Who Defines "Old" in Corporate America?

I recently decided to pursue a new job. I had many questions about the wisdom of this decision as I am already over 50 years of age. While I have lost some of my physical abilities, my brain is still going a mile a minute on a variety of topics.

There are many leaders in today's Corporate America companies that are over the age of 50 and while age is not usually discussed, it is a factor - even if its influence isn't overt.

Prior to pursuing a new job, I considered these questions:

• Do high-potential employees have an age limit?
• Is there a point in time when a company stops investing in their high-performing resources simply because they are approaching retirement? 
• What does approaching retirement mean?

After doing some research and reviewing my own ability to do the job I wanted, I discovered something very important: The value of experience. Even in this world where technology changes every day, there is a deep seated need for experience.

Why does experience matter? In Corporate America, there is a significant shift from making the best widget that costs less to giving "CONSUMERS" what they want when they want it. Going after the wallet of these consumers means you have to understand which type of consumers do you want, how many do you need to draw to hit the profit margin. This will drive innovative services and options a company can provide, often through technology. Who has more experience and knowledge on this type of shift? Those that have been in the industry for over 25 years.

I changed jobs 2 weeks ago and once again I am in my wheelhouse: Enterprise Architecture. Once again, I get to drive that need to shift all technical solutions from product-centric to consumer-centric. I am once again challenged by my work. My experience provides insights, and I keep up with the changes by reading many of the books that are pertinent in today's technical environment.

Who defines "OLD" in Corporate America? You do!

Business Architecture - Is this really a job?

Business Architecture requires executives to think differently. Unfortunately, there is still significant ambiguity surrounding the job definition, tools, concepts, and frameworks - but most importantly value to the  business. My 15 years experience in  the various enterprise architecture roles have shaped my views, I have consistently used the techniques learned through enterprise architecture training, specifically around business architecture without having the job description or the title.

What is a business architect's job? According to Wikipedia, "A business architect is a modern strategic business occupation. He or she practices in the domain of business architecture. Working as a change agent with senior business stakeholders, the business architect plays a key part in shaping and fostering continuous improvement, business transformation and innovation initiatives." 

Forrester provides deeper insights.  "Business architects must not only see the big picture when looking across multiple process improvement initiatives, they must also have business strategy talents, wide-ranging process discipline skills in methodologies such as Lean and Six Sigma, and technology know-how. Business architects have a rare combination of business domain knowledge, process experience, transformation talents, methodology skills, and a winning personality that helps with communication and business change management."

What does that mean? When I explain the role to someone outside the field, I use the example of an interpreter or translator.  A business architect listens to business leaders, their visions and strategies, and interprets these inputs to develop artifacts that define IT capabilities and functionalities necessary to support the business needs.

By leveraging common nomenclature and a consistent approach to planning, IT teams are able to deliver on functional requests while transforming from legacy applications and processes to new technology and efficient solutions.

How can it make a difference in corporations?  Individuals that can convert business strategy to conceptual technical solutions that serve business needs are few and far between.  An architect must be able to SHOW the value with tangible business benefits; it cannot just be a series of documents or processes.  In my experience, the best way to show value is to take baby steps in some key areas that can benefit from the processes performed by a trained Business Architect. 

In one of my last roles, when the IT Enterprise Project Office received a project concept document from the business, the business  architect added the business capability language to the features section, showing the business team how their features and functions would "roll up" to capabilities, bringing clarity to the business need.  Then the business architect translated the business strategy to  the necessary conceptual IT  needs and the technical design went from that point forward to build.

As a results, when the governance board reviewed projects, they were able to understand the artifacts to identify duplicated efforts in both architecture and applications because there was a line of site  from business  need to the technical solution.

Let's look at an address change: One of the most common and simplest capabilities. At one company where I worked, there were 18 separate applications and many data tables that had to be updated any time an address changed. Every change cost far more due to amount of technical and testing complexity.

The second company had 16 and when USPS added mandates and incentives incentives to validating addresses, the CEO asked why an innocuous effort like this cost $3 million to resolve, and delivered ROI  of over $8 million in the first year. The CIO explained the processes involved, then created a business architecture team that defined the necessary capabilities, and began creating artifacts that translated business processes to IT solutions.

