Surviving in an Enterprise in a leadership role without doing anything

Most of us have read the 3 envelope parable on corporate challenges and careers; for those who have not, an abridged version. A newbie leader is given 3 envelopes by the outgoing incumbent to be opened only in cases of dire trouble. He opens the first one when challenged in a management meeting and confronts the wisdom: Blame predecessor ! A year passes when again he is in trouble; the second envelope ? Restructure, create new strategy. Survive ! Final envelope’s turn comes after a gap which reads: Create three envelopes !

Corporate world is full of pseudo professionals who survive and at times thrive with their mastery of jargon, leaning on others, taking away credit from own team, agreeing to their immediate managers, sucking up to those who matter and finally using vendors to give them dope that makes them look good. The malaise is a lot more in the technology world that invents acronyms, jargon, and new fads with regularity confusing even technophiles; tech vendors are happy to provide spinal support in return for business.

The masqueraders can be seen at most conferences and seminars nodding intelligently at speakers and asking questions; they flock together and stay away from the intellectuals. They are not to be confused with the incompetent who shy away from any public appearance who only focus on internal politics and their survival depends on the first or second envelopes at different times with different folks within the company; their survival is also reliant on finding a godfather or some capable team members.

Pareto’s principle applies here too but inversely; the majority are able to get away with their pretenses and a small segment gets caught often shunted out by bell curve distribution. At senior levels the collateral damage is high to the enterprise, setback in business or industry at times difficult to overcome; weeding out such ineffectives takes time and effort which most companies are reluctant to invest. It also reflects badly on their ability to hire talented good people or separate cheese from chalk !

Take the case of this large enterprise which hired – let’s call her Suzy – to a senior position; she had come through the interviews well with help from an insider who coached her on what to say. Nothing wrong with that, everyone seeks whatever help they can to ace an interview for a position that they want badly enough. Such was the situation for Suzy too as she had been force exited from her past company post restructuring, a fact that remains undisclosed. She chatted her way through to securing the position.

Her inherited team compared her behavior, expertise, skills, knowledge, connects in the industry, understanding of the industry, personal traits, leadership qualities, desire to connect with them, essentially sizing her up as a leader who will influence their future. The comparison by the team with the earlier person was obvious and natural, the results however not in her favor; she recognized the fact and created an impregnable veil shutting off any discussion. The team knew the disadvantageous position thus prevailing.

The team toiled harder only to be cut off from credits scored by their work, giving them no visibility nor allowing any of them to interact with decision makers lest they expose the insecurities of their leader. Any attempts to bypass the straightjacketed process were met with reprimands and promise of future retributions. The iron lady brushed aside her rusty demeanor allowing those who made up her coterie to gain favors at the expense of the others with resultant attrition in the inherited team as collateral damage.

It was a matter of time that Suzy will reach the third envelope stage, except that she had been able to demonstrate progress for now with the first (envelope) being pulled out like a trump card whenever something was not as expected. It was a matter of time that management took cognizance of the fact that the past was distant and she had had enough time to change it. It was a matter of time that the Board recognized there has been no significant initiatives from her stable despite the rising costs and industry moving at a faster clip.

Different enterprises wake up to eventualities at different stages of their progression; when growth and profitability is above target, no one really cares for the deadwood, they are too busy celebrating. Search for termites starts when everything is not hunky dory or when a new leader takes over reins and has no history, baggage or axe to grind. Eventually the overdue surgery takes place cleansing the system to restart; then there are companies who are reluctant to take tough decisions, they embrace mediocrity for long.

One step forward, two steps back, managing change with new software implementations !

The need was dire, the staff wanting and IT team willing, but the company management for some reason did not take a decision to approve the project. Almost everyone in the industry had the tools required for the tasks, it was basic hygiene to say the least; growth despite not having the tools set in a belief that they did not need them. When a new IT head came onboard, he was pushed into a corner to take up the cause on behalf of the Sales & Marketing team and try his luck in getting approval for the investment.

It is not that they did not have any technology solution running; they were among the early ones to deploy laptops for majority of their teams though the solution they were using required replacement yesterday. Everyone had given up on the solution which was supported by a small time vendor who had built it about a score of years back and had continued to patch it just enough to keep it alive and going; rumor had it that he was related to someone at the top. The newbie decided to take a shot and worked to gather the data meticulously to support his case for change.

He stepped out into the field to first-hand experience the angst and pain, validate the hearsay and the extent of change required. Spending time with the young and the experienced, walking the streets, having a cup of coffee on the streets, quickly the empathy built and he heard stories of long hours spent, favoritism and management apathy, the dam had broken – he was flooded with their emotion. He was informed that it is probably the first time in a decade that any CXO had descended to the trenches.

