A Valuable Lesson: Trust in People, the Rest Is Easy Copyright 1993 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 1993. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear,and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission.For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu A VALUABLE LESSON: TRUST IN PEOPLE, THE REST IS EASY by Bernard W. Gleason ABSTRACT: At the 1992 CAUSE Conference in Dallas, Texas, the association presented the third annual CAUSE ELITE Award for Exemplary Leadership and Information Technology Excellence to honor an outstanding professional in the field of information technology management in higher education. Recipient Bernard W. Gleason of Boston College addressed more than 1,300 information technology administrators during a luncheon at which he was honored. This article is a record of his remarks on that occasion, followed by CAUSE/EFFECT's interview with Gleason about innovative personnel changes he has made in Boston College's information technology organization. There is an old Irish saying, "Show me an Irishman without a cause and I'll show you an incomplete man." If this is true, then I have been doubly blessed--blessed by a twenty-year association with CAUSE and blessed by the ability to pursue my own cause at Boston College. That cause has been very simple: make Boston College an exemplary institution for the application of information technology in a liberal arts environment, and develop a superior support organization that is uniquely designed to satisfy the needs of our clients--faculty, students, and staff. I would like to express my gratitude to the award sponsor, Systems & Computer Technology Corporation (SCT), and the CAUSE staff, Board, and Recognition Committee. Through my association with CAUSE I have met and exchanged ideas with talented people from Alabama to Iowa to Arizona to Florida to Australia, who have made a significant impact on both my personal and professional growth. I had the privilege of serving on the CAUSE Board and consequently I got to know and appreciate the competence and professionalism of the CAUSE staff. I started working at BC exactly twenty-three years ago today. Since I also received my undergraduate degree from BC, it probably won't surprise you that I have designated Boston College as the recipient of the scholarship in my name. When you have worked as long as I have in one place, you accumulate a lot of warm memories and debts of gratitude. Whatever I have accomplished has been with the assistance of a lot of great people. I want to express my appreciation to everyone at Boston College, for this is their award as well, and accept it on behalf of the information technology staff and our user community. People and executive support are key Although we have implemented a number of innovative technological solutions at Boston College that have gained national attention, my proudest accomplishments have involved people. I have placed my trust in a talented group of professionals. They have responded with a willingness to look for different solutions and to cross over traditional technology boundaries. I'm sure every institution represented at this conference has similar multi-talented employees, who may be relatively low in the hierarchy, but are the guts of the organization--the people who make a real difference. My dream (vision) is to some day have a whole department of these creative and energetic employees. Another part of that dream is to have some way of recognizing the accomplishments of these individuals, maybe even at a national level, instead of individuals like myself garnering all the glory. For the past six years I have had what is arguably the easiest job of any director or VP of information technology at any major university. As we all know, information technology professionals walk a fine line between success and failure, and the ease or the difficulty of the job of the IT director is almost totally dependent on the level of executive support. I doubt that there are many other IT directors who have had the executive support that I have received over the past six years. Boston College has been one of the success stories in higher education. I have witnessed the evolution of a great university and taken satisfaction in the contribution that computing and communications has made to that growth. I'm the classic example of the right person being in the right place at the right time. Most of all I have learned one very valuable lesson--I have been able to attain a high degree of success because executive management trusted my basic instincts and allowed me to manage IT and to make decisions with little or no interference. In turn I've tried to provide the same level of latitude to others within the IT organization. The sweetest music to my ears is when I walk by a cube and I hear, "Hey Bernie, have you got a minute? l want to show you something and get your opinion. What do you think?" In fact, if someone in the IT organization comes to me with a good idea that is consistent with our vision and strategy, I'll give it my best Nike response, "Just do it!" At Boston College there is a cooperative spirit; one where people like and trust each other and are committed to the overall success of the university, not personal advancement. At this conference and in the trade press there has been a lot of talk about Total Quality Management (TQM). When I reflect on the principles of TQM--customer focus, process thinking, continuous improvement, doing it right the first time, team building, pride in the work, long-term vision, and so forth--it sounds to me like what has been going on at BC for a long time. Examples of the focus on quality are evident everywhere on our campus, not just in information technology. In the video, you saw beautiful grounds and lots of smiling faces.