The wrong influencers

Dear Bob …

It occurred to me in a conversation yesterday that there is a core of people in each of our groups here in Information Services that guides these groups. The drivers in this core of people are of course these at the head of the pecking order. Pecking order and organization chart order are two different things but these folks are high enough to determine direction for many things.

There aren’t many of them in each group but their influence is great.

Below the level of manager yet with power to make critical decisions the quality of their decisions affect the enterprise greatly. The managers don’t bother with the details and don’t see much of what is happening here.

The success of well thought out projects are affected by the decisions these folks make. And they are so entrenched in their groups that one has to work with them and that is not always successful. Often the cost sky rockets and time lines extended or large security holes are left open because the quality of the vision of the core individuals is poor.

Do you agree with this vision and what can be done about these folks.

– On the outside looking in

Dear Outside …

You say there’s a core group of your peers who the IS leaders look to for advice, insights, ideas, and suggestions, and that they aren’t always the best people to ask?

This certainly isn’t an unusual situation. It’s quite common for people in leadership roles to be more comfortable with some of their direct reports than others. In fact, I’d say this is universal and unavoidable. Better leaders keep it from being too evident; the best leaders recognize the fact and avoid letting it influence their decision-making.

Something else that’s quite common, by the way, is for some staff members to notice when they aren’t included in decisions more than they notice when they are included. As you evaluate your situation, please make sure you’re being fair to those you report to.

Assuming you’ve assessed the situation accurately, though, the question is what you can do about it, if in fact you should do anything at all. I see two obvious courses of action you can pursue:

1. If the decision-maker in question is someone whose judgment and integrity you basically trust, make an appointment and discuss the situation openly, honestly, and constructively: “On several occasions I’ve noticed that when there’s an important decision to make about the network architecture, you’ve spent some time with Fred and Jane figuring it out. I have a lot of respect for Fred and Jane as well. I think it might work better, though, if you involved the whole team, or if you’re trying to keep things small, think about involving other team members from time to time. I’m not just talking about myself – there’s a lot of talent on this team. I’m not the only one whose noticed, and you should be aware it’s starting to cause some hard feelings.” Something like that.

2. You might prefer the if-you-can’t-beat-’em-join-’em strategy. If some team members are going to be more equal than others, be one of those who are more equal. Watch how the favorites behave – in informal conversations, in team meetings, when they take on assignments. There’s a reason the decision-makers look to them first, and if it isn’t a higher level of ability it’s something else that makes them attractive.

My guess: They do a better job of talking to leaders in the leaders’ terms and language, and very likely in anticipating what the leaders’ are likely to be concerned about. But that’s just a guess. Spend some time observing and figure out the realities for yourself.

Once you know what it’s going to take, decide if those traits are within your capabilities, preferences, and (perhaps) system of ethics if you find any of it distasteful.

It appears you think your company’s leaders could do better in choosing who influences them. If so, it’s up to you to help them make a better choice.

– Bob

——–