Soft Skills, Leadership, and now Empathy

A recent post by @mikejwalker on a new Soft Skills course by Architecting the Enterprise rightly points out the importance of soft skills for the EA discipline. I think this is a great addition to the profession and shows formal recognition of the importance of soft skills in the industry.
The EA positions I’ve seen in companies are generally at a 1st or 2nd line management grades. Corporations seem to recognize at some level the need for a “higher stature” for the EA professional. The leadership skills take more cultivation than just updating the HR records, however. It takes a skillful balance of things perhaps even learned outside the scope of the office such as running a youth organization or planning other non-profit events. Corporations are wise to invest in leadership training – often only slated for management – for EA professionals. 
The EA profession is both strategic and change-oriented impacting people far more than the bucket of bolts on your data center floor. Changing behaviors in humans is at the core of the discipline. 
The above was written last week. This week @nickmalik rightly opines on the importance of empathy EAs. I only scanned this article (which deserves a good read by the fire with my favorite scotch). He’s definitely onto something here…
Bottom line – soft skills are becoming increasingly important!!! So, fellow EA professional, what do you do to hone your soft skills? Who do you draw upon for leadership lessons?

Soft Skills, Leadership, and now Empathy

A recent post by @mikejwalker on a new Soft Skills course by Architecting the Enterprise rightly points out the importance of soft skills for the EA discipline. I think this is a great addition to the profession and shows formal recognition of the importance of soft skills in the industry.
The EA positions I’ve seen in companies are generally at a 1st or 2nd line management grades. Corporations seem to recognize at some level the need for a “higher stature” for the EA professional. The leadership skills take more cultivation than just updating the HR records, however. It takes a skillful balance of things perhaps even learned outside the scope of the office such as running a youth organization or planning other non-profit events. Corporations are wise to invest in leadership training – often only slated for management – for EA professionals. 
The EA profession is both strategic and change-oriented impacting people far more than the bucket of bolts on your data center floor. Changing behaviors in humans is at the core of the discipline. 
The above was written last week. This week @nickmalik rightly opines on the importance of empathy EAs. I only scanned this article (which deserves a good read by the fire with my favorite scotch). He’s definitely onto something here…
Bottom line – soft skills are becoming increasingly important!!! So, fellow EA professional, what do you do to hone your soft skills? Who do you draw upon for leadership lessons?

Enterprise Architecture Domains

It has been a while since I posted last time, because I was pretty much occupied in my job to deliver some interesting projects on the edge between 2012 and 2013. Lucky enough I was able to deliver. 🙂 On top of that there was a portion of Christmas preparation and a new private project with a Iceland Dog.

So now it is time for the first post in 2013. I was triggered today by a tweet from Keith Flanagan: “Enterprise Architecture is about people. Not domains!”. I do not know what triggered the statement for him, but I am sure that he is right as tried to put it more than once in my own blog here, e.g. People in GLUE. My primary focus in my Enterprise Architecture work is clearly the people.

Nevertheless, I do believe that people and Domains (could be GLUE Domains, could be other Domains) are pretty much related. I believe most if not all Domains (and the resulting Domain Models) do exist to somehow create an area of responsibility or an empire. The thinking behind the GLUE Decks is also based on Domain thinking.

The Deck System of Systems can easily be split into several Domains for grouping purposes or to create a silo or an (as much as possible) area of responsibility. I think the Domains exist in the typical Enterprise and should therefore be identified, named and analyzed. I furthermore believe that in most cases there is a fairly clear hierarchy between the Domain and the Applications in that Domain. And quite often conflicts exist exactly where that hierarchy is not clear, where an Application belongs or should belong to more than one Domain. And I think what can be observed here is once again Conway’s Law.

I therefore have to explore Nick Maliks tweet deeper: “Autonomy is a necessary intrinsic motivator. EA must replace “empire building” with different autonomous goals.” I am not sure if that is correct or not. I personally typically accept the given domains and work more as a mediator (or GLUE) between the various domains by looking for GLUE Diseases and trying to fix them. And as far as I remember it was always about people and always about communication, but maybe I have done it wrong or not used the full potential. Therefore I am happy to hear comments and ideas how to shift away from the standard empire building or tribe thinking towards something more holistic. I am not sure if that is truly possible.

Comments are more than welcome.

Categories Uncategorized Tags

The Death of Planning

It’s not so long ago that we still had debates about whether complex projects should be delivered as a “big bang” or in phases. These days the big bang has pretty much been forgotten. Why is that? I think the main reason is the level of risk involved with running a long process and dropping it into the operational environment just like that. Continue reading

The most important personality trait of an Enterprise Architect

The video below, from RSA Animate, is not about Enterprise Architecture.  At least, on the surface, it isn’t.  In the video, we hear the voice of Roman Krznaric, a philosopher, talk about the need to build a greater reliance on the human emotion of empathy in order to create social change.

But as an Enterprise Architect, I am in the business of creating social change.  I’m actually paid to get things to change (how’s THAT for a cool job).  Of course, I’m paid to make the changes within corporations, and the benefit goes to the corporation by making them more effective, efficient, or timely in their desire to “make tangible” their own business strategy.  However, the reasons and rationale aside, my job is all about change.  And people do change, but not easily and not quickly.

There are many reasons that people don’t change.  My father used to say “the hardest thing for a person to do is to think.  The second hardest thing is to change.  So if you want them to think, don’t ask them to change, and if you want them to change, don’t ask them to think.”  Oh, there’s truth in there.  You cannot get people to change simply by “convincing” them to do it.  There has to be more to it, and there is.  But to understand how to motivate change, it helps to start with a little thought experiment.