[1] The physical plant is Disneyland clean for the simple reason that the institution's commitment to overall quality filters down to all levels and the groundsmen take pride in their work. Not "more with less," but "different with different" Boston College is special, but it is subject to the same economic pressures as every other college and university. Information technology at BC is grappling with the same basic issues as everyone else. Lew Temares from the University of Miami, in a letter to the editor of EDUCOM Review last summer, captured the essence of the problem when he stated that we in information technology are being asked to "do more and more with less." And we must deal with what Lew characterizes as a "do this and do that" management style at a time when we are looking for support from executive management in the form of someone who can say "no." The hard truth is that the glory days of the 80s are over and we, as information technology managers, are going to have to find a way to say "yes." Perhaps the real challenge is not "more with less," but "different with different." If we are going to address the limited resources issue successfully, then a different approach to the management and development of our IT professional staffs better be at the top of our priority list. Almost a decade ago John Naisbitt's Mega-trends provided me with some subtle guidance: "Strategic planning is worthless--unless there is first a strategic vision." It is likely that we all share the same vision--the development of an integrated network environment where all members of the community utilize the network and have free and open access to all required information resources. Included in this vision should also be a view of the characteristics of the human resources necessary to support the emerging environment. System integrators: a new IT staff approach I've developed a very good relationship with BC's Vice President for Human Resources, and working with his department, I have been able to sell the principles of a flattened organization: the elimination of job grades in the classification system and the adoption of generic job descriptions. There is no longer a strata of job titles and grades that promote a hierarchical structure. The compensation system is totally merit-based and formal performance reviews are mandatory at least twice a year. In the mid-80s the need surfaced to consolidate computing and communications into a single organizational structure. In the future the delivery of integrated network services and different solutions will bring increasing pressure on an information technology organization to act as a single department, not as a loosely connected set of operating units. This refocused department will employ a new class of talented generalists, who will be able to respond to user requirements and be able to design and implement integrated network solutions. I anticipate that "systems integrator" will become the ubiquitous job title for professionals within the new information technology organization. As you can probably sense from my comments and from the video, I favor a participatory style of management. At the head of this flat organization will be the CIO of the 90s--the Chief Integration Officer. During the transition the CIO will need to provide a leadership style that sets a direction and demonstrates trust by encouraging staff to exercise initiative and innovation without fear of failure. Whether I am correct about what I foresee only time will determine. One thing that I can say for certain is that I've had a lot of fun over the past twenty-three years pursuing my convictions and ideas, and seeing them implemented at Boston College. The result is that this Boston Irishman stands before you complete, and deeply honored to be the recipient of the 1992 CAUSE ELITE Award. ************************************************************************ AN INTERVIEW WITH BERNIE GLEASON ABOUT IT PERSONNEL CHANGES AT BOSTON COLLEGE Q: In your remarks at CAUSE92, you referred to eliminating job grades in the information technology personnel classification system at Boston College, and the adoption of generic job descriptions to promote a "flattened" IT organization. Would you provide a little background and more detail about these changes? A: Approximately seven years ago, when I became responsible for Information Technology, it was part of a reorganization that was very typical of what was happening on many campuses--combining all computing and communications staff under one organizational structure. On the human resources side I had to deal with meshing of units and the elimination or creation of jobs. It was evident to me back then that I still had lots more to do to make the organization effective. I knew we had to develop a system for managing personnel that would provide maximum flexibility in the face of the anticipated rapid rate of change in technology. I just knew--I could feel it--that the reorganization needed to be complemented by a change in the way we manage positions and the compensation system. A reorg with the same old hierarchical structure of positions and grade levels was going to be an obstacle. What I was facing is probably what most IT managers still face today. I encountered the typical organizational structure of levels