Business Architects' perspectives is critical to building  great solutions that meet the business strategy and can measurably prove the business benefit.

After several stops along the way in several different positions in IT, I want to return to EA as it is my passion and I want to do a job that I love. 

Here is my conundrum. The game's the same, but the names have changed. I am aware of the new solution architect role and its involvement with implementation. The real problem is that as I look for ways to apply my EA experience, the IT industry expects an unrealistic expectations of technical knowledge. It used to be enough to understand the technical  concepts and high level implementation needs for the solution. Now the job descriptions require development and implement detailed knowledge in those technologies. 

An architect and a technology expert are very different.

I have solid working knowledge of SOA, web services, enterprise service bus, and integration techniques; however, I have not actually written code in these areas. I understand the concepts and logical structures, but I have never claimed to be an expert in the technical networking functions or IT operational functions  (networks/hardware/infrastructure).  The enterprise architecture role has moved more toward technical experts using technologies, and less about concepts and techniques to apply technology to a solution.

In my opinion this has blurred the lines between the the enterprise view and the implementation view.  In many situations, it leads to a lack of governance and oversight, leading to architecture that doesn't solve the business problems.

The value of Enterprise Architects understanding the business capabilities and technical solutions across the  enterprise is no longer valued.  Instead, the new architecture positions are specific to technologies such as Cloud or Business Intelligence, instead of understanding that the "How" is not as crucial as defining the "What." There are always multiple ways to attack a problem: The real value comes in defining the goal and identifying obstacles to achieving it. Knowing specific technologies does not provide the framework to implement a sound, well architected solution where all the parts are well integrated and controlled for the enterprise.  

This shift has limited the ability for trained Enterprise Architects with specific conceptual knowledge to find key roles in today's work place.

Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Lack of Trust or Lack of Relationships??

There was a time when the culture in the workplace was not discussed; learning to navigate and network was the key so no discussion was required. There was no talk of building trust, it was earned.Over the past 15 years, I have noticed increased focus on words such as trust and transparency with less interaction between leaders and their teams. Technology has increased the gaps in communication between leaders and teams and without relationships, trust cannot be built. My fear is the gap will widen. Are leaders too busy running from meeting to meeting to build relationships with their teams? Is delegation from leaders regarding key tasks to their teams an activity of the past? Are team members missing opportunities because leaders don't delegate? Have leaders stopped delegating because they are 1) Expected to know ALL the details and/or 2) They cannot trust that the activity will get done? Are employees held accountable for doing their job and meeting expectations?

These are pivotal questions and it is hampering how work gets done. My last question is, what needs to change to improve this?

Winning People Over - Casting Your Vision

As of today, I have completed my fourth week at a new job. I have heard many times that you have no idea of how much you are capable of until someone tests you. It is very true. My title is business architect which is the job I have wanted for at least 15 years. This role is to help business and IT teams communicate to gain synergies to effect change; the business gets what they asked for and IT has delivered a great solution.

I have worn many hats this past week that are bigger than business architecture. I have helped my boss look good and had the opportunity in front of many groups to learn and contribute. I have participated in business case discussions, helped to articulate a contingency plan, and begun to analyze the existing processes. The most important things I've done in these four weeks are to start identifying the gaps in our current-state business architecture and to work with the various teams to prioritize which gaps need attention first.

The company is going through the yearly planning process and there are so many ideas. However, I have recognized that this is not the time to try and change the process.  Time is too short to even accomplish what is required using the old methods.  However, I am planting the seed (casting the vision) of what could be and there are many of my peers embracing the concepts. To drive change that is rooted deep in culture, it takes the water drop method or planting a seed to influence others to buy into the vision and see the different it can make for them.

Knowing where you are now, what vision can you cast and espouse to influence others regarding the vision's potential? Please respond and share with others.

#4 Leading through Change - The How

Change is hard. Why? It is hard because it creates a feeling of chaos and unrest for many people, especially in the workplace. Fear of losing jobs, fear of working for a bad boss, and fear of not being compensated fairly all lead to problems with change.

Every person thinks of change in their own way. For me, I thrive on change. When I was newly married, I drove my husband crazy because I re-arranged the furniture frequently. My husband was in the military and frequently worked odd hours. One night he came home late and fell over the furniture in the living room. He turns on the light and he sees the loveseat. I had moved it while he was at work. Needless to say, I started taking that into consideration before changing the living room arrangement and he started turning on the light before taking a step. Later in our marriage, my husband became very wise. A large, solid wood bedroom suite and entertainment center ended my ability to arrange furniture on a whim.

