The MAIN PROBLEM of IT INITIATIVES, or, a "VERBAL MANIFESTO"

Chamber of Computer Engineers Journal - December 2015, Issue 5, Page 40-42. [Original text >>]

Throughout nearly 15 years of my business life, I have gained direct and detailed information and observation about hundreds of companies and business environments, from the private sector to the public sector, from the smallest to the largest global companies. In this series of articles, I will first summarize one dimension of my experiences regarding IT initiatives and try to define what the main problem is for the sustainable success of IT initiatives in the long term. In fact, solutions are often found between the lines in the problem definition. However, I will try to list my solution suggestions in a more clear and concrete way in subsequent articles. Since the data I have is mostly from the IT sector, the subject of the article will be focused on the IT sector, but the content may be valid at various levels in different fields and contexts.

When we look at the stories of emergence of successful IT startups, probably the most common pattern is as follows: One or a few people with genius technical skills, sometimes an investor who supported them from the earliest stage... They did the right job in the right place at the right time, they well-identified a problem whose solution would make good business. They have developed a solution to the problem / area... Maybe by developing a product, maybe by getting a well-paid first business from an initial client... There was literally a birth pain in the beginning, lasting between 1 and 3 years, but thanks to exceptional talent, effort and passion for success, the company is doing well in its target industry having gained a place, earned good money and started to grow... The founding team definitely deserve big congratulations.

The vast majority of these stories also have a common conclusion: The company has experienced a number of administrative and even technical problems, the existence and consequences of which have become apparent over time. These have become the subject of technical and administrative discussions with increasing frequency over time. Some chronic problems have become a part of the corporate structure, like the Hunchback of Notre-Dame, and the situation has had to be accepted. Radical decisions would have had to be taken to solve the problems, but due to ongoing operational priorities and the fact that no solution is problem-free, results-bearing decisions/moves were always postponed. As they were postponed, the size of the problems, on the one hand, and the costs, risks and side effects of possible solutions, on the other hand, grew... And finally, Problems turned into deadlocks, discussions decreased... And then, more frequent resignations, short-term personnel entry and exits, faulty decisions for which the responsibility could not be shared, financial bottlenecks and finally downsizing or disintegration... Even in the most stable examples, in the best case, tired excitements at stand by left to the flow of life...

One of my favourite tokens for this situation is: Unmanaged Growth.

Now let me explain this a little bit.

Initiatives start with a team environment of 2-3 people who have shared their fate in the most difficult times, who probably have many common denominators outside of work, and who are probably able to get on the same path with the synergy this provides. The success factors and management principles of such core teams and companies with 13 people, 30 people or 130 people are incomparably different, from the most technical dimensions to the most administrative and social dimensions.

That founding team of 2-3 people is like a zygote, and the genetic nature it represents should be able to ensure a healthy life in 30 people, 130 people, and 1300 people. Herein lies the problem. The founding team is, in most cases, a team from a highly technical background, engineer-minded, and coming from numerical disciplines, and as the system grows, the technical culture in the founding team dominates the fate of the system. In a sense, those 2-3 people copy themselves, becoming 10 people, 50 people, 100 people. Its weaknesses, as well as its strengths, belong to the entire system.

However, the ability to solve a serious problem in the right place at the right time and make money is often very different from the commercial, human and social skills that will make success permanent in growing organizations. These newly mentioned skills are the subject of fields such as Business Management, Industrial Psychology, Organizational Sociology, Labor Economics, etc. Experts with a technical background do not give much credence to these fields; in fact, many of them approach these fields with a subconscious perception of superiority dating back to their secondary school and high school years.

In fact, a perverted definition that can be caricatured as "smart and hard-working students study quantitative disciplines and become a doctor or an engineer, and those who do not dare to do so switch to verbal disciplines" is one of the most fundamental and poisonous misconceptions in the subconscious of many engineers. I uncovered this misconception through informal conversations with engineers with very different worldviews in very different work environments. I saw many of them confess with laughter and surprise, with reactions like “oh, yes, that's exactly what it is”. Technical bosses are often in such a difficult position that they cannot admit this beyond half-smiles. But the cold truth is right there in front of us.

Add to the subconscious condescending view of quantitative experts towards verbal fields, the exorbitant self-confidence gained with the success of the companies in the initial years... A giant problem of "perspective" will arise.

Experts and leaders who experience this perspective problem often tend to underestimate, underweight and devalue the knowledge and experiences expressed by people from verbal fields with respective terminologies, even when they think they aren't doing so. Many times, they subconsciously ignore the significance of principles, emphasis and practices that are crucial for the permanence of success forming the second wing of the bird.

And in the end, many technical bosses are faced with the fact that the solutions to most of their problems are in a field that has been looked down upon for years. Since accepting this would mean a radical shift in professional belief, there are two ways: Either the biased sights and believes are corrected and support is received from Human Resources experts, Management Coaches, Industrial Psychologists, etc., leadership forums are strengthened with these people, technical teams are trained in these areas, etc etc.. Very few choose this path, often because such recognition also implies acceptance of their own shortcomings and responsibilities in many debates and difficulties in the past. The second way is to continue sticking to own guns and just press further: The solution is sought in more technology, better technology and even better technology, and, of course, it cannot be found there. Because if the ring is lost in the dark street, it is in the dark street.

MUTLU SANCAKTUTAR

Computer Engineer, MBA, Sociology MA