of jobs-- e.g., a group of programmers were all doing essentially the same job but with different job levels and with varying skill levels. Unfortunately, the higher levels didn't necessarily mean better skills. In most cases, it was a matter of seniority. When we had a termination, we had internal individuals applying for job openings (higher job level) and getting hired--effectively promoted internally with a salary increase but no change in daily job responsibilities. When we had someone at a high level leave, we sometimes had a ripple effect, with half a dozen actions over a period of months, without any new faces except the individual who was hired at the entry level. When we hired individuals, we often hired some very bright people, not necessarily very experienced, but individuals who were fast learners. We often lost these individuals because they were boxed by the people above them and the game of musical (pseudo) job promotions was the only way to advance. In the typical hierarchical structure we also had a situation where rising stars, who had strong technical skills, were forced into management positions as a means of advancement, and as a way to provide additional compensation. In many instances the individuals were not applying their best skills--technical know-how. When you hire an intelligent and aggressive individual, you are going to experience a sharp learning curve in the first two to three years. It was not uncommon for us to hire a programmer at $20,000 a year and have that individual go out into the marketplace in a couple of years and double his or her salary. In the former environment that same individual couldn't possibly advance salary-wise internally and still be a programmer. On the other hand, we may have been able to hire the same individual at a higher salary if he or she came off the street. We needed a system that would allow us to accelerate the compensation of employees in this situation without necessarily changing job titles or job descriptions. The bottom line is we needed to be able to "pay people what they were worth" without being constrained by a structured compensation system. Revolutionary as it may seem, there are situations where it's OK for a subordinate to make more than his or her manager. My first action was to eliminate all job titles that had any connotation of rank. For example, in the administrative area we had employees with titles like senior programmer, systems analyst, programmer, and so on. They all became programmer/analysts, regardless if they were making $20K or $50K per year. The same is true with user support staff--they all assumed the title of computing consultant. In the process I also eliminated all titles that associated jobs with a particular user department or computing environment. For example, project teams for student records, payroll, etc. were disbanded. Q: What prompted you to take on this effort? A: To be effective, I felt that employees needed not only to develop strong technical skills in particular areas, but also to develop a broad base of skills and knowledge. An obvious dilemma arose: how do you disconnect staff from particular users, when in most cases the staff and the users don't want to be separated? The answer lies in the fact that it is important to always look at the long-term, not just the short-term benefits. To reinforce this concept, I have always preached my "golden rule"--when confronted with a problem, think of the most logical person in the organization to solve the problem; then under no circumstances assign the task to that person. Of course, trying to get people to follow the rule is another matter. In case you are wondering about the rule, the net effect is that by involving lots of people in a broad base of technologies and systems, you have in effect developed a group of staff who can respond to almost any problem, if it is low level. In addition, these same individuals begin to think in more global terms in the design of solutions. Q: You also referred to changing the compensation system to a totally merit-based one, with at least two performance reviews a year mandated. What was the reasoning behind this move? A: We all have to work with a limited salary pool, so I had to determine the best way to maximize the use of the pool. The first thing that I did was to eliminate the notion that anyone was entitled to an increment just because that individual was employed for a full year. The notion that everyone was entitled to a minimum raise, such as a cost-of- living increase, was eliminated. I also reinforced the principle that an increase could not be awarded without first having a formal review, and encouraged the use of mid-year increases as a means of recognizing accomplishments. In cases where we had long-term employees who had reached a fairly high level of compensation, it didn't make sense to me, given the limited pool, to keep moving salaries at a percentage rate that only resulted in the widening of the gap between individuals of equal talent but different length of service. The review process is critical--how do you pass over someone at increment time and still give a good review? You can't. The new procedures put more pressure on the managers to do a better job with reviews--good! When people have no real future with your organization, you don't do them any favors keeping them around. Not receiving good reviews or incremental salary increases delivers a clear message. The reason for having formal reviews at least twice a year was to guarantee that managers were formally talking about job performance