In my career, I also embrace change. I have held a variety of roles and spent time reading and engaging others to learn and grow. I spent the time learning my passion and change is a big part of that. I like to lead change efforts that make an impact. I like helping organizations think differently so that change is possible. Depending on the corporate culture however, this role may or may not be embraced.

Some Reasons Why People Fear Change:

1. Change adds a risk for their career. Will they be let go? Will they be successful in a new role? Will they like the new team? 
• The key to mitigate this during a change initiative.  Inform the people using the WIFM technique - What Is In It For Me. Communicate the vision and how it impacts their jobs.  Be as specific as you can.  You need to make them comfortable with the change. Make sure you use multiple communication mechanisms and reinforce the message often.  
2. Change adds chaos which adds stress.  People who like to do the same task, the same way, every day and they want it to stay that way. This is level of stability they need to reduce stress.  
• Mitigating this situation is more difficult. This is intrinsic to them. It is part of who they are as a person. There are two techniques that I have used to help this situation. Find a member on the team that supports the change and has a relationship with the person who is struggling.  Pull them together and discuss feelings. You may not be able to change the feelings however the awareness reduces stress.  The second technique is to meet with the person and from their point of view and help them visualize what the changes will look like for their short term future. This works with people who are also focused on career growth.
3. With change initiatives, it is important that the communications regarding the changes are not communicated due to a team's inability to execute. People it personal and are hurt when they think their jobs do not add value.
• All the communication regarding the change should use language that indicates that this is the next step in the process or to compete in the industry the company must make changes.

These are just a short list of reasons people fear change. John Kotter's book Leading Change (link is at bottom of page for your convenience) is a good reference for any person who is leading a change initiative. In the book Kotter identified eight steps to leading change. If you review the diagram, the steps are somewhat self explanatory.

 In Kotter's book, there are details regarding the best methods to move progress through the steps. In addition, details and examples regarding risk mitigation and avoiding the "gotchas" that are always a part of any change are provided for context. This is the start of learning "how" to effectively lead change.

#4 Leading through Change - The What

For most of my leadership journey I spent time learning about the characteristics of a good leader. Along the way, there has been a focus on a specific path that has become extremely important and that is how to lead through change to drive execution to the vision.

There are 3 major transformations efforts where I was part of the teams that were charged with leading and executing the efforts.  The first significant transformation effort was creating, communicating, and socializing an enterprise architecture organization and processes; ensuring an Enterprise Architecture (EA) Organization and the EA artifacts would add value to the overall organization. The team included Business and IT leaders and the effort was met with resistance initially. The IT community had two main areas of concern. First, the application and technical teams struggled with the level of accountability to an organization that would dictate designs and solutions with no perceived post-implementation involvement.  The other area of IT concern was that the organization would add a level of bureaucracy and paperwork to a current process that was already time consuming. The business organization were concerned with making changes to any processes while continuing to execute the day to day business.

In the first transformation effort took eighteen months before the transformation team hit the first key milestone.  This was the plan. Announcing the creation of an enterprise architecture organization, explanation of the architect's roles and then providing specific details on why everyone in the organization would be impacted is a very important milestone. It was the start of socializing the change. Following the plan crafted by the transformation team, momentum was leveraged and the effort continued to move forward. Architecture artifacts provided information and insight to the details of the operational environment through the definition of the current state. With the information documented and organized effectively, the duplicity of business processes and applications was obvious. The most visible area of duplicity was the address change process. It impacted several business units and more than 10 applications. This level of duplicity and complexity impacts the organization's ability to respond quickly to competitive levers. Any business need that would require changes made to the address change processes or applications would involve analyzing multiple business processes and applications which require significant time, potentially impacting a business strategic goal or gain a competitive edge. The EA organization showed value within the first 12 months through the artifact information and guidance provided early in the change process. The software development lifecycle (SDLC) was modified to include the enterprise architecture processes and artifact creation and updates.