Upset but in a controlled way he presented the facts to the group in the Boardroom seeking their flirting eyes to make contact and press for a decision. Outlining the stark reality he appealed to the Management to wake up and face the reality of slowly diminishing market share. The S&M head added his weight and sought resolution to the long standing impasse. He did manage to get a conditional approval, the condition surprisingly to involve the Finance team in the evaluation ! Finance for a S&M solution ?

So they set together a team to formulate the functional selection criteria – more of an aspirational list of functionality in comparison to current reality and in-line with external reality. The options were known and well understood, so the run through happened quickly, the recommendation based on market leadership and ease of use and deployment. The Finance team reviewed the cost against current outflow and found it to be higher, unwilling to take into consideration the better capability, efficiency gain and superior technology.

Escalation to the CFO brought in a new dimension to benchmark with global systems; the team turned around the evaluation in record time and presented the same. A fashion parade followed with lofty claims and global metrics, some of which did not matter, but in the end based on extraneous factors the CFO declared the evaluation closed and selected a global solution with a much higher budgetary allocation and timeline. This was finally presented to the Management as the best course of action.

The decision disconnected from reality was shot down, the CFO smarting the turndown attempted to gain an upper hand by taking the popular choice and setting unreasonable demands on time, functionality and cost. The IT Head and the S&M team could see through the charade; no one however dared to raise the red flag and to whom ? Despite this adversity, the project started in earnest, everyone giving it their best effort; usage increased as the new was far superior to the old and offered succor to the underserved.

Fault had to be found in the unwelcome success, and the Finance team did by challenging the data, the authenticity of inputs, denying the outcome, the project started losing credibility. Repeating a lie consistently sowed the seeds of doubt and put to rest an initiative that could have succeeded overcoming all challenges. They reverted back to the old faithful shoe with holes, hobbling back to their painful existence and journey. An opportunity to regain market leadership was lost in egoist behavior and lack of protest.

One step forward, two steps back; a year and more spent in the entire exercise, precious time and resources allotted for a naught, the loser was the enterprise in the war of the old versus the new, misplaced metrics for business and project that would have brought in business transformation. Many years later the organization has continued to remain under the shadow of the failed venture, the will broken, confidence missing, and the experience bitter. The CFO and IT Head have moved on leaving behind a case study !

Is it ethical to take credit for good work done by your predecessor or your team ?

A: When he took on the new role in the highly visible company, he knew that he will have to put in some effort to fill in the gap left by his predecessor; the company was one of the pioneers in their industry and had taken good steps towards retaining their leadership position. The new CIO with impeccable pedigree was excited to take on the new assignment that was expected to bring great opportunities to excel. He launched into the new company full of enthusiasm and quickly aligned the team to his ethos and way of working.

As he settled into the position, work done over the last year began to show signs of fruition; the industry wanted to write about the success, publish case studies, requests for which were redirected to project owners to engage and provide the requisite details. At the same time he pushed the pace of innovation and work thus propelling the enterprise into newer waters, claiming success often. Skillfully he continued to sidestep requests for sound bites, media coverage and interviews where his contributions were limited to shepherding.

In management meetings he requested his colleagues to help in maintaining continuity and present along with him; he also brought along teammates to provide on-the-ground view of reality. The latter he practiced for new projects too with the rationale that the team best presented practical challenges and real life issues while he fully owned the project and was responsible and accountable for challenges if any. He wanted to instill a sense of pride to the team members as they presented to the powers that be.

Z: She came on board as the incumbent left to pursue entrepreneurial interests; she did not know the industry, a reality not different from the one faced by the CIO in A. Her new company too had a large number of initiatives that had progressed well and were in various stages of completion. The team aligned to her way of working – quite different from their earlier experiences. Coming from an unrelated industry where she had spent her entire professional life, her uncommunicative stance evoked paparazzi curiosity.

She shunned the external media and also cast an unfriendly eye on her team almost putting to stop completely any connect with the world outside – a diagrammatically opposite of the recent past. She was unable to make significant headway with new initiatives with her team with her demeanor and ability to gain the trust of her team. Reciprocally she trusted no one and played the lone ranger, preferring to attend meetings alone, which initially surprised the team until they realized the reason for the behavior.

In her desire to prove her mettle and look good in the eyes of the management, she purposely painted a bleak picture of the past casting aspersions on the team ability as well as the departed leader whose position she now occupied. Positioning herself as the manna from heaven to the rescue of the enterprise, she almost convinced her audience that the situation was grim and she will overcome the challenges with grim determination and hard work and a bit of help from the team who let this happen in the first place.

