How Information Systems Are Increasingly Set Up by Everybody but the IT Department

“Kill that bulky IT department!”. That could be the war cry of many organizations these days as the influence and size of IT departments tend to diminish significantly. As a result, they don’t have the same regulation impact on investment in Information Technologies.

Two related changes are driving this transformation:

  • the move to the Cloud (and thus the lesser need for infrastructure setup and maintenance), and
  • the related fact that other departments can now spend directly for systems without any infrastructure infrastructure needs and thus without any prior authorization or even knowledge by the IT department

it_spendAccording to Gartner, 38% of IT spend in companies is now out of the hands of the IT departments and this tends to increase significantly over time [reference: attended speech from CapGemini CEO in Oct 2016]. The marketing department in particular for BtoC industries, becomes a major client for information services.

This decentralisation has many positives. In particular it removes the centralizing controlling power of the CIO which was oftentimes excessive, even taking strategic decisions without proper understanding of the business impact. It allows specialist trades to implement the tools that they really require. On the other hand it opens the door to issues related to data consistency, possibilities of business intelligence, and all sorts of security-related issues for company data. Actual control of the expenditure may also become an issue as more and more cloud services are Opex based instead of being visible, centrally authorized Capex.

In any case, for us involved in providing specialist software (cf my company ProjectAppServices), it certainly means that all our marketing effort should be directly with the user, and the IT department is just an annoyance to avoid as much as possible.

Are you fully aware of this change? If your IT department still decides everything you are going into the wall. Time to change!

 

Share

Why Social Media Presence is a Now a Must

Using social media today is not anymore an option. And this is the case as well in the professional world. If you don’t have any presence on Facebook or LinkedIn, or a minimum proficiency in social media, you look outdated and inadequate in the new world of work.

social_mediaLet’s thus face reality: you have to have an online presence in the world today to exist.

It is not any more adequate to take a position of ‘non interest’ or ‘privacy defense’ to justify not to use social media. Not having any social media account to relate to brands or interests will increasingly become a handicap in the world of work and beyond.

We are not obliged to share the most intimate details of our lives or the faces of our children. But a minimum online presence around our interests, and the maintenance of a minimum social network, is now a must.

Strong message for all of you that have not yet started using social media!

Hat tip to Paul Hermelin, Cap Gemini CEO, for inspiring this post from his remarks at a conference.

Share

How Large Companies are Actually Large Ego Boosters

I have lately had the opportunity to work at high level in a number of very large companies and I am struck how the social system of these companies is a machine to inflate egos.

egoIt may be due to the fact that in the selection process that presides over the choice of executives and senior managers, having a large ego (and its substantiation by a large company car, a corner office, a pretty secretary, a super tight calendar that can’t allow meeting for the next 3 months…) is  a discriminating factor that fosters promotion.

Anyway, this has two consequences

  • ego being tied to the job title and the associated deference within the organization, the transition will be very hard if moved out of the job or when retiring
  • as top managers will be significantly ego-driven, this may lead to derailment in decision-making with regard to the best interest of the company.

I certainly hope that over time, the organization of the Collaborative Age will be significantly less ego-driven and ego-fostering. Its less pyramidal shape, its openness should provide the necessary antidote.

Share

How Men and Women Employment Will Be Shaped in the Collaborative Age

While the shifts in the employment market show an increase in women taking part to the economy, it is by no means putting in question completely the role of men (see our previous post ‘Would Manhood be Destroyed by the Collaborative Age?‘). But a shift will happen with women increasingly taking salaried employment and men developing ‘artisan’ self-employment.

The factory worker, retired early 21st century
The factory worker, retired early 21st century

This substantial change, is developed in an interesting article in Playboy (which does seem to include serious papers as well!) ‘Forum: A Path for Blue-Collar Workers in the 21st Century‘ which is also commented on Marginal Revolution ‘Is there economic hope for men?

In substance, this post states that “the ways men and women fit into the economy will come to complement each other. Their roles will change, in some ways becoming more traditional and in others less: Women may be likelier to spend their careers in nine-to-five corporate positions, enjoying the regular hours, benefits and predictable pay those jobs entail. Forty-nine percent of women already work in firms with more than 500 employees, compared with 43 percent of men, and their share of the corporate pie is growing. That certainty will empower men to take on less predictable but possibly higher-paying work in self-employment.”

This is a trend I observe in my small circle of entrepreneur-friends: often the man is the entrepreneur while the woman has a stable job that provides for the family until the venture creates value.

