jump to navigation

Good And Evil May 15, 2009

Posted by Chuck Musciano in Book Reviews.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

The stakes were high for the 1892 World’s Fair.  Dubbed the Colombian Exposition, the fair was intended to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of the new world. Coming on the heels of the spectacular World Exposition in Paris in 1889, symbolized by the new Eiffel Tower, chances were not good that the Colombian Exposition could never, ever top what the French had pulled off.

Nonetheless, various US cities fought fiercely to host the event.  After much politicking, Chicago won the rights to the fair in 1890, tasked to create an entire global event in less than two years.  Other cities, most notably New York, were sure that Chicago would fail miserably, embarrassing the US in the eyes of the world.

The citizens of Chicago proved them wrong.  Their herculean efforts to create the 1892 World’s Fair are chronicled in Devil in the White City, by Erik Larson. His scrupulously researched book provides a glorious view not only into the vast project of the fair, but of daily life in 1890s Chicago.  For those of us who manage large projects, there is definite sympathy for the team of architects and engineers who struggled against all odds to deliver, on time, the greatest fair in history, ultimately topping the French and cementing the US position in the eyes of the world.

Beyond the appeal to project managers, any fan of history will relish the endless number of things that originated with the 1892 fair.  Juicy Fruit gum, Shredded Wheat cereal, AC power, and the Ferris Wheel? All debuted at the fair.  A young draftsmen dismissed by the architects for refusing to adhere to their designs? That would be Frank Lloyd Wright.  A carpenter who helped create the fantasy structures of the fair who later regaled his children, Roy and Walt, with tales of the project?  That would be Roy and Walt Disney; each stroll down Main Street in DisneyWorld today is an echo of the same walk down the Midway of Chicago in 1892.

But what of the evil?  With the fair as a backdrop, the most prolific serial killer in US history preyed on visitors to Chicago.  H. H. Holmes came up with a clever idea: he built a hotel near the fair, offering rooms to the many young women who came to Chicago seeking a career amid the excitement of the fair.  Charming and charismatic, Holmes wooed these arrivals to the city, who seemed to disappear at an alarming rate.

The hotel occupied the top floor of his building, with his personal residence and shops on the floors below.  Few knew that the basement included a 3000° kiln and airtight rooms outfitted with gas jets. Holmes was a busy man; estimates of his handiwork range from 25 to 200 victims.

Erik Larson does a marvelous job of weaving these two stories together, contrasting the lofty aspirations of the White City of the fair with the dark evil lurking literally next door.  The technology and social structure of the Gilded Age that made the fair a success also allowed Holmes to operate with impunity.  Larson brings an immediacy to the book that makes it difficult to put down; his almost off-hand recounting of the present-day echoes of the fair is a delight.

This book is worth your time, if only to provide parallel views into worlds we will never inhabit: the fantasy of the fair, Chicago society in 1892, and the mind of a psychopathic killer.  Both are fascinating and in their own ways remind us that things, good or bad, are never really what they seem.

A Quiet Place May 13, 2009

Posted by Chuck Musciano in Leadership.
Tags: , ,
4 comments

Leaders get pulled in a thousand directions.  No matter where you sit in the org chart, you are being pulled by those above and those below.  From above, requests for status and things to do; from below, a need for guidance and clarification.  There is little time to think; you need to be ready to respond at a moment’s notice, and you need to be right every time.

Truth be told, I thrive in this kind of world.  I like the pull, the energy, the constant change, and the challenge of not dropping the ball.  For an ADD mind like mine, constant change feeds my natural need for distraction.  If the world did not present distractions, I’d have to create them.

Nonetheless, everyone needs to time to think.  When that time comes, it can be almost impossible to stop the distractions (self-induced or externally imposed) and find an extended block of time for concentrated thought.  For leaders, these blocks of time are crucial for pulling all the pieces together and thinking strategically.  Tactical thinking thrives on distraction (solve this problem now!); strategic thinking thrives on solitude and focus (what will we be doing years from now?).

How do you find time to think?  I cannot find the time at the office or even at home; there is always something, either self-inflicted or from someone else, that demands my attention and pulls me away from a quiet moment. Instead, I  think best in the noisiest activity available to me: while I cut the grass.

