e-learning in the enterprise: pain or gain or ...

The industry required periodic training for new products to have an intelligent conversation with customers; so every company conducted training programs to equip their teams with requisite knowledge which would serve all kinds of customers. It was early days of automation, e-learning was just beginning to raise a baby head; early versions were complex, unwieldy, and ineffective in comparison to conventional classroom instructor led training (ILT). Video based learning was deemed a shade better though expensive to deploy.

Realizing the early mover advantage, the CIO had pushed the management to explore new solutions at a nominal cost which he was able to get from a startup vendor. The system was deployed quickly, the head of Learning & Development partnered to provide content, and sensing success co-owned the pioneering initiative. The sales team embraced the solution which helped them move faster and compete in a tough market. Awards, accolades and many conferences later, the poster boy had recreated the way learning happened in the industry.

What led to the success ? Simplistically the partnership between IT and Business towards achieving a shared objective and a technology solution that works; realistically it was the fact that L&D knew the pulse of the people, IT had high credibility and connect with the business and the vendor ecosystem, and the management was willing to experiment and explore, not averse to taking risks. Management case studies are full of such stories on what works which get labeled as “Best Practices” by industry or department.

A decade later, the same CIO in the same industry with another company unsuccessfully attempted to repeat his success; the company had shied away from new technology with a business as usual approach preferring to maintain status quo. After all they were growing with the market and were reasonably profitable without technology interventions. The CIO tasked with the agenda to refresh IT had struggled through the journey with pushbacks and total abdication of responsibility by the business who had more critique than suggestions.

In the ensuing half a score years, the solutions had matured to provide seamless access across multiple channels, the learning experience far easier than the clunky interface of the past. Mobile based rendering with interactive features and extensive library of content has made learning fun and easy. Gamification adds to the intensity of engagement increasing levels of competition between participants. For the industry, ILT is no longer the primary mode of learning with economics and efficiency in favor of technology solutions.

In the first case learning was seen as an integral part of evolution for everyone; learning was encouraged and the company culture and spirit of harmony created a positive environment thereby increasing the propensity of success. Technology was just the enabler creating better outcomes; so a new way of learning was welcomed and embraced with open mind. The platform was not the best, but that did not matter; technology complexity was accepted as a part of progress, the organization was undeterred by these metrics.

The recent experience of the CIO was starkly different; given the dimensions of the new enterprise, he was in a position to choose the best at his terms. Global solution providers sought his attention to demonstrate their wares, the enterprise chose the market leading most widely accepted solution by the industry. It was the deal of the year that had everyone else sit up and take notice; the vendor made up margin with other deals that followed the announcement and captured enviable market share in the process.

Then what challenged execution ? The large ageing workforce in the monolithic enterprise fought to keep the legacy processes alive which had served them well for the last few decades. They had seen the industry adopt technology and excused themselves citing size, complexity and various other reasons for not following the trend towards technology led business interventions. Comfort zones prevented new opportunities and learning was brushed aside lest it become an obstacle in the way of retaining comfort, employment and past glory.

In difficult times companies have been known to cut training budgets; L&D is also a casualty during fast pace of growth when everyone believes they don’t have the time. Learning is also killed by operational pressures and prioritization of the urgent; managerial attitudes overpower leadership principles in many enterprises. That unfortunately ensures that companies stagnate or do not achieve their potential. The medium is incidental, however the ability to reach a large cross section frequently can only be enabled by technology.

I close with an interesting insight circulated on social media over time: CFO asks the CEO, “Why spend so much on training when people will any way leave ?”; answers back the CEO, “What if we don’t and they stay ?”

Corporate culture drives enterprise performance as much as people !

It is a well-accepted fact that leaders define corporate culture and how teams behave; look around and you will find reflections of influential board members, CEO, other CXOs trickling downwards to their direct reports as well as teams below. The rub off creates interesting interplays between teams and functions where camaraderie or natural antipathy cascades downwards like the flow of water. This naturally occurring phenomenon determines the ability of the company to thrive or strive within industry competitive forces.

The autocratic paternalistic and dictatorial behavior of the CEO created an acquiescent team who tried second guessing what would come next but never took any action until the command was handed down with explicit instructions on execution. Every decision required approval, every direction was set by the Monarch, every one worked to keep Him happy even when they knew better. Profitable growth kept the Board away and the company trundled along overtaking others on the way to prominence.

Information was power; he divided segments such that collaboration depicted only part of the picture; the whole was visible only to him and he wielded that power over everyone. Irrational or good, his word was cast in stone and none challenged him. From the outside it appeared that the company had achieved greatness despite limited investments when compared to industry leaders or the standard benchmarks. It was only when the Great Dictator stepped down that the reality began to come out.