with subordinates at least that often. Ideally, it would be more often. In the new procedures we also adopted a rolling review scheme--employees are reviewed throughout the year based on anniversary date. Besides spreading the load, this addresses another problem that used to exist (and I assume still exists at most institutions)--in the past, all the reviews were done in the spring during a short period of time. Not only were the reviewers under the gun, but the communication with employees was limited by the pressure of time. Q: How did you convince BC's human resources department that these dramatic changes were necessary? A: Convincing Human Resources that we had a problem was easy--they could see that we were losing good people. From a historical perspective I should also note that this was back in the late 1980s when the external market in the New England area was booming. The economic situation has changed dramatically for the worse, but the objective of retaining the best people is still valid. The secret to success was getting Human Resources to a point where they were willing to look at alternative solutions. They knew that the old methods were not effective. Both the assistant director of HR and the manager of wage and salary administration were good listeners; they were problem solvers rather than individuals who kept trying to back us into the longstanding procedures. In the process, we developed a whole new set of review forms and a scheme for developing work plans. In essence, I worked with Human Resources in developing a whole new approach, but most importantly, HR took ownership. When we introduced the new procedures, it was HR who did the presenting and conducting of workshops on how to conduct performance evaluations. These sessions were very professionally done and included extensive use of role playing where everyone got a chance to play the part of reviewer. We implemented the procedures immediately following the training, so that it was evident that we were going to use them--it wasn't just play. Employee response was very positive, mainly because in their hearts they knew we were trying to be more equitable whether or not it might adversely affect them. Q: How have the staff members in your IT organization responded to these changes? Are they happy about them, and have they accepted them? A: Staff response has been positive, because the process has worked. We have completely reversed the old situation. For the most part, the people you want to leave are leaving and the people you want to stay are staying. Who is staying? The high-end performers. The staff recognize who is and who isn't in this class. Turnover isn't always bad; good turnover breathes new life into an organization. Q: What's the philosophy behind the term "systems integrator"? A: A number of years ago, I moved toward generic job descriptions. Now I sense a further move toward job descriptions that cross over established organizational lines. The title "systems integrator" was selected because I envision the need for employees to design integrated solutions that utilize a broad set of technologies. I have trouble at times with the formation of project teams with representation from different units--it often appears to me that we have too many people solving a problem or designing a solution--sort of like "how many people does it take to change a light bulb?" I also worry about an application once it is installed--are we going to need to have specialists bumping into each other to solve individual elements? The coming of microcomputers introduced users to performing all of the tasks associated with their system; this is contrary to the way that we have traditionally delivered central-site support. As we build distributed systems and client-server applications, we are going to need individuals who can bridge the knowledge gap. Q: What does the rest of the university think about what you've done? Do they think they get better service now, or do they even notice? A: The university community is very supportive of the information technology structure and our procedures for managing technology resources. I see a problem in trying to move to the next reorganization- -there will be community and internal resistance relative to the need to change to future directions. It will just take perseverance. On the Human Resource side, my big concern is being able to maintain the direction. A lot of what has happened has been because of the strength of my personality and credibility. Our performance review procedures and salary administration are progressive, but are out of step with the rest of the university. I have often heard the comment, "We trust your management skills, but I'm not sure we would want some of our other managers to have the same latitude." It is probably appropriate to have everyone using the same system, and if there is a change in management in Information Technology or Human Resources, there is likely to be a reflex action to get us back in line. Q: What do you see as the next "battle" that needs to be fought? A: Keeping going in the present direction, as I've said, will be a battle, but I see the need to reorganize into a single department, and the further breaking down of traditional unit boundaries within Information Technology, as being the biggie. In an age when staffs are being stabilized or reduced, I see three classes of workers--chiefs, braves, and support (operators, clerical staff, technicians, and so forth). We are going to need more braves and fewer chiefs and support staff. The "systems integrators" are the braves. A couple last comments: In my CAUSE speech, I tried to stress the need to do "different with different" in response to the demand to do "more with less." That "less" is staff. If we don't take progressive steps in the area of human resources, we are asking for trouble. The demand for "more" isn't going to subside. Finally, structuring job responsibilities to individuals has to become an accepted practice, and we have to "pay people what they are worth" regardless of length of service. People should be paid for their unique intelligence, not their brawn or length of service. George Gilder, in Microcosm, had a wonderful way of expressing the same message--"Wealth comes not to the rulers of slave labor, but to liberators of human creativity."