It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search or browse one of our posts below.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, why do we need so many deadly sins? As with the afterlife, you can fail in the tough job of managing Information Systems even with the best of motives.

If you really want to get into lasting trouble, though, you have to work at it. Here are seven surefire suggestions — admittedly less fun than the real deadly sins—for getting yourself mired right in. Another difference: With the real deadly sins you’re generally off the hook if someone else commits them. You’re guilty of the Information Systems Deadly Sins if any member of your organization commits them.

That’s what leadership is all about, isn’t it? So, let’s dive right into our cesspool of systems malfeasance to find out how you and the rest of your organization can go straight to perdition.

Sin #1: Arrogance. Arrogance is a lot like pride, the unforgivable hubris of legend. And like hubris, arrogance taints your judgment by blinding you to your own limitations.

Systems arrogance takes many forms, so look for the symptoms. Do you hear help desk analysts swapping dumb user stories, or using the popular acronym RTFM (Read The Friggin’ Manual)? Then you can bet your bottle of Pepto Bismal end-users gripe about the “helpless desk” while they long for the days when they bought their own PCs in defiance of IS.

How about your systems designers? Do they complain about users who are unable to reach consensus on system specifications just before they start another endless argument over the best way to map their normalized data model to the persistence layer of their object class hierarchy?

Arrogance is a veneer — a thin covering of excuses hiding deep performance deficiencies. As penance, develop a cultural exchange program with key department heads, and have the offending analysts work at end-user jobs for a few months. Even if they don’t come back humbled, they’ll understand a bit more about the business.

As an alternative, force every analyst who sneers at an end-user to memorize the instruction manual for your VCR.

Sin #2: Grandiosity. Systems professionals engage in systems thinking. Be thankful for it. Part of systems thinking is extending ideas to their natural boundary.

Unfortunately, there’s a sort of one-upsmanship that goes along with this, so if one analyst generalizes the need for a purchasing system into something that covers the whole raw materials life cycle, the next one will extend it further to Computer Integrated Manufacturing. The one thing everyone agrees on is that the person who requested the system is too narrowly focused, and that failing to design for the bigger picture will result in colossal expenses a few years from now.

End-users call this “designing the universe”. It makes them nervous because they thought of the project in the first place, and now some arrogant systems know-it-all (see Sin #1, above) is expanding it into a monstrosity that can’t be built.

As penance, assign the offending analyst to work with Marketing to implement changes to your Web site. Since Marketing asked for the changes last week and wants them in a month, that should break the grandiosity habit.

Sin #3: Project-itis. In medicine, the suffix “-itis” refers to inflammation or swelling. Project-itis refers to a systems manager’s desire to sponsor a Big Project.

This sin is closely allied to both grandiosity and arrogance, but where grandiosity came from a sense of design and arrogance from self-doubt, project-itis comes from a desire for self-improvement — in the career sense, that is. The sponsor of a big project is looking for a promotion: probably to CIO, most likely in a different company, and almost certainly halfway through the project, just when the cracks are starting to show.

Big projects are a sin because anything longer than nine months is forever and will never happen. Projects only succeed when there’s a sense of urgency, so your project planners should break every big project into manageable chunks that stand on their own.

In the meantime, you have to establish a penance for managers exhibiting project-itis. Make them manage the help desk for a while — that should do it.

Sin #4: Jargon. This is the sin of analysts needing to demonstrate they know something end-users don’t. Why use an perfectly good old word when a new one sounds better? That’s especially true if your key end-users have diligently learned to communicate with your analysts.

So, when end-users bought into structured analysis, it was important to introduce JAD and RAD, so you could patronizingly explain that they stand for Joint and Rapid Application Development, respectively. What if the end-user pointed out that you’ve been designing applications jointly for years and it’s been your analysts who have insisted on doing it the slow way? You get to explain that this is different, because there’s a methodology behind it, which is jargon meaning some consultant wrote a book saying it’s okay to do it this way now.

Jargon has to evolve, because the old words end up attached to discredited ideas. There was CASE (Computer Aided Software Engineering), for example which was just perfect for huge projects that never saw the light of day.

So when CASE went out and objects came in, it was perfectly natural to introduce “Use Case Analysis,” introducing a flock of new an useless terms. Here’s what makes Use Case Analysis especially groovy: Its proponents claim credit for inventing the idea of working directly with end-users instead of tossing requirements over the transom — I am not making this up — and they also explain that, unlike traditional forms of systems analysis, Use Case Analysis and the resultant creation of object class libraries deal with normal business concepts.

If you hear your fully buzzword-compliant analysts spouting off to a group of end-users, the penance is clear: Assign them the task of creating a systems glossary. After they finish, compliment them on its quality — and heck, they did such a good job you’d like them to keep it current!

Sin #5: Methodologism. No, not Methodism — we’re not talking about trivial issues like religion, we’re talking about the important matter of adhering to the methodology.

Since nothing gums up a perfectly good methodology like project deadlines and an emphasis on actual business results, methodologists are quick to emphasize that in the long run the methodology will pay off, usually in reduced maintenance costs. Methodologists often commit the sin of project-itis too, since they stem from the same cause — a desire to build an impressive resume to make departure to the next company easier and more lucrative.

Penance? Buy into the methodology … but cut the preferred tools out of the budget, because “We had to choose between buying the tool for you and your two team members or hiring a dozen programmers, and we need the programmers now.”

Sin #6: Control. “We can’t let the end-users do X. If we did, Y might happen!”

The sin of control is expressed through a variety of unappetizing behaviors. A favorite is the creation of unnecessary standards, and an emphasis on enforcement rather than end-user benefit. The creation of standards is not, of course, a sin. The relationship between standards and control is the same as the one between eating and gluttony. One is necessary, the other excessive.

