New Interpretations of Old Rules, or If the Ocean Is on the Right, You Are Headed North 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 NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF OLD RULES, OR IF THE OCEAN IS ON THE RIGHT, YOU ARE HEADED NORTH by Carole A. Barone ABSTRACT: The equilibrium in organizations is being upset by new conditions imposed by a stunning rate of technological change. Relying on existing management practices in light of these new conditions will produce inappropriate results. Managers must assimilate a new set of core beliefs and assumptions and reverse a dozen common rules and aphorisms about management behavior. It is an honor and a responsibility to be invited to address one's colleagues. It is also a bit intimidating. I take that responsibility very seriously, as I assume a somewhat informal (if it is possible to be informal speaking before more than 1,000 people) and, I hope, lighthearted approach to convey a very serious message, a message that calls upon all of us--and I do indeed include myself--to change. You might ask, "What's new about that?" What I hope is new are some insights and answers surrounding the three points that I intend to discuss: (1) The context in which IT organizations operate has changed profoundly, yet often unobtrusively. (2) The new context demands new organizational values, attitudes, and behaviors. Hence the need for new interpretations of old rules. (3) The new rules imply new management strategies. I feel strongly, even passionately, about the need for change. It is a matter of developing a new perspective, but I also know from personal experience how hard it is to change and to act consistently on a commitment to change. I lived on the East Coast for forty-eight years until I moved to California last year. I looked forward to the sunshine, warm winters, palm trees, and fresh orange juice, but what I was not prepared for was getting lost every time I thought of the ocean. The reason I got lost was that I continued to live in the context of the East Coast. I knew precisely where the ocean was, whether or not I could see it, so I even got turned around inland, in the Sacramento Valley where I live. Obviously, after so many years of following the Atlantic Coast model, I did not readily adjust to operating in the context of the Pacific Ocean. If you have had a similar experience, you know that your reaction to the disorientation is almost a physical one. I got lost because I continued to operate under an old framework of beliefs and assumptions when the context had changed and I needed a new paradigm (our favorite word). As an administrator of a large information technology organization, I feel similarly disoriented. To deal with the changed context of information technology in higher education, I find myself having to question the beliefs and assumptions I have held and followed for years. Frankly, I believe that right now many of us are scrambling to find a way to reestablish the old order. When the ground around us gets shaky, it is natural to try to hold fast to the familiar, to what worked in the past. However, our organizations have received a profound jolt. The foundations of IT organizations are in a state of upheaval. It is not at all certain that we and our organizations will be sufficiently flexible to adjust, and rigid structures crumble under stress. As I said, we are experiencing a period of upheaval, not evolution, and the question is: How will IT organizations react? Will they crumble, just manage to cope, or will they capitalize on the extent and scope of the change? The changes are pervasive, fundamental, and unremitting. Even those who thought, or still think, that the new context will not affect them, or are unaware of it, must deal with the change. It is disorienting and indeed frightening. Changing situations are fraught with ambiguities, but we seek stability and consistency in our lives. The scope of the CAUSE statement of purpose takes on a broader meaning in the new context of IT organizations. CAUSE is the association for managing and using information technology in higher education, and in today's organizations every member of CAUSE has managerial responsibility and needs managerial skills. I am going to talk plainly and pragmatically about what is happening: the changing context in which members of CAUSE must learn to function-- fast; why it is happening; and how to capitalize on it by turning around some old beliefs and assumptions, and some unconscious rules, and applying them differently. We know we have achieved much for our institutions with information technology, but our most important priority right now is not hardware, software, or our clients. It is our own organizations and ourselves as members and managers in those organizations--that is what is giving us such fits! Exogenous forces of change At the same time, the forces that are changing the elements or components of the context in which we operate are largely exogenous. Those elements are technological, organizational, economic, and societal, and all of them are interconnected. A change in one element impacts others, constantly jarring the organization, and the management solutions are multifaceted and elusive. Like the Rubik's cube, when you try to adjust to one of the changed elements in the context you risk messing up all the others. There are no magic formulas for dealing with this level of complexity and interconnectedness. We need to address the basic relationships within our organizations. To do that we have to come to terms with the new context. The central mainframe era provided a long (by technological time tandards) period of some stability. But, as you well know, new architectures now exist. Although for some of our shops the transition to a client-server, distributed architecture will take years, our clients have already made that