[2] ======================================================================== Footnotes: 1 Included in the award luncheon ceremonies was the showing of a video about the impact of IT on Boston College, much of which was taped on the campus. That video is available from the CAUSE Exchange Library. 2 George Gilder, Microcosm: The Quantum Revolution in Economics and Technology (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989). ************************************************************************ The successful twenty-year career of Bernard W. Gleason at Boston College parallels that institution's dramatic rise in stature over the last two decades. And according to his colleagues there, Mr. Gleason's contributions have played a major role in the university's elevation among the ranks of elite institutions of higher education. When Bernie Gleason joined Boston College in the early 70s, the university was in dire financial straits. Seeing the fiscal problems of the institution as an opportunity--in fact, a demand--for change, Mr. Gleason took the initiative in applying technology to problem solving, resulting in some highly innovative solutions. Under his leadership, Boston College: * by 1980 had all administrative systems online and totally integrated, with a single system image--a significant enhancement for the administrative operation of the institution * was the first major university to have a fully integrated library system, an automated admissions system, and an online student information system * became a pioneer in the integration of voice and data services * was among the first to provide desktop systems for all faculty and staff with demonstrated need * published a highly regarded strategic plan for information technology, with end-user support as its cornerstone * implemented "Project Glasnost," a framework for providing open access to administrative information, with an emphasis on imaginative techniques and a universal ID card for students' use * reorganized all computing and communications units into a single information technology organization. Within the information technology department at Boston College, Mr. Gleason has developed a strong group of disciples who share his vision and enthusiasm. His willingness to allow employees to experiment and fail, to grow and demonstrate personal initiative, has built a highly successful and innovative IT organization. To encourage innovation, risk-taking, and individual contribution, Mr. Gleason instituted a totally merit-based review and compensation system for his department--a system so successful, it was modified for use across the entire university. The structure of the IT organization, based on the provision of superior end-user support for academic and administrative users, remains flexible enough to adapt quickly to rapid changes in technology while maintaining its focus on the strategic plan. In addition, Mr. Gleason implemented a unique capital funding program which yields a consistent funding level for information technology at Boston College. These innovations have built an information technology organization at Boston College with a reputation as one of the best in higher education. In fact, accreditation reports on the university routinely praise its use of computing and communications, and Boston College has become a role model for institutions in their effort to use information technology more effectively. With a focus on long-term, comprehensive solutions and the "big picture," Mr. Gleason is also adept at organizing his thoughts and translating them into understandable proposals. He shared his vision and experiences in Open Access: A User Information System, a well-received professional paper in the CAUSE series. In fact, due to his comprehensive view of the institution's strengths and needs, its objectives and goals, he is often sought out for his opinions on issues that far transcend his specific area of responsibility. Mr. Gleason also brings first-rate administration, management, interpersonal, and communication skills to his job. Described by his staff as a very accessible and effective manager who communicates well at all levels within his organization, he is widely admired and respected for his open approach to planning and his even and objective communication of standards. It is this rare combination of leadership, vision, and technical innovation which won Mr. Gleason the recognition of his peers through the 1992 CAUSE ELITE Award for Exemplary Leadership and Information Technology Excellence. The award includes a $5,000 contribution in his name to a scholarship fund at Boston College. The ELITE Award is sponsored by Systems & Computer Technology Corporation (SCT), a CAUSE corporate member since 1975. ************************************************************************