The author continues as an apt conclusion, “A world in which men strive to learn new skills and take on riskier, entrepreneurial household roles may even prove more fulfilling than office work—but this requires changing our definition of a “good job.” Expecting men to be better-educated, office-work-oriented breadwinners is an outmoded idea. The artisan of the future will still be skilled and possess just as much potential to provide for his family. The technological revolution is yet another turn in the cycle of economic progress, and workers of both genders must learn to adapt. The end of men is not nigh; the end of our dated notion of work, however, is.”

Share

Would Manhood be Destroyed by the Collaborative Age?

There appears to be a number of publications about the loss of power by men in the new society, and the fact it may be a major causes of the current crisis.

Traditional Industrial Age manhood
Traditional Industrial Age manhood

One of the major pieces is a 2010 essay in The Atlantic ‘The End of Men‘ that describes how woman are taking power since the 1970s (since the wide adoption of birth control, noted by us as a key contributor to the Fourth Revolution) and how men have now lost their traditional identity of bread winner for the family. The piece even describes how active discrimination is needed to get enough men into university as women would be much more successful academically.

But these statements can sometimes go a bit over the top like in that Marginal Revolution post ‘What the hell is going on?‘ where the loss of manhood is suggested to the at the root of many contemporary political woes (“The contemporary world is not very well built for a large chunk of males“).

There is definitely a rebalancing act between men and women happening, and it is true that a lot of the blue collar jobs lost to the Fourth Revolution transformation were traditionally held by men, which creates some identity crisis. We should however probably not go to the opposite statement. After all, Silicon Valley is still struggling to get a fair share of women in startups.

Share

What New Institutions Are Needed for The New World of Work

The new world of work – sometimes dismissively called ‘Uber-ized’ – will require new institutions. This post from Quartz ‘How to make an Uber-ized economy work in America‘ provides some interesting clues.

uber protestBecoming a contractor is an increasing trend: “[Independent contractors] share of total employment is rising, from 9% to almost 16% between 2005 and 2015. And it’s not just low-skill, uber-drivers turning to contract work out of desperation—the increase in alternative work spans all education levels. Americans with a college degree are most likely to be contract workers, and this group saw the biggest gains. Contingent work has also become more common across a variety of industries and occupations.”

One of the main issues with the fact that we will become increasingly contractors is to manage the risk of a sudden loss of revenue; and more generally, the ups and downs of income depending on how often we provide our services. This is a problem I am managing in my consulting company, voluntarily keeping a substantial share of earnings in the company to cope with periods with lower utilization. De facto, the company is being used as an income insurance buffer. It might not be the most efficient way, but it works.

The Quartz post proposes that the state could setup a ‘wage insurance’ against substantial drop of income to cover those extreme events that can really derail one’s life. This could be a very useful institution for the Collaborative Age, together with some sort of collective health and life insurance.

What other institutions could we think of for the Collaborative Age?

Share

Why Power and Ownership Get Concentrated in Today’s World

Power and ownership get concentrated into a few hands. This is clearly shown in the TED talk of James B. Glattfelder: ‘Who controls the world?‘. In this 2012 talk, he shows by analyzing the ownership links between various global companies how a limited number of financial institutions control most of the economy.

global-controlThis is not surprising and is the natural consequence of the evolution of the complex, increasingly inter-related economic system. We should not be surprised and still it is an issue from the governance and political perspective.

It turns out that the 737 top shareholders have the potential to collectively control 80 percent of the Trans National Companies (TNCs)’ value. Now remember, we started out with 600,000 nodes, so these 737 top players make up a bit more than 0.1 percent. They’re mostly financial institutions in the U.S. and the U.K. And it gets even more extreme. There are 146 top players in the core, and they together have the potential to collectively control 40 percent of the TNCs’ value.”

This kind of studies produced the concept of “systemic” or “too big to fail” institutions. We may take regulatory measures to limit the phenomenon, but it is intrinsic to the increased complexity of the world. So my view is that we should rather learn how to deal with it.

Share

How Offices Will Increasingly Become Collaboration Spaces Only

As a small consulting company we don’t have an ‘Office’. We have meeting points (cafes, sometimes a rented meeting room). That might well be the trend in the future, with offices becoming exclusive collaboration spaces, bringing together a team temporarily for a joint effort.

office of the futureWhy should we have an office and pay for the space? We are mainly working at clients’ offices and often staying at hotels. We can work from anywhere with 4G connectivity. A home office is sufficient for remote work when needed. This has drawbacks of course, such as loneliness sometimes. I have to recognize that this model is still non-traditional and we face sometimes misunderstanding by authorities and clients. But I strongly believe it is the future of work.

In the future the traditional office, if linked to controlling the time people spend at work, and as a private territorial space might well disappear. Even at the executive level (people that generally are travelling a lot) the concept of private office tends to be replaced by hot desks.

