BusinessForward

By John Huckle, Founder & CEO, BusinessForward

Sometime in 1603, a fictional Danish prince was having a truly bad day.

Trying to survive a terrible tragedy in the midst of ghosts, spies, poison, rotten relatives and a frisky mom, he contemplates his options for dealing with a cast of nefarious characters. It’s a time of great change and he wanders around supremely confused and angry.  It doesn’t end well.

While not nearly as dramatic as Hamlet, the agony of making the best business decision when faced with the chaotic process of change is a very familiar scene in to the CIO.  To avoid descent into madness, consultants often borrow from the Bard to describe certain organizational states or goals to help ease the situation.

Recently, we had the opportunity to work with the IT organization of a client who was at the final stages of a merger/acquisition.  This is the point in the complex plotline of business growth that often means finally focusing on the folks who keep things running in IT.  Top of mind was integrating different platforms and legacy operations, so they had solid goals around what their tools were to be.  They had firm plans around what their environment was to be.  They had expectations around what their costs were to be.

All of those decisions, conversations, and plans made a lot of sense in the bits and bytes world of technology.  But in reality, to make the To Be happen at all, there needed to be a focus on who and what the people involved Should Be from both sides of the merging IT organizations. From our third-party perspective, we could see trouble brewing.

As with any cast of characters, there were a lot of different personalities involved. A team member from the IT organization serving financial services was promoted to his first-ever management position. Though he was smart, and happy to accept the position, leadership assigned him a To Be goal of leading and integrating two completely siloed IT groups in two geographical locations to provide some continuity. A complex endeavor to even the most season manager.

This was misplaced thinking on the part of the IT leadership. They needed to consider other aspects first of the change first. Tough questions were in order:

Should a new manager be tasked with integrating the team AND integrating the tools?

The answer, was evident in the first meeting we facilitated. Interpreting the body language was faster than any technology. Staff from one side of the merged company sat on one side of the room and staff from the other side of the merged company sat on the other. It was so apparent that before any platform was examined, this disparate team needed to be synthesized. But as often happens in tech roles or job descriptions, the focus was not on getting the PEOPLE transitioned before a single key stroke. What was clearly needed in the manager’s job description was cultural integration that would support a common working model.

Should we really focus on integrating the team or unifying them?

The team needed to use a shared language and respond to customers the same way. But each group brought different skills and served different types of customers and needs.  As with many things, what made sense on paper was a lot more daunting in reality. In this case, when we dug deeper, there needed to be an honest assessment of how team structure should work.

So, was the client set up for success to achieve their To Be once we helped them understand the Should Be?  Not yet. One more step.

With all of the focus on tools and future goals, the capabilities of  human beings who make it all happen might get lost in translation. Very few IT organizations think about whether their greatest resource-people, not technology- can perform in the roles that they are assigned.  Going back to our example, did those who promoted this manager even think through his capabilities to execute their plan?  They needed to ask themselves, can he understand how to lead the people through the Should Be to get to the To Be?”

From my perspective as a third party, it was clear he didn’t have people skills to get there. Unfortunately it was a familiar story.

I observed the new manager lead a conference call with all of the team members from both companies. As each team spoke separately, I watched him navigating disgruntled IMs with people around the room and on the other end of the phone, playing both sides of the fence throughout the conversation. He was an appeaser. This is great when your child wants more ice cream and you’re tired, but not so much for a multimillion dollar IT integration. It’s a matter of trust and experience when navigating the sea of emotions people feel when going through this common and complex business process.

Here is why this matters. In the landscape of data and the people who manage the core services of IT, CIOs are asking their generals to do some very aggressive, strategic and certainly very important things. From a personal perspective, maybe leaders themselves are tasked with chores unfit or unready for their roles too. They may lack the vantage point of knowing what is expected of them a level below and may not know what their customers want.

Regardless of the reason, and with all due respect to him, Shakespeare wouldn’t have made a good CIO. For, “To be or not to be” is not the only question. When thinking through the best roles for people and goals for an IT organization, this is just the beginning. Getting stuck in the To Be without thought around what Should Be and what Can Be is folly.

John Huckle founded BusinessForward in 2006 with a belief in the power of empathy-driven consulting. He had a vision that consulting companies could and should offer customers real and lasting change. With a focus on innovating services to continually improve the personal and professional lives of customers, BusinessForward has saved businesses over $500 million and generated over $250 million in revenue, all while producing an average 20% increase in customer and employee satisfaction. Drop him a line at jhuckle@businessforward.com.