I was recently asked why I shy away from being labeled as the “IT person” when talking about my role or career path. I had an answer at the time but it wasn’t fully thought out. So here goes...
(I fully recognize this has been covered by many people. I appreciate your bearing with me as I attempt to make sense of it as well.)
(I fully recognize this has been covered by many people. I appreciate your bearing with me as I attempt to make sense of it as well.)
I’ve been in IT for twenty years, and my path has taking me from support through systems infrastructure to management and leadership roles. Throughout this time, the industry’s notion of what IT is to an organization has evolved, but the emphasis has always been on the idea of technology as a strategic asset or partner to the business. Magazines and websites publish plenty of case studies on success stories along these lines.
However, I’ve mostly found that an organization's notion of what IT is has more to do with keeping the lights on than on helping the organization propel itself forward. Computers need to be fixed, servers need to be running, and applications need to be available. And these are important, indeed critical, to a business functioning. They also tend to be static and can even inhibit necessary transformation as the business (or industry) evolves. The impact of IT stasis is twofold:
- IT loses its ability to explore and innovate, instead staying in the comfortable rut of maintenance.
- Non-IT folks stop thinking of IT as a team that can help solve their bigger problems, instead deciding to go it alone and “make it work."
These are both exacerbated by the reality that IT is no longer needed to stand up the basic technologies needed to run a business. It’s even easier now for IT to retreat into its cocoon and non-IT to find what they need and bring it into the workplace, increasing the divide. So being the “IT person” becomes being forgotten or uninvolved at times when their expertise is most needed, and then resentful when new services or systems are dropped on them (even though the situation is partly of IT’s making). It’s a truly vicious circle, resulting in a culture that doesn’t even think about IT when a need arises.
Okay, so that’s all depressing if you work in or are responsible for IT. What can be done about it?
The IT leadership literature has long asked questions like, “how does IT reach across to the business?” and, “how do CIOs show their CEO and peers that they’re business-focused?” These are aimed at proving IT is ready to be at the table, which is important. A CIO/CTO needs to demonstrate and be seen as at least “IT leader, plus business”, if not “business leader, plus IT” by their CEO, peers, and colleagues to be effective.
But it’s not enough. For example, ideas are generated and decisions are made in day-to-day conversations in hallways and doorways (or the virtual versions of those), not in the big meetings. The IT leader needs to be in those as well, which is a combination of being invited and asking to join. The level of agency varies by situation, so each IT leader needs to determine the right balance for their organization. Otherwise, the leader and IT department will be relegated to the sidelines, called on only when needed for a specific task.
IT leaders also need to make a compelling case to define clear lines of priority and accountability for projects they champion, and avoid having a project classified as an "IT thing." "IT things" often drop to the bottom of everyone else’s priority list, which can make them difficult to complete due to lack of business partner availability. Security, policy compliance, and process improvements often arise from IT, and easily slide into the “IT thing” category. It’s on us to contextualize those projects and build the necessary partnerships to make them both relevant and successful.
The opportunity is usually there for the CIO/CTO. But it’s never easy and it always, ALWAYS requires more time and energy than you’d think.
