Given the topics I've discussed here over the last few years--leadership and management, personal and organizational development, and the effective use of technology--if you're reading this, it's a safe bet that you're someone with an interest in making change happen and that you see opportunities to help your organization or your community find better ways of doing things, particularly when technology is a factor.
So here's a mental model to help make the process of leading change easier: Technology is soft.
Let me make a brief detour in order to explain what I mean by that. In the late 1970s Tom Peters, Bob Waterman, Richard Pascale and Anthony Athos developed a framework for analyzing organizations known as the "7s Model" which looks at different aspects of an organization and which I still find highly useful. (The graphic at left is from BuildingBrands.) The 7s Model is often interpreted as dividing organizations into "hard" and "soft" elements--the former category includes the three concepts in red at the top of the graphic:
• Strategy
Your high-level goals and how you plan to achieve them.• Structure
An organization's "blueprints": how people and resources are allocated, how work and responsibilities are distributed.• Systems
All the ropes, pulleys and gears, so to speak, that get things done in an organization.
These elements of the model are seen as "hard" because they're more easily reduced to tangible artifacts--plans and documents and infrastructure--but that designation also reflects a value judgment in our language. "Hard" stuff can be complex and difficult, but it's also serious and important. "Soft" stuff, in contrast, is ambiguous, unreliable, secondary. (I hope it's apparent that I think this is bias needs to be challenged, and Tom Peters agrees.)
We've traditionally located technology among the "hard" elements of an organization, and that's what usually comes to mind when we think about "Information Technology." We have IT plans, IT departments (or people whose responsibilities include IT), and, of course, IT systems. Thinking about technology from this perspective may seem logical, but I believe the implications are profound, unhelpful and increasingly outdated.
Some aspects of technology will always be classic "IT": hardware, storage, connectivity. But these are commodities. You get the best price you can for them, and you don't expect them to add strategic value to the organization.
I believe the strategic aspects of technology that have the greatest potential to actually make a difference in an organization fit into on the other side of the 7s Model, the "soft" side:
• Staff
Not the org chart--that's part of the Structure--but the real, flesh-and-blood people, and all their strengths, weaknesses, hopes and aspirations.• Style
Management style, or organizational culture: The tacit norms that govern how work gets done and how people interact.• Skills
The full range of competencies possessed by an organization, including interpersonal skills, learning.
Thinking about technology as "soft," as an aspect of an organization's staff, style and skills, may seem counterintuitive, but increasingly this is where it truly resides (and it's where you'll have the greatest leverage when driving technology-related change.)
Let me illustrate this approach with an story from my work at Stanford's Graduate School of Business: As a Leadership Coach at the Center for Leadership Development and Research, I'm a member of a team with many interdependent sub-teams that often collaborate virtually on long-term projects involving multiple sets of stakeholders. When I started at the beginning of 2007, the tools available to support these collaborations were 1) email and 2) shared network drives. These tools met our most basic needs, but they were hardly optimal, and we found ourselves frustrated with their limitations.
It was the perfect opportunity to introduce a wiki, and as the unofficial techie on our staff of executive coaches and organizational development consultants, I was in a position to make that change happen. But in retrospect I can see that I focused on the "hard" elements of the 7s Model. I developed a strategic IT plan that included a wiki, I explored in great detail how the wiki would be used and how it would fit into our existing organizational structure, and I spent a good bit of time exploring various wiki platforms to find the best system to meet our needs.
I was able to get it up and running, but adoption by my non-technical colleagues was hit-or-miss. Some people loved it, but others found it confusing or didn't really understand how it was an improvement over email. I think part of the problem was the language I used to introduce it. I'd say, "I have a new system that'll help us collaborate more effectively." Well, when you say "new," people hear "change," and they realize that means "more work," at least in the short run. And when you say "system," people hear "IT," and they know that means, "someone else's responsibility." So when you say "new system," what people really hear is "more work that shouldn't be my responsibility in the first place." Not exactly an appealing message.
So as we were about to begin a new academic year last Fall, I took a new approach. I stopped worrying about the strategic IT plan--I didn't even update it. I stopped thinking about how the wiki fit into our organizational structure. And with the system already in place, I didn't have any technical work to do at all.
Instead, I starting thinking about the "soft" side of the organization. I thought about my colleagues as individuals. What were they like? What were their needs? How did they work?
I thought about our organizational culture. Although Stanford has a certain culture, and the business school has yet another culture all its own, the Center where I work is a small, informal, entrepreneurial place where we can't do things by the book because it hasn't been written yet.
I thought about our collective skills--not just (or even primarily) technical skills, but our interpersonal skills. How do we connect with each other? How do we collaborate?
So rather than asking my colleagues to conform to a "hard" plan, I began asking how "soft" technology like a wiki could conform to them. And rather than trying to "train" them on this new system, I began having a series of short conversations--sometimes just 5 minutes--about how they were working and what they were doing. I took advantage of every small opportunity to help people think about the wiki as an integrated element in our organizational culture, and as an extension of their collaborative skills.
Today, just a few months later, we're the most intensive wiki users in the business school, and we're probably among the most intensive non-technical wiki users in the entire university. I had to lay the "hard" groundwork to initiate the project, but my sustained focus on the strategic plan, the structure, and the system actually delayed our progress, and the wiki's ultimate success is directly related to its integration with the organization's "soft" side.
The 7th circle at the center of the 7s Model represents Shared Values, the commonly-held aspirations that give an organization a collective spirit, a sense of mission. And if you value the effective use of technology, and you want your organization to adopt and embody that value, I encourage you to remember this the next time you're seeking to promote change: Technology is soft.
Photo by fotologic. Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.
7s Model graphic by BuildingBrands.
This post was adapted from remarks I made on May 12, 2008, to the second graduating class of ZeroDivide Fellows. Congratulations and good luck to all the past and current Fellows, and thanks to ZeroDivide for having me.