She created a false sense of urgency and fear to paint a picture au contraire and then step by step proceeded to take credit for remediating the situation. Wherever her team completed a task or achieved a milestone, she dramatized the event and presented to the management projecting herself as indispensable and critical. As a result she alienated a large part of her team in her own insecurities who slowly started departing for greener pastures. Remember the maxim ? People join companies, they leave their bosses !

Between A and Z, they represent two ends of the spectrum: one focused on team and works to empower them and help their confidence; the other self-centered, stifling the team, their work and achievements. Most will choose to be on the side of A and profess that the behaviors outlined are what they practice with their teams. At the other end Z by virtue of the inability to lead has taken the extreme step of isolating herself and living a self-created bubble which can burst anytime leaving her pantomime exposed.

Success is rarely illegitimate, it has many fathers; people do see through facades eventually, be prepared to face the consequences when it happens.

Taken for a ride: the preferred vendor or the enterprise ? 2 sides of the coin !

It was a great journey working with you and the team to design the solution … regret, unfortunately we are unable to proceed with the engagement and would like to thank you for offer; we wish you all the best in your future endeavors ! After unsuccessfully attempting to shift the blame from himself, the CFO gave in and agreed to recall the vendor and accept their last provided offer to move ahead. It was a tumultuous ride that had culminated in the imbroglio the enterprise found itself in with the vendor shortlisted by the business and IT. (see earlier post)

The delay had almost cost the business the early mover advantage; they required the solution to be primed within a time window for which they will now have to super stretch. Regulatory deadlines can be unforgiving to business and the Business Head was thus on tenterhooks. He sensed that the wounded ego will not take kindly to the decision; the scorned CFO should have been his ally, after all they had a good working relationship in the past; the CIO was a political outcast with his neutrality now going against him.

With a letter of intent the project was kicked off, the contracting took a while; each and every clause was scrutinized and fortified to put the vendor in a precarious situation should the project suffer any kind of deviation. To safeguard his interest, despite undue pressure the vendor did not commit full resources until the paperwork was completed. The business team watched the drama as it played out waiting to get started; the CIO continued to counsel the vendor with a mix of pragmatism and spirit of the now fragile partnership.

Starting on perceptibly shaky foundation, the project got off to a fair start with all sides putting in the rigor required to make up lost ground and deliver to promise; review meetings were used for course correction as the steps taken were firm and steady thus covering the halfway milestone with time to spare. The first process prototypes were approved for build and the finishing line appeared to be within reach. Everyone was charged and they were progressing in perfect unison, an example out of the textbooks on project management.

Next review meeting had an uninvited yet powerful participant who wanted a personal assessment of the good news that the project reports were portraying. He tested the patience of the team with his questions that attempted to elevate the highly improbable to highly likely even though it did not make any sense to build for probability of events that may occur beyond the six sigma. The system design not addressing the probable though not possible kept recurring as a theme and he declared an emergency by the end of the meeting.

No one had anticipated the CFOs active interest in the project considering that after finalization of the contract they had not heard anything from his offices. So the new found interest made everyone a bit uncomfortable, wondering where it was headed. By the end of the meeting it was evident that it was a blatant attempt to derail the project by challenging the team credibility to have thought through the processes and design a solution that addressed all use cases; the team went into a huddle to find a strategy to overcome the new challenge.

The vendor provided referenceable material on global best practices and how they had addressed similar scenarios in other markets; the CIO reached out to the subject matter experts to list down occurrences of exceptions over the history of the company rather than work on hypothesis of an eventuality hitting them. All the material thus collated clearly vindicated the stand the team had taken and the solution they had architected which appeared to be adequate to counter the new threat to their project.

Such distractions they could do without and they could not have taken on the CFO headlong; so they decided to use the CIOs connections to get an external consultant – an acknowledged authority. As providence would have it, the next meeting was the Steering Committee which had all stakeholders. The Consultant gave an independent critical analysis of the project pointing out a few observations where the team could improve outcomes. The CEO applauded the audit report and endorsed the team to move with full speed.

Contracts protect enterprises from external risks, how do we stay protected from internal mischief ?

Politicking can kill not just projects, but damage enterprise value systems !

It was an opportunity of a lifetime for the newly appointed team of the entity formed as a joint venture between two behemoths; anyone would have vied for a part of the action, the team was handpicked with high performers in their respective fields. They collectively created an audacious vision for the project with many pioneering steps none of which had been successfully executed in the past. The endorsed vision required engagement of experts from various disciplines to be brought together for specific activities.