Key to control is prevention. If you hear conversations about how to best prevent end-users from loading their own software, building their own applications, or invoking their spell-checker without first obtaining permission, you’ve got it bad. A sure sign: lots of discussion about headaches, none about business benefits.

As penance, make a speech at your next staff meeting emphasizing the importance of IS setting the example. After all, like Caesar’s wife everyone in IS must be above reproach. So anyone within IS who violates standards and policies will be subject to immediate termination.

Sin #7: Supplier Mentality. Who do you work for? Do you view yourself as part of the company, or as an independent supplier?

The supplier mentality is expressed through unwholesome behaviors and attitudes. Do you view other parts of the company as your “customers”? Do you ask your customers to sign formal contracts? Do you negotiate system features with them as part of the process?

If so, you’re a supplier, not a partner. And as a supplier you don’t need to worry about doing penance. You need to worry about being outsourced — that is, being replaced by a better supplier.

* * *

Okay, so these “sins” have been overstated, but every one can sabotage your relationship with the rest of the company, so they’re worth the exaggerated emphasis. It’s your relationships that represent the foundation on which you build your success. Your behavior and that of everyone in your organization either reinforce that foundation or tear it down.

There’s only one way to choose the right path: Don’t sin.

Speaking of managerial entitlement, the headline reads “A Rude Awakening Is Ahead for Young Employees.” The publication is, predictably, The Wall Street Journal (7/5/2022 edition). The author is Daniel E. Greenleaf, whose credentials read “President and CEO of Modivcare, a healthcare services company based in Colorado,” but which should include his position in the Entitled Manager Hit Parade.

Greenleaf’s thesis, such as it is, is that the young employees who entered the workforce during the economic expansion that began in 2009 had better grit their teeth and prepare for the demise of managers who care about creating a positive, encouraging, supportive work environment.

That isn’t, of course, how he put it, but Greenleaf makes his disinterest in such things clear. His sigh of relief that he can stop pretending to consider these matters his responsibility as a leader is almost audible.

And I quote: Younger employees – not all, but many – will need to make more realistic demands of the workplace.”

In addition to wondering what fraction of the workforce is represented by “many,” it’s worth pointing out that in this case, Greenleaf has the authority to determine which demands are “realistic” – “unrealistic demands” are whichever ones he doesn’t like.

He gives us a hint of his own sense of entitlement in his complaints about the hot job market’s impact: We found less loyalty among technical staffers, who often jumped employers for a slight increase in salary or a change of scenery.

Greenleaf doesn’t explain what, exactly, constitutes either “slight” or “scenery.” My guess is that a slight increase in salary is one that keeps employees whole with respect to inflation, while “change of scenery” translates to managers who treat employees with respect.

But wait! There’s more! Over and over, Greenleaf bemoans the lack of employee loyalty that characterizes the current crop of younger workers. What’s nowhere to be found is so much as a hint that, as CEO, he is responsible for crafting a work environment that encourages loyalty – that if he wants employees to be loyal he first needs to be loyal to them.

Greenleaf’s personal experience, he says, along with that of unnamed “fellow CEOs,” is that recruiting and retaining employees who want to learn and grow on the job and then stay long-term is hard. His certain knowledge of the subject isn’t, though, entirely plausible. It’s his company’s managers who are having the experience he relates as his own. Unless, that is, he personally interviewed and regularly interacts with the 20,000 or so employees who work in his company, and personally conducts exit interviews with those who choose to depart.

Nonetheless, Greenleaf’s reported experience mirrors what my own sources tell me, which is that his experience is widespread: As with other marketplaces, the labor marketplace is subject to the law of supply and demand.

In non-labor marketplaces, supply and demand are balanced by price. And in these non-labor marketplaces, price has an intangible component, namely, how well or poorly a company treats its customers.

The labor marketplace is parallel. The current, diminished supply of labor means we should expect the price companies have to pay for it to be on the increase. And the price to be paid for labor also has its intangible components.

Want a committed, loyal workforce?

Given that Greenleaf’s own compensation is more than $3.5 million, it’s clear that his own loyalty has been bought and paid for by Modivcare’s board of directors. If he wants a workforce that displays a commensurate level of loyalty and commitment he can either wait for his hoped-for recession, which, he predicts, will fix the situation for him, or he can pay the price … tangible and intangible … for the workforce he wants.

Doing so would provide the additional benefit of recession-proofing his workforce as well.

Bob’s last word: Entirely left out of Greenleaf’s commentary is that the most important workforce shortage businesses face is one they’ve faced for just short of forever. That’s the shortage of truly outstanding employees. And while reliable metrics are hard to define and harder to find, based on my own experience and conversations with lots of managers the best employees are easily 10 times more effective than average ones.

And no matter how you slice and dice the numbers, no more than one tenth of the workforce will ever be in the top ten percent.

Which means that offering double the tangible compensation your competitors pay for talent, coupled with the intangible compensation of a healthy work environment, is a terrific investment.

Bob’s sales pitch: I wrote Keep the Joint Running: A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology to provide a core set of principles for running a first-rate IT organization.

Of its 13 principles, the last is the most important and relevant to this week’s column. It’s that Every employee is irreplaceable. The best leaders understand this principle and embrace it. The other twelve principles are pretty useful as well.

Now showing on CIO.com:A CIO’s guide to guiding business change.Why you should read it: As CIOs re-think IT’s role in the enterprise, leading or facilitating business change is central to the conversation. Here’s one way IT can and should regain center stage.