Wednesday 18 November 2015

Technology & Culture… A RSVP with Disaster or Greatness?

What a Technologist actually is.. and how approach matters for successful outcomes

We all love our iPhones, iPads, Computers and Laptops as do we love to work in an office that has multi coloured beanbags as the conference room for all “official” meetings. If software is eating the world, technology is its master transforming industries, cultures and even professions into something more relevant in today’s world.

In a few short years, technology has changed the world with software in a leading role making lives better and more things possible that were previously out of reach! As a Technologist, I find there are two types of technology user, the deeply skilled who believe in it and those who are happy to be an end user of technology.

So what makes up a Technologist and are they the backbone of the Technology Industry building a culture and a legacy for others to follow? The free dictionary defines a Technologist as a “Specialist in Technology”. I think a Technologist brings more to the world and thus argue a true Technologist can be described as follows:


Believer in the power of technology to do good in the world
Giver by personality disposition always looking to collaborate and discerningly help others who share a positive attitude to community and helping out
Community is paramount to successful outcomes as technology depends on people collaborating over processes to develop progressively effective technologies
Creativity is wrapped in technical aptitude and knowhow
Commitment is not an issue for the Technologist who is committed to doing great things in technology
Enthusiasm never fades for technology in the right circumstances. A good Technologist if in the wrong circumstances will move to the right circumstances so the exploration of technology may continue
Continuous learner is a hallmark of a good Technologist who never stops learning, innovating and producing effective Technology that paves the way forward for society

The list is longer but the above gives a more detailed description of a Technologist in my view. Business often does not recognise the cultural gap between Technologist and the rest of the business. In various ways, business tends to be disapproving of anybody who cannot focus on profitability and the other management metrics that makes the business a viable venture. This has a core logic to it BUT if a Technologist’s focus is diverted from the core business of great technology, then the related outputs will be correspondingly below par and ultimately detract from the viability of the business. It technology cannot be great, then it will not unlock value for the customer which feeds into the bottom line of the business.

So bearing in mind the above description of a Technologist, how can this description bridge the culture gap between business and technology?

My first thought lies in the wider business culture that underpins business practice, leadership style and acceptable “people behaviour” on a daily basis. There is one way to do great technology but many ways to do good to great business.  In business; ok is acceptable, in technology nothing less then great will do!

So picture a business culture that is hierarchical and a Technologist working there that defines himself by the above highlighted keywords of:

Believer - Giver - Community - Creativity - technical aptitude - knowhow Commitment  - Enthusiasm - Continuous learner

The very fact that the Technologist maybe at staffer level in the company hierarchy relegates him/her to insignificant status within the company and thus open to all kind of interference from other (taker) business peers, untalented (taker) technical peers, leaders, managers and higher that may want something done and expect EXACTLY what they ordered from the Technologist. To keep his or her job, the Technologist will ensure they will get EXACTLY what they asked for. The real result is a talented employee disengaging from the company, who by culture considers the employee contribution to be insignificant in nature. As said above, if they cannot find a collaborative culture to grow in, they will migrate to one. Some companies lose allot of Technological talent down to this fundamental misunderstanding.

Companies in such a case may try to create/engineer a consultative technology sub culture, which may work in the short term. However, it is not sustainable even with a great technology manager as by design; culture clash mitigation lies with the Technology manager, not on the organisational design around him/her. Politics will find a way to reverse any stability and gains in the name of progress. The answer for hierarchical companies lies in overarching change to refocus the company's organizational design to better protect its elements by functional segment (V functional silo). If operations and technology cannot interact as one, then design a model where they can interact as two bodies. If agile project management risks a culture clash, then augment agile with silo deliverables and more reporting managed by very good project managers who have good organisational understanding and management skills.


The bottom line is that Technology already has a defined adhocracy culture that works well with the above description of a Technologist and thus an ideal setting for us Technologists to thrive in. It’s never a good idea from experience to think an Adhocracy Sub-Culture is sustainable when nested in a Hierarchical Culture. Also, thinking of finding a happy medium between the two means moving the expectations, practices and behaviours from the top down to a new hybrid culture that will ultimately fail due to the Giver Taker model where natural givers become victims of natural takers especially in conflict. As with all workplace conflict, productivity suffers alongside the victims of the dispute.

In my opinion, companies who cannot move to an adhocracy and/or clan culture should think about divisionalisation (i.e. create a technology company and an adhocracy culture) or outsourcing.  A company who gets it right, will become a technology company, not because their commercial product range is necessarily Technological. They will become a Technology company because they have made a home for Technologists who will guide them through the Technological age that we now live, grow, innovate and compete in.


Sources/Credits:

Pics;




Credits:


No comments:

Post a Comment