Well-funded, they sought the best in each field to take charge of the tasks and forge ahead to fulfil the vision – a talking point within the industry. The best felt a sense of excitement at attempted the almost impossible, they came onboard easily; the energy of the team was infectious and recruited others with ease. Surprisingly the team of experts did not cross swords with each other and rather collaborated happily with each other, the glue being the leader and success that would deliver self-actualization.

One such duo comprising strategic and operational excellence was on boarded to shape the systems, process, and technology, a necessary foundation for success. Both were industry legends in their own right, their collaboration was expected to bring the necessary magic required. They hit off well with the veteran providing experience to rein in youthful ambition and risk taking; the project thus took off with the industry amazed at the quality of inputs and discussions based on the benchmark beating framework conceptualized.

Well and ill-intended pressure notwithstanding, the team delivered a path breaking schema at which everyone gawked at in disbelief. Global interest kindled, the battle was well fought among partners who wanted to be part of the now much discussed project. Surprisingly for everyone, the underdogs went on to impress the evaluation team to win the project much to the dismay of few sore losers who attempted to undermine the credibility of the winners; with time the pressure eased off and the team started execution.

Emboldened by success, the organization retained the consultants for further definition of tech based projects, evaluation and award to thus selected partners. Transparent evaluation criteria was the hallmark of past success where aspersions could not be cast on any step or player; the second project too benefited from similar governance thus cementing the relationship between consultant and company. The industry applauded the partnership and spread the good news around for others to emulate.

The organization had now got used to the best and success that came easily riding on the experience of the consultant. The third project of reasonable complexity had multiple solution possibilities and thus many providers who could have executed with varied degrees of success. Lobbying started from the inception and announcement with providers and integrators, big and small, pushing for change in specifications and dilution of qualification criteria, and leniency in the evaluation process to give a chance to every aspirant worthy only in their own eyes.

Business team faced pressure; influencers of all types – good, bad, ugly – pushed the team to accommodate vested interests. They met the consultant, cajoled, threatened, and attempted every trick to swing the decision making criteria in their favor. Some of the changes were forced to accommodate additional vendors with clout with senior management and the Board. The consultant uncomfortable through the process, continued to work in the interest of the project and the relationship with the team that had brought success.

The bids were finally accepted after multiple changes and timeline extensions; many bidders were beginning to lose hope smelling something fishy. The consultant remained tight lipped and started evaluation of the submissions and turned in his recommendations. After that days became weeks and months with no announcement as the partners hounded the Consultant for updates. Clueless he redirected everyone to the evaluation committee head, who steadfastly maintained that evaluation was still on.

Unknown to the Consultant, the lobbying with the management had taken its toll; some of the new staff members were willing to bend the rules in return for favors. They poisoned the effort and proclaimed inadequacy of specifications as well as evaluation by the Consultant, recommending scrapping the project, which unfortunately was accepted. Aghast the Consultant exited the relationship which threatened to compromise the value system on which the relationship was built, and damage his credibility.

It is evident what went wrong, some of which was controllable, and some probably not with vested interests holding power over decision makers. The collapse of the value system unfortunately polluted the rest of the enterprise which prided itself on its professionalism and lofty audacious goals that they had proclaimed, attempted and completed successfully. A year later, the company was looking no different from any other in the industry, the magic was lost and the high performers had moved on !

People build companies, people destroy companies too !

Would you help your earlier Organization after you have quit ?

It was a call from his ex-boss and he wondered what prompted the call 2 months after he had quit to take up a new assignment in another industry. He had spent over two years in the company when it was going through difficult times and strengthened the business and his function with a mix of calculated risk and conviction of success; he had succeeded in no small measure, acknowledged across the company globally. The company, his manager and now mentor, had given him back his professional pride that was bruised by his previous company.

Over the decade and more of work experience, his track record was excellent barring the unpleasant exit from multinational politics. He had left that behind and moved on with the new company that had offered him a challenge and opportunity to regrow his self-esteem. Driving a mean timeline, he had brought change that appeared difficult, and also created new avenues for growth. The company attempted to retain him but greener pastures beckoned him; he had left with bridges intact, the company also treating him well during the short notice period.

The surprise call from his ex-manager was to seek information on the last project he had worked upon which was well received as the strategy forward; the caller also requested two days of time in the coming weeks to travel abroad for a strategic presentation which would help in reinforcing the decision. He very much wanted to help his friend and now mentor; he also knew that he will have to take permission from his current company and manager to travel on behalf of his earlier company; so he promised to check and revert.

