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

I think we have this Bill Gates thing all wrong.

Lots of IS managers responded to my column on the return of the mainframe mentality, concerned about the damage renegade end-users can cause. Most of these letters recommended processes that prevent end-users from making mistakes.

That’s when it hit me: Bill Gates is the one guy trying to maintain an out-of-control desktop.

Look at Microsoft’s tactics and contrast them with its competitors:

  • Microsoft invented TAPI (Telephony Application Program Interface) which links telephones and computers at the desktop. Novell and AT&T invented TSAPI (Telephony Services Application Program Interface) which provides similar services through a server/PBX connection. IS can control and manage TSAPI. End-users can use TAPI without IS ever knowing about it.
  • Microsoft is putting together “Peer Web Services” which will let everyone publish HTML documents on Intranet servers. This empowers end-users while making them harder to control. Meanwhile, Microsoft’s competitors are focusing on Java, which gives IS new ways to develop and control applications. Significant fact: making HTML the standard enterprise document format breaks Microsoft’s de facto monopoly in word processors.
  • Microsoft builds personal computer operating systems that run on autonomous desktops. Many of its competitors (Oracle, IBM, Sun) have embraced the notion of a network computer – one that only has the functionality IS provides through the network.
  • Microsoft focuses on ease of installation and use – for all the griping, Windows/95 installs with remarkably little pain in the vast majority of cases, and the real attraction of NT server over Unix, Netware, and even OS/2 is how easy it is to set up and administer.
  • You don’t hear Microsoft extolling the virtues of “thin clients” which, after all, waste the processing power at the desktop while requiring bigger servers for IS to run.

Microsoft’s competitors? They all develop for and sell to IS.

Novell used to market (okay, what substituted for marketing for the kids in Sodium Valley) to renegade department managers tired of waiting for central IS, and Novell became the dominant player in the LAN marketplace. Then Novell started to become legitimate, using “Enterprise” as an adjective and selling to central IS instead of its original customer base. Novell now focuses on technologies that increase IS’s ability to manage the enterprise. In the bargain, it has failed to gain significant market share for any product, no matter how excellent, that provides end-users with personal power and productivity.

Sun, IBM, Oracle, Digital? They’ve never heard of end-users, and probably wish they’d go away. End-user activities don’t sell big iron, or even medium-size iron. They don’t sell database servers (you have to deal with IS to get at those).

Yes, the Macintosh is the original end-user machine, and Apple had similar ideas. Unfortunately, years of inept management at Apple caused the product line to stagnate, boring the daylights out of everyone who watches this industry. We all may be willing to wait 15 minutes for a Web page to download, but we won’t tolerate boredom.

End users want to work without IS looking over their shoulders. They want to fiddle around, gradually creating exactly what they want, emerging only when the finished product is ready for inspection, whether it’s a document, a spreadsheet, or a small database application. That’s why personal computers became popular in the first place, and why the big players uniformly missed the boat.

Yes, Bill Gates is a fierce competitor, and in fact is one of just a few in the industry who knows what game they’re playing. Gates, along with Scott McNealy of Sun, Larry Ellison of Oracle, and maybe one or two others, is playing winner-takes-all poker. The rest are busy increasing shareholder value, maximizing profits, and doing all the other stuff that gains short-term success at the expense of world domination.

Only I wonder … does Chairman Bill really want to rule the world, or is he playing a deeper game?

It’s hard to soar with eagles when you’re being pecked to death by ducks.

Many authors, yours truly included, have penned grand prose describing the challenges of leadership. From reading them you might think business executives have a powerful focus on grand purposes. You might think that’s why they’re where they are, and that you’re where you are because you don’t. And so, filled with grand visions of your own, you open the door to your office, ready to transform your organization, when an employee requests a few minutes of your time, only to ask:

“Why is it that Harry and June are able to take a half hour every day on smoking breaks? It isn’t fair to the rest of us who don’t smoke!”

Poof! There goes your grand vision, vaporized by the exigencies of day-to-day management.

The average manager deals with approximately 137 issues like this in a typical year: Smoking breaks; the employee who spends a half-hour futzing every morning before starting in on actual work; someone who resents being pressured to contribute to the birthday fund.

Issues, that is, that wouldn’t be worth your time, except that if you ignore them they’ll create friction in the workplace. As with friction in physics, they convert directed energy into heat while causing the machinery to grind to a halt.

Make no mistake: You are responsible for handling these distractions because you are responsible for employee motivation and team dynamics. The question is how to do so. There’s no single solution for all of them. There are, however, some basic dos and don’ts:

  • Do acknowledge the issue. You don’t have to agree that it’s important. You don’t have to commit to doing anything about it. You do have to make it clear that you’ve listened and understood. If you don’t, you’ll lose the trust of the employee raising the issue. That will just compound the problem.
  • Do make it clear that “fair” and “equal” aren’t the same. Different employees take on different assignments, have different personal goals and face different challenges. Just because you don’t treat two different employees identically doesn’t mean you’re being unfair to either.
  • Don’t equate irritation and unimportance. If an issue irritates you, that just means you’d rather not have to deal with it, not that you shouldn’t. For example, if you have an employee who routinely arrives ten minutes late, has a half-hour get-ready-to-work routine, and leaves fifteen minutes early and you ignore it, you can be pretty sure that in a year five other employees will follow suit. Why wouldn’t they?
  • Don’t equate irritation and importance, either. Sometimes, the employee whose arrival time is erratic works harder and longer than anyone else. Yes, she sometimes arrives at 9:30 am. When she does, though, she often works until 10 pm.
  • Do discourage backseat driving. An issue being valid doesn’t mean reporting it is valid. Employees who are busy keeping their eyes on when another employee shows up for work aren’t busy doing their own work. Make it clear that paying attention to how well each employee performs is your role (and, if jobs aren’t shift-work, point out the difference between attendance and performance).
  • Don’t try to be King Solomon. Presented with a problem, your instinct is probably to find a solution. That just encourages more of the same. Encourage employees to solve their own problems, and to recognize the difference between real problems and minor irritations.
  • Don’t allow “third-party offense.” If someone helpfully lets you know that while he doesn’t mind what’s going on, it bothers other employees, helpfully let the informer know other employees are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
  • Foster a culture of adulthood. Many of these issues are variations on a single theme — “It isn’t fair!” That’s the battle cry of a six-year-old. Adults should shrug off the small stuff.
  • Don’t solve problems with policies. Every policy is a self-imposed loss of flexibility. Leave yourself room to maneuver. Policies, by definition, apply to everyone — they enforce equality at the expense of fairness.

And finally –issues like these are warning signs. When employees express jealousy about each other, worry about minor perks and slights, or otherwise spend their time and energy on trivial issues unrelated to Getting the Job Done, you’re hearing symptoms of two linked problems. First, they’re losing the trust in each other they need to function as a team. And second, you need to spend more of your time and energy creating enthusiasm for and ownership of the organization’s mission and goals.

Which is to say, leading.

As someone wiser than me pointed out, every organization is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.

As someone exactly as wise as I am (that is to say, me) has been known to point out, change happens when someone in a position to do something about a situation has concluded that how their organization does things isn’t good enough.

If you’re that person, do a bit of Googling (or, I suppose, Bing-ing) and you’ll find lots of alternatives for designing an organizational change, including such disciplines as Lean, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, Process Re-engineering, and the Theory of Constraints.

Assuming you choose a change discipline that fits what you’re trying to accomplish, each of these can deliver a change design that can work.

Do a bit more Googling or Bing-ing and you’ll find a complementary change discipline called OCM – Organizational Change Management – whose purpose is to discover and mitigate barriers to organizational change. It’s essential if you want your intended change to become an accomplished change.

Try to make the change happen, though, and you might discover there’s something in the plan that’s either too ambitious, or not ambitious enough.

If it’s too ambitious you’ll find the first chunk of organizational change is too complicated by half – what’s often described as changing the plane’s engine while you’re still in flight.

Or, worse, you’re trying to convert your biplane into a single-wing aircraft without first landing.

When your chosen starting point is at the opposite end of the continuum – when it isn’t ambitious enough – it goes by the orchardarian monicker “low hanging fruit.”

Going after low-hanging fruit is a popular consulting recommendation. It’s usually a mistake because it creates the illusion of forward progress while failing to set the stage for additional forward progress. Extending the metaphor, go after low-hanging fruit and you’ll find you’re clutching a lemon in your left fist and a tree branch in your right, all while you’re trying to avoid falling off your ladder.

Or, because metaphors don’t (speaking of metaphors) build a very good foundation for a logical edifice, let’s make it real: achieve a quick win and you’re left without a plan for what happens next.

Quick wins deliver the illusion of progress, but with no momentum or trajectory.

The missing piece

Quick win proponents get one thing right – that the hardest part of most intended changes is getting started. What they fail to recognize is that staying started is harder than getting started.

We might call what’s needed a “Quick Win Plus.” Like a quick win, a quick win plus gets the change started by making a small, manageable, clearly envisionable change.

Unlike a quick win, the change a quick win plus accomplishes is one that deliberately includes ripple effects – dependencies that encourage additional changes elsewhere in the organization. Especially, they’ll encourage creation or improvement of a few competencies critical to ongoing success – that will, that is, encourage additional beneficial changes.

Some changes don’t fit this mold – they just can’t, for one reason or another, be decomposed into a swarm of small, independent alterations in how work gets done. These big, complicated changes are the ones that call for disciplined, experienced project management and diversion of staff from their day-to-day responsibilities to full or nearly full commitment to the project team.

Bob’s last word: The way the business world is evolving, big, complicated organizational change is becoming decreasingly feasible. Battle-tested project managers have always been in short supply, while the staffing levels needed for traditional project-managed change are higher than most businesses are able to sustain.

Which is why so many organizations are gravitating to agile-oriented, iterative and incremental change methods.

The quick-change-plus approach fits this thought process well.

Bob’s sales pitch: I can only wish I’d had anything to do with Good Night Oppy. It’s the story of the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers. You must watch it – then you’ll wish you’d been a part of it too.

It’s simply wonderful – a very human story, brilliantly told. And after you watch it I can pretty much guarantee you’ll be telling your friends that they must watch it too.

Now on CIO.com’s CIO Survival Guide: Why IT surveys can’t be trusted for strategic decisions.” It’s an accurate title.