact that its main water supply is no longer a sure thing.
my reply:
I have found a way to drive my water usage to one unit per month -- I recycle water to flush toilets. The grey water from the washing machine and dish washer plus all sinks except the one with the food disposal is good for flushing toilets.
Can also be used for spot watering in the yard.
I also have built walls in yard to retain all runoff and divert runoff from neighbor's yard to water my trees. I am hoping that HD Lanscaping stores will have the wall building stones on sale as they are closing. And some non-grass ground cover.
Associated with this is extensive use of mulch around all plants.
"Free" water is available if you use you brain and muscles.
I try to give full meaning to the word "conservative."
As level drops, Atlanta faces the fact that its main water supply is no longer a sure thing.
my reply:
I have found a way to drive my water usage to one unit per month -- I recycle water to flush toilets. The grey water from the washing machine and dish washer plus all sinks except the one with the food disposal is good for flushing toilets.
Can also be used for spot watering in the yard.
I also have built walls in yard to retain all runoff and divert runoff from neighbor's yard to water my trees. I am hoping that HD Lanscaping stores will have the wall building stones on sale as they are closing. And some non-grass ground cover.
Associated with this is extensive use of mulch around all plants.
"Free" water is available if you use you brain and muscles.
I try to give full meaning to the word "conservative."
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Current events and you
9/17/2007
And now for one of those current events columns you like so much -- you know, the ones that use "lessons for IT" as a pretext for spouting off (the last for awhile, too -- I promise!):
Topic #1: Global Warming. If you're interested in the politicization of global warming, read The Truth About Denial, (Sharon Begley Newsweek 2007Aug13). It reveals how, over more than twenty years, companies in the energy industry created and disseminated disinformation on the subject -- funding think-tanks, phony grassroots organizations, and pay-for-publication schemes that turned fringe scientists into freelance writers rather than researchers.
If the distinction isn't clear: Research grants require scientists to investigate a topic, not to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Lesson for IT: Yes, there is a lesson for IT -- a real one. An ExxonMobile-funded think-tank offered scientists a paltry $10,000 to write global-warming-denial papers earlier this year. Much more than $10K changes hands when technology vendors subscribe to services from the various IT research firms. Connect the dots.
Topic #2: Funding infrastructure maintenance. Earlier columns on the subject led quite a few readers to suggest there is plenty of money. The problem, they said, is setting the right priorities.
Subtopic A -- Priorities: Those complaining about bad priorities were right on the money, as it were. According to Funding for bridges served with side of pork, (Kevin Diaz StarTribune 2007Sep13) pork exceeded kosher spending in the Senate's transportation appropriations bill by a factor of 1.5 to 1. "Pork served with side of funding for bridges," would have been a more suitable headline.
Lesson for IT: Businesses spend on pork, too. Even barely profitable businesses frequently "invest" in pet projects (earmarks, if you will) whose only value is scratching the itch of an influential executive. If you work in a company that funds lots of earmarks, lobbying for your share is a required skill. Playing this game is bad enough. Losing is worse.
Subtopic B -- Is there enough money? The recent Senate appropriations bill allocated $2.5 billion. That's roughly a quarter of what will be needed annually for the next 20 years, according to the best estimates I've read.
This year's projected federal deficit is $200 billion, not including the government's considerable off-book spending. It's the smallest since 2001. Unless you think there is enough waste to eliminate this deficit we need a serious redefinition of "enough."
Lesson for IT: Business leaders often make the same argument to IT -- "your budget is enough if you just set better priorities."
It isn't only government that's often governed by wishful thinking coupled with rationalization. I recently heard an off-the-record account of a company that turned down IT's request for funding to protect it against data loss. After a bunch of highly sensitive data went missing, guess what the CIO heard? Hint: It wasn't, "I guess we should have funded your request."
Subtopic C -- Asymmetric investment: The cost of overbuilding a bridge is the cost. The cost of under-building a bridge is, as Bill Beery explained in a perceptive letter, the cost of replacing the bridge.
On the other hand, as was pointed out in this space in Cottonwood now or hardwood too late? (Keep the Joint Running 2003Apr28), sometimes a cheap solution is the right answer, as it gets you to business benefit faster. The logic: Get the benefit enough sooner and it more than pays for the cost of rebuilding a better system later on.
Lesson for IT: You can't strike the right balance between investment in infrastructure and investment in immediate business functionality by applying a simplistic rule. Too little infrastructure means business functionality becomes unnecessarily expensive, unwieldy and fragile. Too much infrastructure and the business becomes slow, stodgy, and top-heavy.