Tentatively he broached the subject with his CEO, outlining the request and his desire to acquiesce; in the two months that he had spent in the new entity, he had been quick to fit into the team and role while demonstrating his skills as a people’s person in his team. The agenda for the year was charted out and required his unwavering dedication and attention to execution. The CEO looked at his face which implored a positive decision and granted permission to travel; he realized the value his new hire could create even for his company.

The CXO had had a miserable time in his last few months in the role; unable to manage the growing political patronage across functions, he was unable to compromise his professional pride and bend to the now omnipresent sycophancy. Barring his team and a few who had felt the difference he had brought to the enterprise, no one shed tears when he left. The traditional farewell party was held with the usual speeches and gift, which had most people wanting to leave as soon as possible without looking rude.

He faded away while he did leave a legacy that became evident after few years when practitioners of servility unable to survive the pressure had been eased out of the company. For the company the resultant setback was difficult to manage; they had incinerated the bridge that binds an ex-employee to the company where high performers spend a large portion of life devoting time, energy, sweat and blood to not just do a job, but build a legacy. Two years later, this continues to haunt the company with suboptimal performance with resultant impact on shareholder value.

Even if the second company had to approach the CXO to assist with their woes, it is highly improbable that he would have accepted the offer. There was no emotional connect, no binding force that would have triggered a thought to help a company which had treated him with ignominy during the last few months and subsequent notice period. The clean break by the CXO closed any avenues that anyone could have explored. In a soft mood he was tempted to reach out; he inquired with other ex-colleagues only to be firmly advised against it.

To create and sustain goodwill, it requires equal effort on part of the departing employee as well as the enterprise; enterprise culture determines in large part the behavior of HR and Managers on how they treat past employees. Some alumni groups on the internet and social media portray a scary picture of such enterprises dissuading potential talent to explore opportunities. I believe that the onus to a large extent lies on enterprise to create brand ambassadors by spreading good will to attract and retain their most valued assets.

Politicos fuel corporate politics impacting individual and enterprise performance

This is the last part of the trilogy on how people impact enterprises. Click here for Part 1 and Part 2

Position bestows power; power brings superiority; superiority brings attitude; attitude brings the feeling of superiority and invincibility to some; at this point sycophants start flocking the powerful like flies who seek rubbed off glory. The resultant coterie shamelessly mimics the good, bad and ugly, indifferent of their visibly spineless behavior that makes them the subject of ridicule. They mostly amplify the unwanted and undesirable characteristics of their self-proclaimed leader leaving behind a trail of collateral damage.

Known as the M&A king, in every company he had created inorganic growth and value. As a person, he was aloof and unapproachable creating an aura revered by the bourgeois wanting to please him. They fought to second guess what he liked and wanted to hear; the abysmal hit rate strove them to try harder resulting in error of comedies ! It never occurred to them to ask him while he remained indifferent to his followers who tried even harder to get close to him. The enterprise saw some high profile exits which were inexplicable in the beginning.

Culture is driven from the top is a well-known fact; people ape their bosses, the politicos consciously and the majority subconsciously. For the leader, it is important to stay connected to reality and take cognizance of the culture they are creating and supporting. When they do not pay heed to the undercurrents and allow the survival of an army of flatterers, the performers end up disillusioned; they need a direction and a leader they can look up to. Unable to stand the shift in culture, the performers find greener pastures quickly.

When he structured a sizeable deal with an equal, it created ripples internally and across the industry with the insecure wanting to kiss up to demonstrate their value lest they become part of synergy between the companies. His detached demeanor gave nothing away not that he really bothered about anything except his image of success. For the insecure, the need to be visible resulted in adverse impact to enterprise performance while causing the exact damage to themselves that they wanted to avoid in the first place.

All deals don’t always work out the way they are planned; emboldened by past success, the CEO had gotten too ambitious in his quest for growth. It was too early as they had still not fully completed the previous integration. The deal hailed by the industry as too aggressive eventually turn out to be his nemesis; the board who had earlier showered him with adulation fired the CEO for diluting shareholder value. Loyalists were rewarded with key positions to rescue the sinking ship, they did arrest the slide albeit slowly and steadily.

Exit of good talent left the organization scrambling to bring back performance to an acceptable level. Loss of market share drove south market capitalization giving rise to speculation that the once “too big to fail” company may actually become an acquisition target themselves. Remnants of scavengers and the bewildered were clinically removed to cleanse the system and induct required talent that the company needed to survive the impact of a merger gone awry. Survival instinct of a few politicos aligned themselves to the new powers.