At the same time, the importance of offices as collaboration spaces will increase, because teamwork is always essential at creating value. But we don’t necessarily need to be collaborating all the time; we also need quiet time to deliver. Office space needs to be shaped for collaboration, but less so for private space, which can be conveniently found in other places closer to home, with significant savings in time, convenience and the environment.

Do you agree with this trend and do you see it evolving around you?

Share

How Leadership Development Programs are Designed to Derail Those Who Believe in Them

The thought might be a bit extreme but is worthwhile considering: what if the leadership development programs were actually designed to filter out of the career progression those who really believe in them?

derailmentFollowing up on our review of  Jeffrey Pfeffer‘s book ‘Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time‘ (see our post ‘Why the Leadership Industry Is Failing‘, the author notes that in a typical career, “The critical time comes around twenty years [in the career], when, if successful, people have reached very senior hierarchical levels where everyone around them is smart and accomplished.”

He continues “At that point, the differentiating factor is the ability to navigate increasingly politically charged environments that are peopled by those who mostly do not fulfill the leadership industry’s prescriptions“. This inconsistency between the actual behavior of successful leaders and what is being taught in the programs is actually quite striking also from my own experience.

Hence it is almost a natural deduction that if we were to apply what is being taught in leadership development courses, we condemn ourselves to career failure. Of course reality is not as black and many leadership course instructors and developers have good intent. However the thought is worth considering. A certain degree of unconventionality is required in all cases.

How ‘unconventional’ are you in the way you lead?

Share

Why the Leadership Industry Is Failing

In the highly recommended book ‘Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time‘,  Jeffrey Pfeffer takes a very strong position on the failing of what he calls the “leadership industry” to produce the strong leaders organizations and society need.

LeaderBSMy conclusion that follows from these two sets of facts: The leadership industry has failed. Good intentions notwithstanding, there is precious little evidence that any of these recommendations have had a positive impact.

He started from an “observation: on the one hand, there is an ever-growing, enormous leadership industry consisting of an almost limitless number of books, articles, speeches, workshops, blogs, conferences, training sessions, and corporate leadership-development efforts, activities that have existed for decades. […]

The recommendations include, but are not limited to, that leaders inspire trust, be authentic, tell the truth, serve others (particularly those who work for and with them), be modest and self-effacing, exhibit empathic understanding and emotional intelligence, and other similar seemingly sensible nostrums.

And on the other hand, there sits ample, even overwhelming evidence of workplaces filled with disengaged, dissatisfied employees who do not trust their leaders and whose oft-expressed number one desire is to leave their current employer. What’s the upshot? Not only is the world filled with dysfunctional workplaces, but leaders themselves are not doing so well, as they confront shorter job tenures and an ever-higher probability of suffering career derailments and getting fired.

I am not too far from agreeing with this view. I am generally suspicious about mainstream ‘unanimity’ on concepts and approaches and I must say that leadership is an area of much concern. In future posts we will explore more this interesting observation and conclusion.

Share

How It Is Important to Remain Visible and Familiar

Following up on our previous post ‘Why Pure Performance Does Not Guarantee Success‘, one essential element is visibility.

high_visibilityKeeping visible is hugely important. As Jeffrey Pfeffer writes “The simple fact is that people like what they remember— and that includes you! In order for your great performance to be appreciated, it needs to be visible. But beyond visibility, the mere exposure research teaches us that familiarity produces preference. Simply put, in many cases, being memorable equals getting picked.”

Familiarity adds a layer of emotion on top of visibility, leading to being memorable.

This also explains, for example, why far-away assignments are often not conducive to promotions compared to assignments at headquarters. Or why, in terms of business development, familiarity is an essential objective of relationship development.

Stay visible, develop familiarity and become memorable. And then get picked!

Share

How to Scale Organizations Dealing with Complexity

Following up on General McChrystal‘s book ‘Team of Teams‘, the unique feature of the book is how it describes practically how to scale organizations that deal with complexity.

command_centerIn large complex projects I am used to see co-located teams of 150 to 200 people maximum that can manage huge projects. General McChrystal describes how he scaled a similar organization to deal with thousands of contributors and dozens of departments/agencies in a context of high complexity – war in Iraq.

The recipe is quite simple however it requires a lot of leadership consistency. The co-located team is limited to 100-150 people which is the maximum practically feasible. It mixes all departments and there is no secrecy within the team – all information is shared. Graphical displays show the situation as it unfolds. Exchanges between departments are organized to help people understand others’ approaches and points of view.

The result of setting up and running such an organization can be astounding in reactivity and nimbleness. There is not reason why it could not be adapted to civilian organizations. My guess is that the organization of the future will probably be some evolution of this model.

Share