Topic #3: Second-guessing can be more important than guessing: Sometimes, forecasting matters less than accurately forecasting the forecast. Commodities traders, for example, don't need to forecast the weather. They need to forecast what the weather bureau will forecast, as former meteorologist and commodities-trading-company employee Steve Kauffman points out. That's because the weather bureau's forecasts drive commodities prices, so accurate forecasts of those forecasts turn into highly profitable trades.
Lesson for IT: CIOs who are good at forecasting the forecast will know whether to spend early or spend late. If you expect a bad year, spend early so they can't take your budget away from you. If, on the other hand, you expect a good year, spend early, because you can ask for more budget later on.
Oh, wait ...
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
And now for one of those current events columns you like so much -- you know, the ones that use "lessons for IT" as a pretext for spouting off (the last for awhile, too -- I promise!):
Topic #1: Global Warming. If you're interested in the politicization of global warming, read The Truth About Denial, (Sharon Begley Newsweek 2007Aug13). It reveals how, over more than twenty years, companies in the energy industry created and disseminated disinformation on the subject -- funding think-tanks, phony grassroots organizations, and pay-for-publication schemes that turned fringe scientists into freelance writers rather than researchers.
If the distinction isn't clear: Research grants require scientists to investigate a topic, not to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Lesson for IT: Yes, there is a lesson for IT -- a real one. An ExxonMobile-funded think-tank offered scientists a paltry $10,000 to write global-warming-denial papers earlier this year. Much more than $10K changes hands when technology vendors subscribe to services from the various IT research firms. Connect the dots.
Topic #2: Funding infrastructure maintenance. Earlier columns on the subject led quite a few readers to suggest there is plenty of money. The problem, they said, is setting the right priorities.
Subtopic A -- Priorities: Those complaining about bad priorities were right on the money, as it were. According to Funding for bridges served with side of pork, (Kevin Diaz StarTribune 2007Sep13) pork exceeded kosher spending in the Senate's transportation appropriations bill by a factor of 1.5 to 1. "Pork served with side of funding for bridges," would have been a more suitable headline.
Lesson for IT: Businesses spend on pork, too. Even barely profitable businesses frequently "invest" in pet projects (earmarks, if you will) whose only value is scratching the itch of an influential executive. If you work in a company that funds lots of earmarks, lobbying for your share is a required skill. Playing this game is bad enough. Losing is worse.
Subtopic B -- Is there enough money? The recent Senate appropriations bill allocated $2.5 billion. That's roughly a quarter of what will be needed annually for the next 20 years, according to the best estimates I've read.
This year's projected federal deficit is $200 billion, not including the government's considerable off-book spending. It's the smallest since 2001. Unless you think there is enough waste to eliminate this deficit we need a serious redefinition of "enough."
Lesson for IT: Business leaders often make the same argument to IT -- "your budget is enough if you just set better priorities."
It isn't only government that's often governed by wishful thinking coupled with rationalization. I recently heard an off-the-record account of a company that turned down IT's request for funding to protect it against data loss. After a bunch of highly sensitive data went missing, guess what the CIO heard? Hint: It wasn't, "I guess we should have funded your request."
Subtopic C -- Asymmetric investment: The cost of overbuilding a bridge is the cost. The cost of under-building a bridge is, as Bill Beery explained in a perceptive letter, the cost of replacing the bridge.
On the other hand, as was pointed out in this space in Cottonwood now or hardwood too late? (Keep the Joint Running 2003Apr28), sometimes a cheap solution is the right answer, as it gets you to business benefit faster. The logic: Get the benefit enough sooner and it more than pays for the cost of rebuilding a better system later on.
Lesson for IT: You can't strike the right balance between investment in infrastructure and investment in immediate business functionality by applying a simplistic rule. Too little infrastructure means business functionality becomes unnecessarily expensive, unwieldy and fragile. Too much infrastructure and the business becomes slow, stodgy, and top-heavy.
Topic #3: Second-guessing can be more important than guessing: Sometimes, forecasting matters less than accurately forecasting the forecast. Commodities traders, for example, don't need to forecast the weather. They need to forecast what the weather bureau will forecast, as former meteorologist and commodities-trading-company employee Steve Kauffman points out. That's because the weather bureau's forecasts drive commodities prices, so accurate forecasts of those forecasts turn into highly profitable trades.