transition in terms of their desire for control and in their expectations of the information technology organization. They are self-reliant (or think they are), demanding access and the ability to use information. They are not going to wait patiently for the systems to catch up. They want access and help now, right now. We have already run out of time to respond centrally. Our clients will increasingly demand and rely on local experts. The new economic context for higher education and information technology is a result of high costs and a perceived failure to deliver on promises. The tendency to "overpromise and under-deliver" has led to a loss of confidence in higher education in general, and in information technology organizations in particular, and to increased skepticism about the value of information technology on the part of the chancellors and presidents. As a result, we face diminished resources, as well as diminished patience with us and our organizations. New societal factors affect the very essence of our working relationships. Because the workforce is more diverse, our working environment must value civility, manners, and sensitivity as basic requirements of expected behavior in business relationships.[1] Unfortunately, too few people realize this. Our workforce is dispersed, and we must accommodate new work schedules, work habits, and work practices. With a dispersed workforce comes an unprecedented level of reliance on networks and communications. Telecommuting means that IT must provide access to services anytime, from anywhere: the virtual office. We understand the words in a technical sense but have not yet accepted their cultural and sociological implications. The traditional notion of "the office" no longer applies, in any sense. We work, we interact, and we communicate very, very differently. As information technology pervades the overall organization, our scope of awareness must include all levels of expertise. That puts us in the position of both encouraging the use of information technology and reining it in. We have also been fond of telling our clients that they need to use information technology to reengineer their processes to become more effective and productive. I'm guilty of using that line myself. Because we really believe in the value and potential of technology we view it as a solution, e.g., networking will solve communication problems, distributed computing will improve decision-making, and so forth. But the core problem may in fact be structural or behavioral, and until we address this organizationally, technology will have little likelihood of transforming or reen-gineering communication or decision-making processes. It is important to understand the relationship between technology and an organization's culture. ************************************************************************ "The networks to hell are wired with good intentions." Michael Schrage Wall Street Journal, October 6, 1992 ************************************************************************ We must also change the way we think and work inside the IT organization. Clients are not going to respond to our preaching about reen-gineering their processes until we change our own behavior in relating to them. IT organizations are lurching through a rocky transition toward a new equilibrium; when they get back in balance they will be very different from what we have known, and the steady state will be constant change. In a recent issue of Harvard Bus-iness Review, Rosabeth Moss Kanter wrote: "To managers today, chaos is not just a scientific theory. It is a daily experience."[2] This kind of change does not undulate or ripple through an organization; on the contrary, it vibrates and grates its way through. Both our information technology organizations and the individuals who comprise the organization must change or risk isolation or, worse, become irrelevant. People are resourceful; they will work around and cut off obstacles. In times of adversity, there may be no hope of rescue from such circumstances. Jane Ryland, the president of CAUSE, says that her goal is to make CAUSE indispensable. For our IT organizations to survive, our goal should be to make them indispensable in this new context. As individuals we need to revise the core values and assumptions that govern our attitudes and behavior in organizations. It is just as foolish to apply an East-Coast paradigm to a West-Coast context as it is to apply traditional, self-imposed rules of behavior to the new context. "It is easier to act your way into a new way of thinking than to think your way into a new way of acting,"[3] but it surely does take practice and persistence. One of my staff members says that we need to develop organizational amnesia. A prescription for change The following twelve rules are simple, maybe even silly, but they work! The idea is to reprogram our thought patterns. I compiled this list by listening to what people were saying about organizations, especially IT organizations. RULE #1: Learn what's best for THEM. We don't know what's best for our clients. As Burger King puts it, they should "have it their way." To accomplish this we must stop, look, and listen. Stop delivering services. We need to reen-gineer the way we relate to the client. Clients don't care how we're organized,or how we solve their problems, but we seem to think they should. Instead, we should approach each client with a fresh perspective, not a set portfolio of services. Here I'll interject a bit of linguistic analysis. We act out our thought patterns and language, so look at how the organization and the individuals describe themselves. Organizational language conventions should focus on expected results, not job functions. Don't say, "Equipment is maintained by technicians." That says no one is responsible, and all we do is maintain. Instead say, "Technicians