From Inside Architecture
Hypothesis: One way to change an organization is to join it. Can we prove or disprove this hypothesis?
I had a long lunch with a friend of mine (whom I’ll call Joseph) who was interviewing at an analyst firm that freely shares opinions on Enterprise and Business Architecture, mostly from the E-I-T-A perspective. Joseph is a well-liked and well-respected Business Architect. I met him online and we have lunch every couple of months to catch up.
Joseph believes that Enterprise Business Architecture is not limited to IT, and he freely shared that opinion during the interview process. He was surprised at how well received he was in the early stages of the process. Could Joseph change the messages coming out of this firm by joining them? Could he change them from the inside?
What does a question say about an interview?
Joseph was not hired, and we spent lunch talking it out. Joseph was given a reason for being rejected. Reason: when he was asked this question: “what is the future of IT?” His answer was something that may have upset some CIOs. Joseph said that IT would have to change, because the cloud is an existential threat to traditional IT models.
While I’m not sure I agree with him completely, I do wonder why a Business Architect would be asked this interview question. Why would would an employer ask this question at all? It took a little thought to get to the answer, and I’ll share that thought with you in this blog post.
After we discussed it, Joseph and I agreed that the question said more than the answer. The question says a lot about change, and the ability of an organization to resist change from the outside. The question spoke volumes about the IT focus of the analysis company.
Going to the root cause…
Companies have business models, and each business model targets specific customers with specific services. Many analysis firms have a business model that specifically targets Chief Information Officers and IT leaders. Analysis firms succeed when they make the CIO happy.
The idea of Business Architecture is a two-edged sword for IT leaders. Business Architects who operate in the sphere of strategy execution are not operating in the traditional role of IT. Hiring a Business Architect is frightening, because it is an admission that IT may have to offer new services.
 1960 MG MGA with installed seatbelt |
Back in the 1950’s, the auto manufacturing companies had to decide whether to offer seat belts in cars. Some companies offered them as options, while others attempted to brand their products as “safe” by making seat belts standard. But the biggest resistance came from companies that didn’t want to offer seat belts at all. Why? Because offering a seat belt is an admission that riding in a car has risks. |
Their thinking was this: “Our cars are safe, so we don’t offer safety belts. The other guys offer safety belts because their cars are not as safe as our cars.” It took years of scientific studies to disprove this nonsense. It took a lot of time for business leaders to make the mental shift from defending their existing ideas to adopting new ones.
Do we keep our customers happy, or prepare them for change
For a CIO to hire a business architect, they have to first admit that their IT division is not already able to perform Business Architecture services. They have to admit that a Business Architect is not simply a relabeled Business Analyst. They have to risk the possibility that the Business Architecture service will suggest, to the business, that they don’t need traditional IT services! True business architecture, at its most effective, must be able to conclude that the customer would be better off consuming fewer IT services.
Existing business models, from these analysis firms, are targeted to people who don’t want their staff to make those recommendations! To be effective at business architecture, analysis firms would have to change their business model to target business executives beyond the IT sphere. To make this leap, an analysis firm would have to offer new services, market to a new audience, adopt new sales methods, and produce new outputs, than they currently offer. That kind of change is difficult.
That is scary, not to the customer, but to the analysis firm. It’s a threat to the business model itself. So their response is to do what any company does when someone threatens the business model: get defensive! Their message must be “Mr or Ms CIO, Business Architects will support your idea of what IT should be” even when that is not in the strategic interests of the client company.
So this particular analysis firm wasn’t willing to hire Joseph. It’s a shame. He’s a good guy. I don’t always agree with Joseph, but I do listen to him. That said, after we talked it out, it made sense. They cannot hire Joseph unless they are willing to do one of two things: clip his wings, or expand their business model.
As the result of his experience, I wonder if the analysis firms can take a leadership role in moving the fields of Enterprise and Business Architecture forward. For a while, I thought that they could. Now, I’m not sure.
Hiring processes filter out change agents
I started this post with a hypothesis. Can you change an organization by joining it?
From this single example, I’d say that the clear answer is “not always.” If a company is good at filtering out the people who could lead them to a new business model, then they won’t let you in the door. Of course, once you are in, there are even more internal forces that would present an obstacle to adopting a new business model.
When you consider all these obstacles, perhaps the real question: if you want an organization to change, what’s the most effective way to change it. Joining the company may not be the best way to do it. Consider other ways.