Companies have had massive rises and colossal falls attributable to charismatic leadership; these companies did not build the breadth and depth of management required to sustain in the long run. Organizations are indeed resilient though sudden dips in performance are difficult to recover from. Political and personal agenda should be systemically removed by the Board and Shareholders.  Alignment to the larger objective and crisp, timely and coherent communication keeps everyone objectively focused on what matters.

Turf wars, silos and politics are a given in today’s world; what matters is the alignment to the larger enterprise agenda ! If you run a company, do introspect what is the message you are giving to your team, their teams, your customers and stakeholders. If you are working in a company, review where your personal agenda fits into the larger goals of the enterprise. In both cases there will be many who find themselves at odds; if there is a disconnect, take corrective action before you stand out and are made part of statistical correction.

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.

What do you do when post negotiation the offer is declined ?

Business teams wanted the solution badly as it gave them a capability that none of the competitors had. So they worked with the CIO to conduct a thorough analysis of the options available along with validation from an independent IT consultant who had no bias towards any solution provider. The final conclusion was no different from what the business had intuitively arrived at on their own. The excitement was palpable and everyone waited for the budgets to be defined and approved to get started with what would be a project of a lifetime.

The business head along worked along with the CIO to prepare a business case for implementation that was put forward for review by the Executive Management. Discussions turned into debate and ended with clarifications sought from the team on choice of technology and associated investment. Patiently the CIO, vendor, and the business head addressed all open issues to be given an approval of a much reduced budget to get started with. It was a stretch and a difficult ask; everyone knew that but decided to give it a shot.

The negotiation started in earnest with local vendor team who threw up their hands escalating to the regional office; the regional limit did not allow for the expectation from the customer. The local team did not give up as it was a high profile customer and the CIO had brought significant transformation; they knew if they won the business it would be a high visibility win. The defined scope was large and by virtue of this the order value even at a high discount would be worth the effort. So the negotiation was pushed to the global headquarters to manage.

Head of Global Sales arrived at the customer office to close the deal. He was hopeful that he should be able to close in a couple of days. Back and forth it went tugging from one end to the other each waiting for the other to bend, none willing to yield ground. He realized that the customer knew their position and were willing to wait it out to get what they wanted. In a typical world it was a huge discount which they had not done for a long time now. The war of wills had the business head pushing for closure citing business value loss with the delay.

With the Purchase head reporting to the CFO who was unwilling to come down from his high stance it appeared that there was no way out. The CIO was cognizant of the fact that there was business value to be captured which was well articulated and presented by the business head. He called the vendor CEO giving them an opening to break the deadlock and suggested the same to the CFO. The customer and vendor accepted the solution and everyone sighed with relief and shook hands bringing to an end the long drawn battle.

Everyone shook hands and the approval process was to complete in the next few weeks to get the Purchase Order released. Timelines were agreed to on the start of the project, resources were to be allotted from the global talent pool. Life unfortunately does not always play fair. With a twist in the story, in the elapsed time dynamics had changed; the Company had just finished the annual budgeting cycle and the project was about to spill over to the next year. The Executive Committee suggested a review of pending projects.

Left hand unaware of what right hand was doing ? Or did the project become a victim of circumstances ? Was it communication gap between the Executive Committee and the stakeholders ? The Business head was present in the meetings that discussed the company’s results and priorities. Or was it just a case of lackadaisical attitude from the Finance and Purchase team that left the Vendor, Business and IT high and dry ? Can Internal politics drive the investment agenda ? So what caused the project to be abandoned after the long drawn negotiation ?

The vendor did not know how to react to the situation which had taken huge time, effort and resources that now came to a naught. They received curt messages from the Company on the deferment; the vendor CEO reached out to his ally the business head and the CIO. Reality was indeed perplexing and to some extent juvenile with one person’s ego becoming larger than life. Vendors abandoned their quest for business from the company rather than be subject to similar treatment arbitrarily that lacked basic professionalism.

The company is slowly rolling back into the past !

A vitriolic CXO exits, what next for the team ?

The Hindu scriptures and mythology teach that in the end good always wins over the bad or evil; I am sure that other religious books and local historical tales give the same lesson to one and all. Sayings like “You reap what you sow” or morals from fables such as “what you give comes back to you” are timeless and have been seen and experienced. The corporate world has also seen its share of rise and fall of corporate heroes and villains who rescued or trashed a company with their antics, not counting the indelible scars on the culture and people.

