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;

https://stocksnap.io/photo/POB2Y8A2NU

https://stocksnap.io/photo/75VJAZIQQL

https://stocksnap.io/photo/RLC58MRIX8

https://stocksnap.io/photo/ZMLBPIOGTD

Credits:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/technologist

http://artsfwd.org/4-types-org-culture/

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/givers_take_all_the_hidden_dimension_of_corporate_culture

Organisational Flexibility, the rise of the Matrix Management Structure

Today's silo, tomorrows competitive edge!!..

I once asked about the profitability of a product when considering extra payment terms to indirect suppliers in a cross functional meeting, and the Marketing Manager looked at me like I had just killed his first born son! I thought I best not pursue the issue at the time for fear that I be accosted by twenty sword yielding ninjas on my way home making it an even fight!

Upon more serious reflection of such defensiveness and numerous subsequent articles on Matrix Management structures, I have reviewed the core vertical management structure/silo concept as established over time by classical management theory and wondered if a need for simple accountability has become an inhibitor to organisational flexibility in today’s increasingly dynamic marketplace?

Source: Vertex 42

http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelTemplates/organizational-chart.html

Considering this, it is not hard to see why others have sought a solution to this problem, which has arisen in recent years due to the rise in technology as an integrated platform operating in business. Matrix management’s rise has also being aided by globalisation and the integration of advanced marketing strategies into big data models identifying market threats and opportunities much earlier then has been in times past. The need for responsive change through project management has become the norm in industries like technology, construction and government agencies that have dealt with fast changing market places for some years prior to other industries.

Matrix Management Structures have arisen initially through these industries but as technology based disruptor's reach more and more markets, the need to be more flexible in today’s marketplace creates a competitive edge and can become a matter of survival if left too late to plan for and adopt organisational structures like the Matrix Management structure.  It makes vertical structures less ‘silo’ and more ‘contributor’ to common goals set by the senior leadership in a dynamic marketplace. Matrix’d management should be managed by a cadre of high calibre functional and programme managers working together to common objectives rather then at odds, which often arises when perceived centres of power are challenged by often well-intended colleagues trying to do their jobs as they perceive them.

It sounds simple right? Well when thinking about the ‘vertical management silo’ we think of the following:

• ·      Good accountability
• ·      Good downward communication of goals, objectives and tasks
• ·      Good visibility of ‘vertical silo’ activity

When we think of ‘matrix management structures’ we think of:

• ·      Good project charters and functional modus of operation
• ·      Flexibility to handle organisational and/or market change quickly
• ·      Close collaboration on a horizontal level with layered visibility from the top down

It is reasonable to think if we lay out our expectations, the organisational benefits would be directly responsible for a world-class organisation? If so, then why are so many struggling with the need for more organisational flexibility and the matrix management structure as a model? The reasons vary from organisation to organisation but I would offer the following points to consider when looking at one’s company in a matrix management model.

ü  People make or break organisations, the matrix management model is people centric, so consider the model in terms of talent management, corporate culture and how accepting functional managers are to the influence and responsibilities a project manager would have in any change initiative. Without awareness and acceptance by all parties, the matrix management structure becomes dysfunctional and ineffective over time.

ü  Ensure the whole organisation is on board, not just one silo or a group of silos. The sponsor of a matrix management structure needs to be at the very top and the follow through needs to be executed at the same level downwards to successfully re-orientate the vertical silos to the matrix management structure in a planned manner so everybody feels secure and accepts their organisational roles into the future.

ü  Ensure the programme/project management structures are appropriately positioned to effect change and improvement in support of, rather then in conflict with functional silos.

ü  Matrix Management structures offer flexibility but make accountability difficult in complex areas of the business. Make sure the accountability is executed collaboratively using technological means to secure progress and milestone metrics on project and functional areas of operation. The synergy of accountability means projects are managed clearly and collaboratively, as are functional areas. Change management from autocratic management can be difficult but it’s necessary if matrix management structures are to work effectively.

ü  Never consider matrix management structures as an end, but a means to a new modus of operation. The requirements need to be carefully considered against internal readiness, market place dynamics and the strategic plans for the future. Engaging matrix management structures against a narrow window of project management need only will prove problematic and subject to a very high fail risk.

The need to be focused on people in such an increasingly dynamic marketplace has never being so apparent since the 1980s when the last “big push” was on moving the landscape in business. This time, its faster, more dramatic and more impacting leaving those whom balance vision and flexibility with organisational dogma standing into the future. The key always has and always will be people. To quote Debra J. Devine “If we are going to live with our deepest differences then we must learn about one another”. In order to do that we must saddle collaborative leadership practice and culture with a customised matrix model transforming the way we live, work and interact with each other building sustainable business into the future.