The dark, middle and current ages of IT organisations

In the dark ages, your position in an IT organisation was determined by how many systems and people you controlled. This was a useful proxy for money, of course, but the real deal was how big an impact things had when they went wrong. If you were “mission critical”, boy were you safe in your position.

In the middle ages, your position in an IT organisation was determined by how many important relationships with the business you were in charge of. The more directors, and executive directors, and board members rank and file in IT had to get your permission to talk to, the more important you were. This was the age of IT relationship management. Only the specially anointed ones could be trusted to give the “right messages” to the business, and they made sure to reinforce their absolute control of the lines of communication.

In the current age, your position in an IT organisation is directly proportional to how much change you can cause to happen. And people who are seen to be able to “get things done” get asked by everyone around the place to do just that.

This, of course, is very unnerving to the middle ages hierarchy, whose modus operandi (if they wish to ensure they retain their positions) is to make sure no change happens unless they have personally agreed that its “the right thing for the business”. They have to have this say-so, of course, because otherwise, they don’t have any position at all.

And it is doubly unnerving for the dark ages hierarchy, who try to stop all change because they are there to “protect service” or “managing uptime”. For these people, retention of their positions is determined by how good they are at saying no to everything.

Here is an interesting diagnostic question: how happy are you with your prospects for progression in your IT organisation? If you feel stuck at the bottom of the heap, struggling always to get noticed, I bet you work in a dark ages IT hierarchy. Those are places where longevity of service is the only way to progress.

On the other hand, if you’ve got a quite good manager, who cares about you, thanks you for your efforts,  but despite everything can’t offer you very much progression you’re likely to be stuck in a middle ages IT hierarchy somewhere. They can’t offer you very much progression, by the way, because it would imply giving up control of some relationships, and that would imply reducing their own positions. Here, your progression is determined by how quickly those above you resign.

My suggestion if you work in either of these kinds of organisations is to take a gamble. Take a gamble on driving change no matter what your managers think. The worst thing that can happen is you’ll be fired. But, lets face it, if you’re wanting a big career in IT, you’ll be leaving anyway for an organisation that wants what you have... is there any downside here, really?

Comments

[Stephen]

Often the change agent is brought into an organisation that is still living in a dark or middle age with a remit to drive things forward.

The existing management team can have extensive experience of running the business but not possess the leadership skills or personal courage or motivation to actually change it.

Organisations say they want change but this can threaten the status quo and many will ask – ‘What is in it for them?’

Barriers to change can exist at many levels within an organisation and a complex power struggle can ensue between those who are for and against. Many just stand back and watch offering little contribution.

For the change agent, it is on his silicon chip to lead, take personal risks, create energy, drive things forward and motivate change; other people within the organisation can be motivated by their own wants and needs e.g. a quiet life or maintaining a power base.

The change agent does everything he can to bring people on board, secure buy-in and create a sense of direction, but ultimately there will be a number of people within the organisation who will resist, thwart or just pay lip service to what is proposed.

Transformational change requires strong leadership from the very top of the organisation supported by wide engagement from those who will bring it about and make it happen.

I have observed in some organisations that often the people at the top and the bottom are desperate for change, but there can often be a layer of management in the middle who fail to engage and truly lead – often (not always) it can be those with many years of service in managing things but not actually experienced in changing them. There are also those who have just lost their passion and are just waiting for, or working towards a retirement package.

In modern management terms we are all taught about communication, collaboration, and engagement, but ultimately the Change Agent needs still to be wise to the older methods of management including Sun Tzu and Machiavelli as these can often be the skills of their opponent.

Senior executives who bring in change agents must ‘walk the talk’ and support the change agent by strengthening the cause for change and weakening, and in some cases eliminating those forces against.

In my own sphere of work often working as a change agent, I have stopped using words like ‘change’ or ‘status quo’, I now say to people ‘How can we make this world (read organisation) a better place’, I find it can give a more positive slant, help motivate people and get them on board.

I also think these new web 2.0 collaboration tools are very useful to the change agent in terms of bringing things out into the open, creating consensus and a ground swell for change, by giving people at any level within the hierarchy a voice.

I like Don Tapscott’s view in his video on ‘Corporate Culture’ where he says ‘the best form of disinfectant for a (potentially) dysfunctional organisation is sunlight’.

[Jon Ayre (The Enterprising Architect)]

For fear of being immodest I would be fairly comfortable in saying that I fit the current age model in my present role, having made significant "impossible" changes within the business specifically in ways of working (and not surprisingly given my profession) in Business Architecture.

And yes, this has led to everyone asking me to do everything - a double edged sword, as those who want you are also very unhappy when you move on to new things, as I am scheduled to do at the end of the month. I would call it a severe case of Business-Bungee - no matter how hard I pull away I just bounce right back in again.

But I guess I should take that as a complement of sorts.

My wife recently said (in the style of Princess Di) "there are three of us in this marriage. Me, You and the Business" :-)

At the end of the day, however, the current age is definitely the best place to be, as it is clearly the most interesting and invigorating.

Regards
The Enterprising Architect
http://theenterprisingarchitect.blogspot.com

[James Gardner]

So what strategy, Stephen, would you recommend in dealing with those in the middle who *don't* want change? Firing them? Educating them? Motivating them? There is indeed a problem here, and it is that the middle you refer to is so large in number that you'd have to be programmatic to get any reaction at all. Not really the best thing, I think.

[Stephen]

There are many levers for change - including the ones you have mentioned.

It requires a multi-faceted approach that should be planned and managed consciously.

The biggest risk for the change agent is that he expends all his energy bringing the horses to water, just to find they won’t take a drink.

[AMP Mills]

Excellent post James and very timely.

After running my own business for 7 years (from inception through VC investment up to acquisition) I took 6 months off and then decided to rejoin the working world and lead a stress-free life (that was 18 months ago). Despite my best efforts to avoid "rocking the boat" I find myself mired in politics and being the "change agent" you describe. I can honestly say it wasn't something I looked for but those around me kept coming to me to express their problems and eventually I was drawn in.

It's an interesting (and stressful) time, the business wants the change as they see new revenue streams emerging but the upper echelon of tech view it as a threat and a personal insult. Unfortunately, in this situation, I know it will end with me walking away. Pleased with what I managed to achieve but disappointed with the way it ends.