He was flooded with messages when one such malevolent head rolled recently; congratulatory, and messages laden with relief and happiness, calls for rejoice, and finally voices of hope for the future. The team had suffered the tyranny for what appeared to be an eon, giving up hope of salvation; some left for whatever options they could fine, some without. Emerging from the oppression the team called to seek his interest in returning to lead them once again to pinnacle of achievement and glory that they had dreamt of during his leadership.

The havoc created by the malicious being had infected the entire company across layers and had also spread to some of the partners who were bewildered by the unilateral and at times irrational decisions. No one knew his source of power which seemed absolute with no observed opposition to the bullying leading to speculation. His large coterie of spineless and visibly sub-optimal talent revelled in derived supremacy despite their lack of results. Casting aspersions and restricting every move, he ensured the exit of the leader who had brought respect to the team.

Heads rolled when the business failed to benefit from the random decisions of the nepotistic person; it was easy to blame the old team labeling them incompetent for the new strategy that he had outlined. Survival instincts of remaining members made them shed personal and professional pride acquiescing to the absurd while waiting for salvation. With passing time the famine of results began to surface the shallowness and lack of domain knowledge or skills; buzzwords and bravado were inadequate cover for performance that made mediocrity look good.

Karma finally catches up and it did in this case too validating folklore and restoring faith in the defeat of nefarious elements ! Eventually the Board and shareholders saw through the façade albeit after much damage was done; he was stripped of self-bestowed powers and side-lined from various functions he had taken under his wings. From the shadows emerged some of the trusted members who had given their entire working lives to the company with sweat and blood that raised a sense of balance and relief among the survivors.

On their request, he met some of the team members privately and advised them to forge ahead with the plan that he had set for the enterprise; after all it had the endorsement of the management and the Board. Nothing had changed on the ground; some of the projects that had begun during his tenure had seen success, others taken up by ardent followers of the fallen had nothing to show except excuses for what did not work. He asked them to realign to the new old leadership and their work ethos to create magic that they were capable of.

He had attempted all that he could, appealed unsuccessfully to the leadership who were cowering due to the acidic lashing from the vitriolic power hungry person. It had taken huge effort to emotionally detach from the dream and vision that he had nurtured to life; it was anguishing and painful to see the plan being shattered, the team being bullied by minnows, their spirit broken. He had stayed connected to the team through their travails. His heart wanted to go back and finish the broken unfinished castle, his mind chastised him not to.

The team needs a savior; should they seek their mentor or find their own way through the broken path ? The team can survive without him though they would thrive with him on their side. Organizations have resilience which allow them to bounce back most of the time. Does the saviour need the team to bring back days of glory for the team, the company and himself ? What if the demons of the past were still not fully exorcised ? History teaches us that Organizations have recalled past leaders to revive themselves and they have recreated the magic !

Value Destruction

When I came across my CIO friend who looked like he had been trampled multiple times by a runaway cattle herd, I was anxious to find out more about the cause of his pitiable condition. His demeanor suggested that he was on the brink of giving up, ready to throw the towel, just run away and retire into the Himalayas, to hell with the fabled Ferrari and take up the way of the monks. For someone always willing to help with a ready smile, it was a sight that concerned many of us to do a root cause analysis and help the poor soul.

He was not a recluse or introvert but in recent times conferences and seminars had been prominent with his absence. He was a busy man, everyone knew it; he was also known to be a master in time management rarely forgetting an appointment or being late or making anyone wait. So his growing hermetic avatar was a surprise to many of us who surrounded him to hear the cause of the rainy clouds replacing sunshine. Hesitant at first, after a few drinks he decided to share his predicament to lighten his heavy heart and seek a solution from collective wisdom.

His mega project that was on the watch list of many vendors, partners and the industry had run into some minor challenges. He engaged a specialist consulting company to review the situation and suggest the way forward. They had suggested shift in approach for the issue and resource augmentation with specialist skills which appeared to be a rational approach. Some internal stakeholders taking advantage of the situation wanted to take control with infusion of their coterie. Despite no skill match, they had prevailed to further damage of the project.

Like termites the project was soon crawling with unskilled people ignorant of business or ability to manage complexity and were projected as God’s gift to mankind and specialists. Despite the situation deteriorating, status reports were altered to reflect progress. This continued for some time with the CIO being asked to back off. Protests and discussions with key stakeholders and management changed nothing. The project in a tailspin now, the CIO could only watch from the sidelines; he was hurting from the damage to his toil and blood.

The large business and IT project team disillusioned by the downward spiral were of broken spirit indifferent to the outcome. Unable to bear the incompetence some quit the project and the company weakening the now shaking foundation and structure. Timelines slipping further and expert opinions overruled, there was little hope for the transformational project that was to be the savior and enabler for the business and enterprise. Unable to bear the hurt to his passion child and with no recourse, the CIO had decided to detach from the company.