make certain that clients' equipment is in good repair." Technicians are responsible, and have broad flexibility in achieving the desired outcome. People use the passive voice to slither away from responsibility. Some organizations have severe cases of the passive voice disease, and their service to clients usually reflects it. You've heard the saying, "Do what I mean, not what I say." We need to let ourselves hear what our clients really mean--very difficult to do and it requires a major investment of time in undefensive dialogue-- while always remembering that the client is right even when the client is wrong! Help the clients do what they want to do. Tell them how to do the job, not what to use to do it. We are fighting the wrong, and a losing, battle when we try to sell specific products or solutions. Instead, focus on creating an open and flexible technical environment. It really doesn't matter what they use, as long as it works and integrates well into both the internal and external environments. RULE #2: Speak their language. I have a staff member who claims that people in IT--especially vendors, says she--engage in "linguistic hocus pocus," because we use terms and phrases like "FTP it," and "syntax error." We alienate our clients and perpetuate the idea that we sell information technology for its own sake. I recently encountered a humanist member of our strategic planning committee trying to figure out what those three simple words--common systems interface--strung together in that way could possibly mean. We must find the words and the syntax (in the traditional sense) to communicate. I will borrow a term from the 70s: we need to raise our consciousness of the client. RULE #3: Just say yes! Now back to fighting battles. Don't waste your time and energy trying to control how people use information technology or what they want to do with it. Instead, just say "yes" by creating "win/win" situations before you get trapped in the position of having to say "no." Facilitate the use of technology, don't dictate the methods or applications. Focus instead on leading through incentives, good guidelines, good products, and great client service. We must value our role as facilitators and negotiators, not dictators. RULE #4: Excessive data collection is pathological. People sometimes gather data because they are afraid to make a decision. To avoid drowning in data, know when to stop, and be aware of the cost/benefit relationship. We could data collect and study ourselves into irrelevancy. Learn to be selective in your data gathering. Excessive data collection is a manifestation of risk avoidance and insecurity. RULE #5: Ignore the old rules. So is unquestioned adherence to assumed, or even real, rules. The old rules have caused the self-limiting behavior and sluggishness that our organizations now must shed. For example, centralized, rodeo-style heavy-metal computing doesn't work in a distributed environment. Likewise, strict adherence to traditional textbook dogma, like some systems design methodologies in a context that expects and demands quick results, with limited financial and staff resources, is nuts. The institution will no longer tolerate multi-year applications development backlogs. Instead it will outsource to get the job done. We need to produce quickly in simpler, smaller pieces.Old rules and assumptions are often based on myths: "The administration doesn't want this, won't support that," "IT belongs in the basement." These rules perpetuate because they are never questioned. Any rule that fails to recognize and explicitly accommodate change will quickly become obsolete. I like to brainstorm with new members of the IT organization because their minds are unfettered by experience. RULE #6: Adversity breeds opportunity. Opportunity can arise from economic adversity. Adversity gives us a chance (and an excuse) to rectify past mistakes and makes fundamental change possible. Restructure. Scrap troublesome policies (recharges) or functions (maintenance). Make bold moves. Stop trying to serve everyone. Start to target services where they can be leveraged, like at departmental experts. RULE #7: Do different things. Don't try to do more with less, and don't do less. Do something else. You can't win by providing less and less of the same services, but you can do new things without new resources. For example, staff a campus help unit by revolving members from the entire organization, including the CIO. Instead of doing things for the client, develop enabling processes. Let the business units take over system development and have the central IT organization provide the connective tissue by managing the network, software, and data definitions and relationships, and adherence to audit standards. This is an excellent time to contract out for specialized expertise--use it. But when you do, design the interaction with your organization so that it results in skills transfer to your permanent staff. That design may well include a change in the physical configuration of the office to facilitate that transfer. It is often easier to get or create one-time money than it is to add a position(s) to do these things. Be very wary of too much emphasis on software development, especially by faculty. Effectiveness is not necessarily in line with economic reality. Productivity and efficiency are back in vogue. Consequently, you might emphasize the role of information technology in delivering instruction to more students, or in preparing students for operating in an information-based society or in training and supporting departmental developers. We have to address the need for and support of local experts. This may involve reallocating IT staff to client units. De-emphasize or eliminate student labs. We could actually be delaying student ownership by making labs too accessible. Without ownership and network connections, IT will never transform the way students access and obtain information, nor will it encourage students and faculty to communicate and relate via the network. Finally, align with the library to pursue joint projects in IT, and to take advantage of the library's traditionally strong support in the campus community. RULE #8: Not every task worth doing is worth doing well. Not every task we attempt must be done perfectly.