Lesson for IT: CIOs who are good at forecasting the forecast will know whether to spend early or spend late. If you expect a bad year, spend early so they can't take your budget away from you. If, on the other hand, you expect a good year, spend early, because you can ask for more budget later on.
Oh, wait ...
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
the tag file
Computer Associates - CA -
Superior Software by Acquisition -
Binyamin Dissen bdissen at dissensoftware dot com
The causes of greatness
9/10/2007
Depending on the business expert I'm listening to and the day of the week, I know three truths:
From first-hand observation I know that when it comes to Information Technology organizations:
Which is to say, if you want an organization that works, you'll get more leverage from hiring great employees than from any other single effort you can undertake.
Great employees can overcome organizational deficiencies to deliver useful results. They can't, by themselves deliver a great organization. That takes a lot more.
The question of what makes a great organization tick is rife with superficial thinking. The usual approach is what you might call the "Tom Peters Fallacy":
As far as I can determine, there is no one characteristic that by itself can make an organization great.
Well, okay -- there is one: excellent leadership. That only works because I define "excellent leadership" as "Doing everything required to build a great organization," thereby begging the question.
So ... what is required to make an organization great, as opposed to simply functioning?
Leadership: A great organization does start with strong leadership, in a non-question-begging way. If there's no direction -- no focus, no goals, no plan, no definition of excellence, no clearly stated expectations for employees to live up to; no alignment of purpose and standards -- the employees will keep things going, but not much more than that.
Great employees: Not every employee has to be a superstar, although all must be competent. Great organizations do need enough top-notch performers to demonstrate that high standards are achievable, not theoretical.
Focus on achievement: The definition of "great employee" has been diluted through too many managers reading about "emotional intelligence." Employees who are focused on getting along will concentrate on how irritating their colleagues are. Employees who are focused on achievement will value their colleagues' contributions and ignore their eccentricities.
Teamwork: Just as the definition of "great employee" can't ignore the importance of serious technical ability, it also can't ignore the importance of working and playing well with others, and of providing leadership in the trenches.
Willingness to innovate: This is IT we're talking about. Information technology. The field where if you can buy it, it is obsolete by definition. IT organizations and everyone who works in them must be willing to try new technologies, processes and practices ... and even more important must be driven to constantly find improvements to the ones already in production ... or they stagnate.
Willingness to not innovate: "State of the art" means "doesn't work right yet." Most of the time, the work required of IT is best achieved by extending what you have, not by chasing whatever is being hyped in this year's press releases, aided and abetted by publications hungry for advertising revenue.
Evidence-based decision-making: Great organizations make decisions through the use of evidence and logic, not wishful thinking and listening to one's intestines.
You'll note the usual buzzwords are notably absent. Governance, ITIL, CMM and all the other processes and practices (I used to call them Processes and processes) that are supposed to lead to inexorable success don't, in fact, lead to excellence.
Excellent IT organizations do have them. Even more important, they are kept in their proper place -- as useful tools that help employees be as effective as possible.
The best woodworkers have band saws, coping saws, lathes and routers in their workshops, and not just hammers and chisels, but their tools aren't what make them the best.
Great IT organizations are the same. They practice good governance; follow consistent application maintenance, enhancement, design and testing methodologies; adhere to clearly defined change control procedures; and otherwise avoid making things up as they go along.
Their processes and practices are important. They are, however, merely the signs of a great IT organization.
They are not its cause.
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
Depending on the business expert I'm listening to and the day of the week, I know three truths:
- Good employees who work together as a team outperform great employees who don't.
- Good employees with great processes outperform great employees with bad processes.
- If an employee is irreplaceable you should immediately fire that employee.
From first-hand observation I know that when it comes to Information Technology organizations:
- Great employees can and do overcome bad processes.
- Great employees can and do overcome lousy managers.
- Great employees can and do pull along mediocre teams.
- Making one or two great hires is the most critical step in turning around an underperforming organization.
- Well-designed processes can be pretty useful, too.
Which is to say, if you want an organization that works, you'll get more leverage from hiring great employees than from any other single effort you can undertake.
Great employees can overcome organizational deficiencies to deliver useful results. They can't, by themselves deliver a great organization. That takes a lot more.
The question of what makes a great organization tick is rife with superficial thinking. The usual approach is what you might call the "Tom Peters Fallacy":
- Find a great organization.
- Identify a trait in that organization you like.
- Decide that this trait is what makes that organization great.
- Declare that this trait is the panacea for all other organizations.
As far as I can determine, there is no one characteristic that by itself can make an organization great.