We listened with stunned and angry silence absorbing the pain, empathizing with the CIO living his agony, everyone unanimously wanted to reach out and touch his wounds to heal them. No one disagreed with his decision, many wanted to help his recuperation; there was shock at enterprise apathy and silence by a large affected group to the value erosion. Lightening his burden the CIO managed a fleeting smile which lifted the gloom from the group. He joined the light banter that typically follows a serious discussion.

Time flew by, months passed away, the CIO moved on to newer ventures and greener pastures, happy and successful again with no visible scars of the past. It was as if he had buried the bitter experience never to be unearthed again, any discussion on it a taboo. But morbid curiosity never lets’ go especially when someone you know and respect has been wronged; you want the perpetrators to get their due punishment. Meetings with common industry peers and vendors does raise queries on progress and status.

A year into the intervention, the project had seen slippages on timelines consistently; some of the leadership team finally found a voice and challenged the continually sliding deadlines. Running out of excuses though unwilling to acknowledge their limitations they shifted the blame to the business folks for not defining the requirements, cooperating and providing accurate data; it seems there is no hope for redemption. Last heard there was pressure to shape up or ship out; a new date has been set to go live in whatever state, business disruption be damned !

Tale of 3 CIOs, people join companies, people leave their bosses

X had just completed 4 years in his role and grown to take on additional business responsibility. He had built a team which worked across business units and corporate IT on the forefront of some of the new technological innovations. Accolades came from peers and industry acknowledging his ability to take risks and succeed. Life appeared to be going well for him and he was enjoying his professional life. After a few quiet months or was it quarters, he was suddenly looking for a change with agitation that was alien to his happy go lucky nature.

Having spent almost a decade in the company, Y had seen career growth that would be the envy of many; his profile encompassed local and global responsibility. Staying with one industry through his career made him a specialist of sorts and he became a star. His efforts outside of work also made him quite popular in his chosen field. His company had maintained leadership in a competitive industry locally and globally carving a niche with their products. Out of the blue one fine day he called seeking greener pastures.

He was a jolly good fellow and so said all of us ! The life of any gathering, ready with a joke (sometimes too quick), Z had steadily risen through the ranks with some help from his Mentor. Through the 5 years in his company, he had strengthened the foundation and completed seemingly impossibly difficult projects that his predecessors could not. Promoted every alternate year, he had taken new challenges as they came and successfully dealt with them. Over a drink he broke down seeking to leave the company that launched him.

The 3 incidents above spanning 3 different companies and 3 different industries had the 3 CIOs reaching out to me within a span of few months. Maybe it was coincidence, but it was almost as if there was concerted action against my former team mates. All of them had high levels of anxiety and all of them wanted to get out as quickly as possible. Their stories were quite different and then they had many common elements too. They were victims of the same malaise which appeared to be more widespread than reported.

Take the first case, the company management reins passed from founder to the next generation. X found joy working with him as his new manager with an Ivy League pedigree used technology as a native. He drove the company fast and furious, recklessly at times as seen by the old school, he wanted to get somewhere in a hurry. X attempted to run with him and soon found himself at the receiving end frequently irrespective of root cause. He soon realized his non Ivy League or named Institute stature made him an outcast in the inner circle.

Y had done well through the years growing from mid-level to heading the function eventually. His sharp and quick eye for detail made him a popular choice to be included in any team struggling with a tricky problem. The company saw CEOs change thrice over his tenure; all of them nudged him to greater heights. Law of averages caught up with him; the latest CEO hired across layers from his previous company sidelining most old-timers. Y used the last resort calling global compliance which saved his position but killed his career.

Z had a new manager who was task oriented; the resultant change in workload gave Z a high. He rose to every occasion and delivered to promise. Some of the initiatives were industry firsts giving the company a competitive talking point. He was outspoken which was not a negative, his quick wit and mannerism portrayed him of lesser maturity. His work was commended but his manager thought he needed to grow up. Thus despite the success a search for a senior leader above him was launched forcing him to introspect and seek options outside.

Success is no longer a guarantee for continuity; political hues and cronyism seem to be the new mantras required in large doses. Managers are looking for comfort within their teams in new environments thereby throwing enterprise culture and values out of the window. In the quest to succeed, tolerance to such behavior is accepted as part of the game. Collateral damage with some exits does not appear to perturb owners and Boards. By the time the realization hits the company, the damage is already done which takes a long time to recover.