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

When Cortez landed on the shores of became Mexico later on, he issued the famous order, “Burn the boats!” It’s testimony to either his leadership ability or his ruthlessness that his men didn’t shout back, “What are you, nuts?”

Through dumb luck (for the Spaniards that is) the Aztecs caught smallpox from Cortez’s crew and Montezuma despite his ongoing revenge, lost his empire. Cortez didn’t win because of his watercraft incineration but that hasn’t stopped it from becoming a symbol for total commitment to a result.

In business, burn-the-boats tactics are less useful than contingency plans. You can’t count on your competitors to fall apart all by themselves (they often do, but you can’t rely on it), and sailing back to Spain in an empty ship (that is, cutting your losses and trying the next idea) usually makes more sense than being either buried or eaten (filing for bankruptcy or being acquired at bargain-basement prices).

Many companies that have chosen to outsource IT burned their boats without realizing it. They signed a contract in which a change of heart is expensive, time-consuming, painful and risky — they can’t, in other words, go back. When negotiating an outsourcing deal, the business equivalent of a prenuptial agreement is essential. An outsourcing prenuptial agreement makes re-insourcing possible. Usually, it will include transition of both staff and intellectual property back to the client in case of contract termination. Otherwise the balance of power in the relationship belongs to the outsourcer, not the client.

That’s a very bad idea.

Imagine your CEO has decided to outsource IT and you’re part of the negotiating team. What do you need to know? Here’s one important fact: The outsourcer’s sales team is there because they love The Deal, not because they love running IT.

For the folks who sell big outsourcing contracts, closing a big deal is a rush. It’s a bit like a cocaine habit. When someone snorts cocaine, the user feels a rush of euphoria when the drug is inhaled (or so I’ve read). But when the drug wears off they sink into a funk, and to reach the same level of exhilaration they need an even bigger hit. The Deal has an equivalent impact on outsourcing companies: It provides a rush of euphoria as the deal closes, followed by something of a funk as the hard work of contract delivery starts … followed by the need for the rush of the next Deal.

These people don’t enjoy actually running IT. Running IT would interfere with pursuing the next Deal. If they’re smart, they’ll bring someone who loves running IT to their side of the table, but they might not be smart, because that individual … the future account manager … doesn’t love The Deal. The account manager has to deliver on the contract when it’s signed. That can interfere with The Deal.

That’s exactly why you’ll insist that the future account manager is part of the negotiating team. With this team composition, love of The Deal will keep the outsourcer at the table, unable to walk away, and the account manager’s need to run a successful account will prevent impossible-to-keep promises. (Don’t leave it to chance. When in doubt look the account manager in the eye and ask, “Can you deliver that?”)

There’s one other item to remember: You, not your employer, are your top priority. Look out for your own interests first.

Isn’t this immoral? Amoral?

No.

When your CEO decided to outsource IT he didn’t take your best interests into account. When the outsourcing company started the sales process, the process probably didn’t start in your office with your sponsorship. This is business, and altruism isn’t part of business. Nobody is going to look out for you except you.

So if you have any leverage at all, negotiate an arrangement that protects you. Have the CEO create a new executive position and promote you to it immediately. Or, become the outsourcing company’s account manager. Do what CEOs do and negotiate a golden parachute for yourself in exchange for your support during the transition.

While you’re at it, negotiate the best deal you can for the employees being outsourced. When they become employees of the outsourcing companies they’ll lose their seniority. It isn’t hard to insist on a contract provision that fixes this, but you need to ask for it — it won’t come automatically. If you become the account manager you’ll need their support. Even if you don’t, it costs you nothing.

And, it’s the right thing to do.

In the late 1600s, Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz invented calculus more or less concurrently. The question of who published first raged for decades.

In the 1800s, Sir Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace both figured out how new species could arise from existing ones through the force of natural selection. Aware of each other’s work, in 1858 they presented their work together to the Linnaean Society.

In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray submitted patent applications for the telephone within hours of each other.

But in 1968, when Douglas Engelbart, who passed away recently, presented his live demonstration of a computing system that included the use of a mouse, videoconferencing, word processing, cut-and-paste, hypertext, revision control, and collaborative editing, he was the only person in the world who had put it all together (thanks to Randy Cunningham’s Honorary Unsubscribe  for providing, not only the details, but a link to a video of the presentation).

Not the only person in the world to have each of the ideas separately, though … Ted Nelson, for example, had been writing about hypertext since 1963.

We celebrate those who invent something important first. We celebrate those who make important scientific discoveries first. And yet, there’s a certain inevitability to all this. From the inside, these inventions and discoveries are more like races, in which the only question is who will cross the finish line first, than they are like the actions of lone explorers, boldly going where no one has gone before.

Maybe this is why we lionize great leaders more than great scientists and inventors: Without Washington, England probably would have defeated the colonists in the Revolutionary War; without Lincoln, and Grant, the Confederacy probably would have succeeded in seceding; without Roosevelt and Churchill the outcome of World War II would almost certainly have been very different.

Those specific, unique leaders were required. It’s doubtful that, with different leaders, we would have ended up with similar results. Take Lincoln: Had Stephen Douglas won the 1860 election the Confederacy might never have formed and slavery might still be legal. Or, more likely, a very different Civil War might have been fought at a very different time and in a very different way.

This is not true of the great scientists. Take Einstein: Had he never published, the current state of physics would be unaltered.

It’s a hard thought to swallow. Collectively, it’s the scientists of the world who have made our modern world possible. Just look around you and start subtracting everything you depend on that wouldn’t exist had the community of scientists never figured out the laws of thermodynamics, the aforementioned calculus, information theory, and another few dozens or hundreds of disciplines. It’s their byproducts that allow the world to operate with more than 7 billion inhabitants.

The secret is that scientists form communities, and it’s these communities that collectively deserve credit for what we as a species collectively know. The individual scientists who get the most credit are the ones who are just a bit smarter, just a bit quicker, and who work just a bit harder than the rest.

And, to be fair, in some cases are better politicians: Modern physics, for example, is a very expensive discipline; in order to make the big discoveries you first have to gain access to the big equipment.

Understand, I have nothing but respect for the great scientists, and you should too. While there’s no doubt many were and are driven by a sense of competition, they are far more driven by the desire to understand the universe just a bit better than anyone has understood it before.

Just as the great inventors, like Douglas Engelbart, were driven by the desire to make the world just a bit more capable than it was before.

The world of business has more in common with scientists and inventors than with the great political leaders: Should a company fail, while it’s hard on its employees and shareholders, otherwise it doesn’t matter a bit. If a department store closes its doors, shoppers will just buy the same merchandise from someone else; the same is true of just about anyone or any business in the market for goods or services.

Perhaps that’s why the self-importance of some CEOs is so amusing. Even those who help their companies win are, for the most part, simply shifting revenue from another company’s coffers to their own.

It’s just a race. What matters isn’t who wins it. What matters is that enough people are willing to run.

ManagementSpeak: Your statements are emotional and immature.
Translation: I disagree, and I’m a bigger cheese than you are.
I heard this one myself, and no, you’re not going to find out who said it to me