Well, okay -- there is one: excellent leadership. That only works because I define "excellent leadership" as "Doing everything required to build a great organization," thereby begging the question.
So ... what is required to make an organization great, as opposed to simply functioning?
Leadership: A great organization does start with strong leadership, in a non-question-begging way. If there's no direction -- no focus, no goals, no plan, no definition of excellence, no clearly stated expectations for employees to live up to; no alignment of purpose and standards -- the employees will keep things going, but not much more than that.
Great employees: Not every employee has to be a superstar, although all must be competent. Great organizations do need enough top-notch performers to demonstrate that high standards are achievable, not theoretical.
Focus on achievement: The definition of "great employee" has been diluted through too many managers reading about "emotional intelligence." Employees who are focused on getting along will concentrate on how irritating their colleagues are. Employees who are focused on achievement will value their colleagues' contributions and ignore their eccentricities.
Teamwork: Just as the definition of "great employee" can't ignore the importance of serious technical ability, it also can't ignore the importance of working and playing well with others, and of providing leadership in the trenches.
Willingness to innovate: This is IT we're talking about. Information technology. The field where if you can buy it, it is obsolete by definition. IT organizations and everyone who works in them must be willing to try new technologies, processes and practices ... and even more important must be driven to constantly find improvements to the ones already in production ... or they stagnate.
Willingness to not innovate: "State of the art" means "doesn't work right yet." Most of the time, the work required of IT is best achieved by extending what you have, not by chasing whatever is being hyped in this year's press releases, aided and abetted by publications hungry for advertising revenue.
Evidence-based decision-making: Great organizations make decisions through the use of evidence and logic, not wishful thinking and listening to one's intestines.
You'll note the usual buzzwords are notably absent. Governance, ITIL, CMM and all the other processes and practices (I used to call them Processes and processes) that are supposed to lead to inexorable success don't, in fact, lead to excellence.
Excellent IT organizations do have them. Even more important, they are kept in their proper place -- as useful tools that help employees be as effective as possible.
The best woodworkers have band saws, coping saws, lathes and routers in their workshops, and not just hammers and chisels, but their tools aren't what make them the best.
Great IT organizations are the same. They practice good governance; follow consistent application maintenance, enhancement, design and testing methodologies; adhere to clearly defined change control procedures; and otherwise avoid making things up as they go along.
Their processes and practices are important. They are, however, merely the signs of a great IT organization.
They are not its cause.
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
The great KJR link point
Have a subject you'd like the author to cover in KJR or Advice Line? Drop him a line and let him know. What - you think he has all the good ideas himself? Bob Lewis is president of IT Catalysts, Inc. ( http://www.itcatalysts.com/ ) an independent consultancy specializing in IT effectiveness and strategic alignment. Contact him at rdlewis@issurvivor.com.
Don't leave him sitting here in a vacuum!
If you think he's full of beans, let him know. The address is Letters@ISSurvivor.com. Or, if you need advice, ask for it at Advice@ISSurvivor.com.
He sometimes use reader letters in his columns. The rules:
If you like this article, why not let a friend enjoy it, too? It's fine with the author, and in fact he'd be flattered. All he asks is that you send the whole thing, including this notice. But don't be shy ... if you think they'd like it, don't you think they should see it? But only those people - you wouldn't want him to get a reputation as a spammer, would you?
To Subscribe, visit http://www.issurvivor.com/registerKJR.asp
Don't leave him sitting here in a vacuum!
If you think he's full of beans, let him know. The address is Letters@ISSurvivor.com. Or, if you need advice, ask for it at Advice@ISSurvivor.com.
He sometimes use reader letters in his columns. The rules:
- In your letter, let him know if and how he can use it (as is, sanitized, or don't be ridiculous - you'll be found out and run out of town).
- Also let him know if you'd prefer to remain completely anonymous, or whether he may give you credit by name.
- All letters and responses are the property of IS Survivor Publishing, division of IT Catalysts, Inc.
If you like this article, why not let a friend enjoy it, too? It's fine with the author, and in fact he'd be flattered. All he asks is that you send the whole thing, including this notice. But don't be shy ... if you think they'd like it, don't you think they should see it? But only those people - you wouldn't want him to get a reputation as a spammer, would you?
To Subscribe, visit http://www.issurvivor.com/registerKJR.asp
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
the future is now - you have been warned
The Globally Integrated Enterprise - Samuel J. Palmisano is Chair of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of IBM Foreign affairs 2006May/June
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)