The overwhelming cacophony of the mower shuts out everything else in the world.  Coupled with the iPod plugged into my ears, I am absolutely oblivious to any outside stimulus, to the point that my wife often has to throw things at me to get my attention while I’m mowing.  The simple repetitive act of going back and forth across the yard occupies a large part of my brain that would otherwise be engaged in ADD-related activity.  The end result is that my mind is truly freed to engage in long-term thinking and problem-solving.

The other nice thing about lawn-mowing is that it has to happen every week, rain or shine.  As a result, I get consistent thinking time on a regular basis.  Were it not for the relentless growth of the grass, I know that I would never put so much time on my schedule just for thinking.  In fact, I can feel the loss of that time in the winter, when I don’t get the chance to think as much.

I’m not recommending that everyone turn to lawn care as their preferred deep-thought environment.  What I am suggesting is that we all need to find some way to create a deep-thinking place, and we need to go there on a regular basis.

It is easy to get caught up in the day-to-day stuff and neglect our strategic focus.  Successful leadership requires strategic thinking that can only occur in self-imposed solitude.  How you find that solitude is up to you, depending on your personality and psyche.  Finding that time, however, is not optional and is crucial to your success as a leader.

Lion? Eagle? Or… May 8, 2009

Posted by Chuck Musciano in Leadership.
Tags: , , ,
4 comments

As a leader, what kind of animal are you? Of all the members of the animal kingdom, which one demonstrates the very best qualities of leadership?

My predecessor, a very good CIO, once had the opportunity to answer this question. He was invited to speak as part of a leadership panel, with an audience of several hundred fellow IT executives. The moderator had provided some of the seed questions to the panel in advance, so he had some time to think about his response. He actually did some research and came up with the perfect answer.

Now, most people are quick to answer this question with “lion” or “eagle.” Lions, of course, have great strength and sit near the top of the food chain. Although naturally lazy, especially the males, the lion’s leadership aura has been greatly enhanced by teams of Disney animators and the fact that the best lions apparently sound a lot like James Earl Jones.

An eagle is a better choice. Soaring high above the landscape, eagles have great vision and react quickly when detecting prey or enemies. Unfortunately, eagles are pretty much loners and do very little actual leading of anything. Although Disney has not yet made the equivalent of “The Eagle King,” the eagle gets good PR from being on money and various state and national seals.

The real answer, as my friend discovered, is the giraffe. Before you scoff, consider: the giraffe is the tallest animal, able to see threats at great distance. Other animals rely on this skill, gathering near the giraffe to capitalize on its early detection ability. As a result, the giraffe is recognized by all the other animals as a natural leader. Just as a good leader looks to the horizon to guide their team, a giraffe brings safety and surety to the world of the other herd animals. Giraffes, in fact, see the lions long before an attack is possible. Giraffes are also too large to be carried off by an eagle, or even a team of cooperating eagles, should the eagles ever get their act together.

So my friend went into the panel discussion sure that he had the killer answer. The moderator poses the question, and much to his astonishment, the guy next to my friend answers “Giraffe!” He goes on to explain all the great reasons, and the crowd is suitably impressed. When the moderator turns to my friend, all he can say is “I chose giraffe, too.” Even though we knew he had, half the audience was thinking “yeah, right.” Who would say “eagle” after hearing the great giraffe answer?

So today’s blog offers not one, but two crucial bits of leadership advice. First, when you get the question about the best animal leader, you know now that the answer is “giraffe.” And two, make sure you get to answer first.

Deep And Wide May 6, 2009

Posted by Chuck Musciano in Leadership.
Tags: , ,
2 comments

Information, of quality both high and low, is seemingly infinite in supply. Time, however, is woefully finite. I’ve written previously about using the Three Ps as a structure for status reports, in the hopes of sharing more quality information in a shorter amount of time. Coaching your people to focus on the Three Ps certainly can help, but it doesn’t stop there. It’s also important to recognize the value of Deep versus Wide.

Many people, especially technical people, take a simple approach when communicating up their management chain: convey a lot of detail about the issue at hand. There are merits to this technique: you can show that you know your stuff; you make sure that your boss is truly well-informed; and you can’t be accused of hiding information. There is little downside for the messenger to use this “deep” communication strategy.

Unfortunately, your boss may simply not have the time to listen to all this data, no matter how much they’d like to hear it. In many cases, they need certain salient details to make a decision; once that decision is made, little further information is needed. Instead, they need to move on to the next decision, which may require a similar quick assessment. Leaders often need “wide” communication, rapidly covering many topics at a low level of detail.