The company had a consistent track record of failed IT projects; these included implementations that were necessary to conduct fair business as well as operational efficiency seekers that would have given the company the real foundation to consistently deliver business performance. Projects would begin with usual fanfare, proclamations of the company having taken steps ahead of competition and then the initiatives faded into oblivion. The low success rate was accepted as normal with a view that the company was “different”.

Different they were indeed; take the instance of a large project that was approved after elongated analysis of local and global solutions. The company finally selected underwent excruciating negotiations; the project started off with an eclectic mix of global subject matter experts and sub-optimal resources allotted by the company who defined the process and workflows, each was discussed and debated for compliance to standards, rarest of rare exception conditions and current way of working.

The corporate culture did not allow individual points of view or decision making; any and all forms of alternative opinions or views were frowned upon, dissent was unheard of. All decisions – critical or otherwise – were referred for a final view and approval of the Monarch. He did take decisions, but in his own time; reminders were forbidden, after all he was so busy running the business. Thus the project saw time overruns, in some cases thrice the time budgeted for certain activities leaving the vendor helpless, threatening to pull off resources.

They never felt the need to hire a CIO; the story repeated itself with every project, the lack of credible leadership at the next level leaving the company at the mercy of the mediocre. In the absence of talent inflow, the microcosm thrived at the lowest levels of incompetence. By accident or providence a few projects that completed or delivered had sycophants calling out results of visionary leadership. Unable to handle the cultural fit and decision making that rendered the project unprofitable with no end in sight, the vendor finally pulled the plug.

Suppressive leadership had created assembly line of workers who did only what they were told to; they stopped thinking or applying their mind to any activity, event or happening. Humiliation, reprimand, and retribution in large doses ensured that everyone adopted a subservient way of working. Those who could not adjust exited to find better working conditions elsewhere; the resultant exodus of high professionals left the company poorer and challenged. It would take arduous effort to steer the ship back.

History repeated itself multiple times as if it left no lessons for the sufferers who continued to toil on both sides; the abrupt exit created a real vacuum leaving people with FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt); the business ran out of steam quickly, the slowdown rang alarm bells across forcing the Board to wake up, take notice and investigate. Loyalists were given the task of arresting the downfall and build a strong team that will bring the company back on track and revive the growth it had enjoyed for more than a decade.

Turnarounds make good stories and that is for another time.

Strategic or Operational CIO ! Making choices

Not so long ago on a Saturday, I was invited to a day long meeting of a few selected high profile CIOs. As the meeting started, one of them was in and out of the room for about 30 minutes. With every journey in and out, his pressure level appeared to be going up a few notches. Until he decided that he had to be managing the crisis that hit his IT service and left the meeting quickly with a promise to return as soon as the crisis has been overcome. His company had one of the oldest running relationships with the outsourced service provider and the subject of a few case studies too. And that was the last we saw of him for the day !

The remaining CIOs looked at each other in amazement and wondered what happened to the good old adage of delegation and empowerment of teams. One also commented that he never believed the impacted person to be "Operational CIO" and everyone nodded their heads in unison. This makes one wonder the "Strategic CIO" tag that almost every CIO wants to attach against their names is reality or just an aspiration ?

A few hours into the meeting, another phone ran amongst the remaining CIOs and after a few minutes on the phone during which everyone was on pause, the CIO in question mentioned, that he had a situation which his team called to apprise him of and he was confident that they would overcome it. The meeting continued with his equal participation.

Two sides of the CIO within a span of a couple of hours. Is this personality driven or Organization dependent ?

I believe that both play a role in the making the CIO either Operational or Strategic. The CIO has to build a team that s/he can empower and is willing to trust to take the best and the most pragmatic approach in the case of a crisis. The Organization has to experience the ability of the IT team to manage adversity with or without the leader's direct presence. The CIO has to let go and manage expectations with the rest of the Organization. In most cases the team will live up to the confidence placed on them. If the general belief is that the team will not overcome, then they will wait for the CIO to take the decision; on the contrary, if the team is empowered, they will in almost all cases rise to the situation.

If the Organization has a cultural issue with every senior manager calling the CIO for even a small issue, then the sad reality is that the CIO will be seriously challenged to demonstrate strategic intent as the operational burden will ensure that there is no time to even think about anything remotely strategic. Such an enterprise becomes the death knell of a strategic CIO leader.

The insecure CIO tends to become operational and the spiral downwards happens too quickly thereafter. Overcoming the subsequent burden can sometimes take a lifetime (at least within that company for the CIO). One could also argue to say that the General elected to fight with the soldiers from the trenches. But what good is a dead General to the forces ?