[4] In times of economic constraint, we must learn to "satisfice"--to know when good enough is good enough. Look for alternatives, quick 'n' dirty solutions. Quality is relative. (Now how could I ever say that in these days of TQM?) Make sure that you are not pursuing technology for its own sake-- the key is to think about the clients' needs, not the technology's potential. Above all, match the level of service you provide to the level of priority and client commitment. People are not always willing to pay for the level of quality that we would prefer to produce, e.g., PC maintenance or student labs. This is a fact of operating with diminished resources, and it is not wise to forget it. RULE #9: When it ain't broke may be the only time you can fix it. We need to stop doing things that have worked beautifully for years before it is too late. The organizational destabilization that we introduce by focusing the organization's energies on change and advancement will position it to meet the advancing technological needs of the campus community. If we fail to position the organization in this way, we will have to deal with externally produced destabilization, which will threaten its very survival. Once the campus community gets up in arms over our failure to deliver, we will be too busy dealing with the political crisis to address the underlying organizational problems that caused the situation in the first place.[5] We cannot afford to be reactive. It is time to attend to the organization. Rosabeth Moss Kanter points out in that same HBR article that organizations that cling to outmoded practices and models have fewer options and it becomes increasingly difficult for them to advance.[6] RULE #10: The Lone Ranger style of working will not work in the future. We need each other! Complex tasks and rapid change require collaborative effort to succeed. Chaotic environments require mutual support. The best and most creative and effective answers to problems are the result of synthesizing many ideas and viewpoints. At the same time, technology enables the traditional forum for collaboration--the meeting--to take on new forms. In a networked, distributed, client-server environment, there are other ways to share ideas and information. Electronic mail and online conferences, teleconferences, and using groupware are great alternatives. We also need new organizational structures, like informal work groups, and the physical environments that promote and support them, to enable and encourage collaboration. We have a problem with people and units being out of synch. As a result, some people won't or do not know how to participate. Others use the technology to go around the barriers created by the so-called "established channels" and to bypass organizational layers. All of this is leading to a dissemination of the managerial role throughout the organization and a much diminished role for middle managers. An old song from the 1920s holds an enduring message that illustrates my next rule. RULE #11: It's not what you do, it's the way you do it. Too often we forget that the way our clients feel about us is as important as the actual work we do for them. It's not enough to do a good job; you must also be perceived to have done it. This is public relations, and it's something we must learn to do and do well. When we do something good, we have to "toot our own horn" (but tastefully) so clients know what we've done. Every interaction with a client should be approached as an opportunity to educate, but subtly. We've been inclined to bludgeon our clients with technology. In addition to good PR, we must change our work habits to be more client-centered, and less focused on technology. We have already begun to take the time to involve the client in the problem-solving process. In so doing we are building better relationships with our clients and also better systems. Now, as we reshape our organization, we must bring clients into that process as well, to ensure that we are building the kind of internal environment that invites client input. Cultivate your clients so that they view you as an ally, not an adversary. The relationship with the client should be a partnership in which we come to mutual agreement on what is appropriate or "good enough," and in which we work as responsible and accountable equals in the partnership. RULE #12: Management is neither a science nor an art. Management definitely is a sport. It can only really be learned through training, coaching, and experience. No matter how many books you read about skiing, you still can't learn without putting skis on and going out on the snow. Lots of people do not think of themselves as managers, but in a collaborative workplace everyone assumes some kind of managerial responsibility. It may be management of an application development project, participating in a decision-making process, or serving on an internal work group. In the context of the workplace, everyone needs some managerial skill, like how to contribute to a meeting, how to chair a work group. In management, like all sports, practice counts for everything. Practice means making mistakes. If the work environment punishes mistakes harshly, no one will be able to learn to manage. And it means maintaining a sense of humor while we learn and continue always to learn. Rigid formulas do not work for a climber finding a route up the face of a mountain. The manager, likewise, determines the route by what works as he or she moves along the learning curve. Like all sports, to master the sport of management it takes will and persistence. Peter Senge calls this commitment.