These competing goals often set up disastrous status meetings. Staff members go on at length with tremendous detail and background about each project while the decision-makers patiently wait them out, having made their decision long ago. Not wanting to offend or discourage their team, leaders will suffer through lots of extraneous data, sacrificing precious time that could be spent on other decisions. When they do cut things short, teams come away annoyed that their hard work was ignored or dismissed out of hand.

This conflict serves no one and can demoralize a team. Meetings run long and items at the end of the agenda never get addressed. Without clear direction, people have no idea how to communicate effectively with their bosses.

You need to address your desired level of detail with your staff. I tell my team to approach these meetings in a “wide” fashion first, initially addressing each item at a fairly cursory level. If things are as I expected, either good or bad, there is often little need to go “deep” and request more information. If, however, the initial review seems awry, I want to dive into the details and learn more. I expect my staff to have the details in their head so we can discuss them.

That’s a key item: discuss them. I expect my staff to understand the details and to be ready to engage in a good discussion. I do not want them to whip a stack of PowerPoint slides out of their hip pocket on demand. That’s a huge waste of time on their part, time better spent doing real work. Just be ready to have an informed conversation and we’ll all be better off.

Don’t think that this advice only flows downhill. Many CIOs suffer from the same problem, arriving at a senior management meeting ready to go “deep.” This is a double disaster, since deep dives with CIOs eventually drift into inscrutable technobabble. It’s as if we CIOs need a “stall alarm” in our heads that squawks “Pull Up! Pull Up!” as soon as we mention anything with moving electrons.

Your boss and peers are just as pressed for time as you are. Go “wide” until the questions start, and then dive deep as their questions lead you. You’ll save time, win some points, and shift further into your true role as a business leader, not the technology director.

No? No. No! April 22, 2009

Posted by Chuck Musciano in Leadership.
Tags: , , , , ,
5 comments

There is a fatal trap into which all IT Leaders fall, sooner or later.  It isn’t a sudden trap, sprung upon you all at once, but a slow, gentle descent into a disaster that can break your career if you aren’t careful.

It starts by saying “no.”

Every IT organization in the world is understaffed with respect to the total demand for all IT projects contemplated by the business.  While we may have enough people to keep the lights on and systems running, we’ll never have enough people to execute every project envisioned by our peers in the business.  That’s the way it should be: not every project needs to be completed, no matter how badly it is wanted by its champion.

As the owner of scarce resources, IT can become the arbiter of what gets done and what gets ignored.  And therein lies the trap: for every project you accept, you are telling one or more people “no.”  Each person that gets turned away views IT as an impediment to their grand plan, a speed bump on their road to success.  Over time, you’ll wind  up telling everyone no at some point.  You’ll have accrued so much resentment among your customers that they will begin to bypass you to get things done.  When that happens, your effectiveness as a CIO has diminished, and your ability to serve your company has ended.  Soon after that, you’ll be looking for a new job.

There is a better way, and savvy CIOs know how to avoid this trap.  The key is to engage your peers to decide, among themselves, which projects should or shouldn’t get green-lighted.  IT has no business determining the ultimate cost and benefit of a project.  That’s up to the project champion and his or her peers, debating the project in the broader perspective of the business as a whole.  When they finish their debate, your job is to step in and make their collectively-chosen projects successful.  The animosity of those whose projects were declined can be directed at their peers who made that decision, not you as the CIO.

Every CIO needs to develop this governance process in their company.  Whole books have been written on how to gather projects into portfolios, build governance teams at various management levels, and facilitate the debate among business leaders.  The IT organization provides guidance along the way, with scope estimates, impact statements, and technology assessments.  This is done objectively to support the conversation, not to champion a particular cause.

But, some CIOs complain, change only occurs when I initiate it!  How do I get things to happen while being objective?

You have two choices.  The right way is to present your big idea to another business leader, convince them of the merits, and allow them to champion the project.  With them as champion, you step back into your role of objective facilitator and implementation expert.  The more difficult path is to advance the idea yourself, acting as a business leader and not as the CIO.  This requires a deft hand and can be fraught with peril.  Honestly, if you can’t convince someone in the business to champion your idea, why would you advance it on your own anyway?

Good IT governance is a crucial part of every successful company and every successful CIO.  It takes time to develop the culture and process for successful governance, but your patient efforts will be well-rewarded.  Good governance gets you out of the position of being the “guy who always says no.”  That’s important, because the “guy who says no” is soon known as the “guy looking for a new job.”