The next transformation effort was done at another company. A new division was created that would be the first division at this company that would sell products and services direct to consumer instead of through a broker or agent. This was a a core strategic competitive differentiation for this company and was a pivot point for accomplishing sales goals. Through executive level support and perseverance, significant accomplishments were made to drive success until the 2008-2009 recession.

The latest transformation effort was to create the strategic plan for the church my family was attending. The church leadership wanted a plan to grow the church in ways to invite and engage the community to be involved in the church family. The changes would be transformative; doing church in a different way. There is a saying in leadership circles, "If you want to know if  you can lead, lead volunteers and see if you an make things happen."  A team was recruited, met weekly, developed a vision and draft plan. This information was presented to the congregation of 400 people to inform and start the process of socializing the change. As you can imagine, there were many questions. It was planned that this would be the situation so as much questions and answers were done during the time allotted and additional church meetings would be scheduled frequently to ensure they would remain informed. This was the start of the "buy-in" process.  In the next post, #4 Leading through change - The How, discussion of the eight steps of leading change successfully from John Kotter's book, "Leading Change" will be reviewed.

Change is hard.  There will be obstacles in driving change.  Unfortunately resources, cost, skills, and other factors can derail the effort to gain the momentum necessary to make the changes that are needed.  Listed below are eight mistakes or reasons why change can fail.  Please review the list. It is important to understand why the process can fail so that they can be mitigated.  List from John Kotter's book "Leading Change" to why change efforts fail:

1. Culture of complacency
2. Lack of support from the top
3. Realizing the power of a vision
4. Under-communicating the vision
5. Letting obstacles deter or detract from progress
6. Failing to create short-term wins
7. Declaring victory too soon
8. Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the organization's culture

If you have any comments or questions, please post them in response to the blog.  I would truly like to hear opinions from others regarding leading through change.

Leadership: Is the Term too Ambiguous to Delineate?

This week, I was reading the comments in response to a question from Ian Mitchell on LinkedIn where the question was asked, "What is the single most important quality for a leader to have?" It has been posted for a month and has 1,442 comments. The responses have been all over the map. Integrity, trust, compassion, follow-ability, authenticity, etc.  

Over time, definitions of terms can change and/or adapt to society changes, environment changes, and generational differences, and the list goes on. However, as this happens, terms do not evolve, the get modified to include the new definitions.

As these terms have their definitions augmented, it makes it much more difficult to create effective leadership training, causing a void that impacts the work place, church, government, etc.  

Google the term "leadership characteristics" or "leadership styles." There are a phenomenal variety of phrases, made up terms, and buzz words that have watered down the expectations about what a leader is responsible for thinking, doing, and learning. This approach is ineffective and confusing for those learning to be new leaders. For those individuals aspiring to move from mid-level management roles to higher levels in an organization, leadership is critical. How can leadership be taught when the definition is not consistent enough and it is based on biases that are based on individual perceptions?

I have spent the last twenty years studying leaders and the meaning of leadership.  While the basics have remained the same, the people in leadership have changed. It is my experience that the fundamental leadership characteristics have been watered down or left behind altogether.  For example the majority of the leaders, both positional and informal, I have encountered recently have been self-centered.  Because of this, integrity, trust, and transparency have been lost, especially in the corporate world.  

I have spent time on and off over the last 8 years blogging on the topic of leadership. Not many followers, much to my chagrin. I feel strongly that there is a need to equip our leaders of the future. Blogging is my attempt to help those who are not leaders to gain knowledge of tips and techniques that help foster their quest for further leadership research. Experience and research are the sources for the information covered in the blog.

I would like to hear other insights on this topic. What are your thoughts? Have we strayed from knowing what characteristics are key to a good leader? What do you think of in regards to leadership when you hear names like John F. Kennedy, Colin Powell, Winston Churchill, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela? The list goes on with other key leaders that made a difference through their leadership.

Integrity includes trust, character and transparency. Servant, self-awareness, and compassion could be included together. Resilience, adaptability, flexibility are similar. Humility, understanding, confidence, influence, vision, respect, knowledge, foresight, courage, etc.  Each of these are very good characteristics to have as a person, not traits just for a leader to possess.

Leaders have to have followers. This is a truth. With that being the premise, then ask yourself, why do you need followers?  John C. Maxwell wrote a great book called, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership. This book changed my ideas of leadership and attributes that are key to being a person of high integrity.