[7] New management strategies How do we go about implementing these new rules and establishing a new equilibrium in our organizations and ourselves? For managers, it's important to remain visible. As Tom Peters advocated, manage by walking around.[8] You'll learn more about your organization and what's really happening in half a day of wandering around than you will learn in a week of reading reports and studies. Pay attention to your organization. Be involved in the day-to-day business of your organization. You cannot manage this kind of organization in isolation, and you can't have a feeling for the way your system works unless you sometimes roll up your sleeves and participate in a project, like working at the help desk. Be an adaptive and flexible manager. Everything changes, sometimes minute to minute. Since there are no absolutes in this new organizational equilibrium, you can't take a rigid stance and refuse to change course. Relax! Let your staff and colleagues change your mind. It reduces stress. The most important things we can change to make this work are the reward systems. We must reward flexibility, not longevity, and achievement of expected outcomes, not performance against a fixed job description. We must stop using a ladder system of promotions to reward people, and find new ways to create satisfaction, for example, flexible hours, professional development opportunities, interesting assignments, cross training, and opportunities to be a member of a special work group. We must uncouple compensation from position in a hierarchy, and position from participation. This means the end of the "star" system. You have to make certain that everyone is tuned in to the issues. This requires comprehensive, multi-faceted, intra-organizational communication processes, like revolving work group memberships, online news blurbs, and lots of facilitated discussions. It means holding staff meetings that include every member of the organization, and establishing organizational values and tying those values to goals and to performance evaluation. And it means peers evaluating each other and their supervisors--all the way up the line. As the organization becomes flatter and the pace of change accelerates, training becomes critical. Almost everything else is of lower priority to the success of the organization. Staff members must have current technical knowledge. Likewise, all staff should have opportunities to learn how to handle themselves better in managerial situations. Members of collaborative work groups have a responsibility to contribute, but not everyone knows how to go about doing that. IT organizations need a professional development plan, for every member of the organization, that draws from the personnel office, local continuing education, tapes, professional associations, brown bags--make lunch time in your organization a time to learn from each other. CAUSE can and should help us in this effort. I therefore challenge CAUSE to reorient and extend its professional development program to produce for the membership the integrated, comprehensive, multi-faceted, multi- level, and multi-year program promised in the strategic plan as soon as possible. I believe that this is the most important service that CAUSE can offer its membership now and in the coming years--and we need it now. Finally, it is OK to remember where you came from, but it doesn't matter how you did things in the past. What counts is getting results in the future. So, I close with a moral: Always focus on where you're going, not where you came from. ======================================================================== Footnotes: 1 From an address by Santiago Rodriguez, manager of multicultural programs at Apple Computer, Inc., "A Three Generational Model for Diversity," delivered at the University of California Management Institute, Irvine, California, July 21, 1992. 2 Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "The Best of Both Worlds," Harvard Business Review, November/December 1992, p. 9. 3 Richard Pascale, from Managing on the Edge, as quoted by Donald Arnoudse in "Creating Change through Crisis," Indications 9:1 (1992): 10. 4 From an address by James Adams, "Creativity--The Care and Feeding of Ideas," speaking at the University of California, Davis, Chan-cellor's Spring Management Conference, June 11, 1992. 5 Abraham Zaleznik, "Managers and Leaders: Are They Different," Harvard Business Review, March/April 1992, pp. 126-135. 6 Kanter, p. 9. 7 Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990). 8 Thomas J. Peters, Liberation Management: Necessary Disorganization for the Nanosecond Nineties (New York: AA Knopf, 1992). ************************************************************************ This article is based on the author's keynote address at CAUSE92 in Dallas, Texas, December 3, 1992. The address included a multimedia presentation that could not be incorporated into this print version. However, a videotape of the presentation including the multimedia effects is now available from the CAUSE Exchange Library. ************************************************************************ Carole A. Barone is Associate Vice Chancellor-Information Technology at the University of California, Davis. Previously she was Vice President for Information Systems and Computing at Syracuse University. Dr. Barone is a former Chair of the CAUSE Board of Directors and a member of the EDUCOM Board of Trustees, the Steering Committee of the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Commission on Information Technologies, a policy-forming group of the National Association of State University and Land Grant Colleges. ************************************************************************