Think about the times when you changed.  Seriously… stop right now and think about your own changes.  Have you ever changed a core belief?  Have you ever converted to a religion, or away from one?  Have you decided to change your profession or career?  Have you ever decided that the things that you always assumed were now completely untrue?  Think about family members that changed? 

Did you change because someone asked you to think?  Or did you change because someone asked you to feel?  What led the way? 

I am convinced that the only EFFECTIVE way to motivate change is to reach out and touch someone emotionally.  You can bring them along with logic, but if you don��t find their heart, and connect with their feelings, they won’t feel your message.  Notice, I didn’t say that they won’t hear your message.  They can hear just fine… but without connection, they won’t feel your message.  And if they don’t feel your message, they won’t follow your lead.

We have often heard that change is about leadership.  But how does a leader lead?  Is it through logic and elegant words, or is it through emotion and beautiful thoughts?  The most effective way to lead is to use both, but if you have to use one, use the emotional side first.  In Switch, How to change things when change is hard, authors Chip and Dan Heath argue that you have to engage both the logical side and the emotional side to want to change.  However, their metaphor is one of a person riding an elephant.  The logical side is the rider.  The emotional side is the elephant.  Why, in their metaphor, did they choose an elephant?  Because the emotional side is much larger than the logical side, and we can viscerally understand the metaphor on the basis of size and strength alone.  After all, if the elephant wants to turn around, the rider can do little to stop him. 

In Switch, the Heath brothers argue that change is an emotional journey and that there are three parts: the elephant, the rider, and the path.  If the path makes sense to both the elephant and the rider, then you have removed the obstacles to change.  Make it a clear path.  Appeal to the rider to want to take it.  Appeal to the elephant by addressing the fear or uncertainty that may drive them away from it.  That is the job of the EA.  To make a clear path, and to make it so that it starts where the elephant is actually standing at the moment.

So as an Enterprise Architect, how do I find a way to communicate with the Elephant and the Rider in the people that I want to work with?  I use empathy.  I don’t just use empathy… I live it.  Empathy is the single most powerful, most important, and most useful personality trait that an Enterprise Architect can have, bar none.  It is a skill that must be practiced, and learned, and honed.  It is more than listening, but listening is involved.  It is more than feeling, but feeling is involved.  It is connecting at a deep level with the people that you are being asked to work with.  It is building an empathic bond with them.

Philosopher and author Roman Krznaric explains how we can help drive social change by stepping outside ourselves.

Having a strong sense of empathy means that the EA has a strong internal drive to connect with others.  He or she wants to hear their stories, and learn their troubles, and feel their triumphs, because ONLY by connecting with another individual can an EA understand what is motivating that person to change, and what is keeping them from achieving it.  Only by listening to their struggles, and their successes, and their own efforts, can the EA create a path for that “emotional elephant” that Chip and Dan Heath describe.  Because the job of the EA is to create the path.  The job of the leader is to connect with the elephant to bring them down the path. 

Some people motivate others through fear.  Do this or you will lose your job.  Do that or the company will go under (and you will lose your job).  Do this other thing or we will cut your bonus or give you an assignment that you will hate.  Some will motivate through rewards and recognition.  “Look at what Tom did!  He delivered excellent results and we want to honor him.  You can be honored if you do as well as Tom.”  In our capitalist society, that may even be in the form of income: “Your bonus will be larger if you do a better job.”  (Both of these approaches fail, by the way.  True story.  Watch this TED video of Dan Pink’s presentation on motivation). 

In order to motivate change, especially in creative jobs, you have to make it easy for the elephant (the emotional side) and the rider (the logical side) to follow the path from where they are to where they need to be.  Notice that the path doesn’t start from where you think they are, or where a company thinks their employees should be.  It starts from where they actually are.  Without empathy, you may build the perfect “path” but it may start in the wrong place… where the elephant is not actually standing! 

Empathy also helps you to connect with the person who you want to change, and to discover their intrinsic motivators.  As Dan Pink points out in the TED video I linked above, the most important motivators are intrinsic.  They are internal.  They are not the incentives offered by the business.  They are the things that a creative, thinking person already wants:  Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. 

  • Autonomy – the desire to direct our own lives, 
  • Mastery – the desire to get better and better at something that matters, and
  • Purpose – the yearning to serve a greater goal.

 

If an EA wants people to change, that EA has to engage that emotional elephant and that logical rider.  To give people the autonomy that they need, and to demonstrate the mastery that they can achieve, and to give them a purpose to follow, in the world of control, incentives, and finance that the business lives in, you have to first listen and connect and understand. That requires empathy.

2013: The Year of the CIO

CIOs stand at a crossroads as we head into 2013. Many of them have a choice to make. They can retreat to the back-office or reach out to business units and began to partner with them on customer-facing innovation and revenue generation. Many CIOs I know will choose to breakout of the IT department mindset – or already have. However, they have a lot of changes to make to cultivate the relationships and acquire the […]

Generative Transformation :- System is the Method

Simple View – Cognition Multi-Lateral View – Cognition System is the Method:- Cognition – result of social observation Where each social unit employs relevant symbols to capture the knowledge and each of these knowledge could be a different level of abstraction. Enterprise or System Architecture as a architecture is sum of several architecture abstractions (various […]

Flying in the Cloud by the Seat of Our Pants

In the early days of aviation, when instruments were unreliable or non-existent, pilots often had to make judgments by instinct. This was known as “flying by the seat of your pants.” It was exciting, but error prone, and accidents were frequent. Today, enterprises are in that position with Cloud Computing. Continue reading

Business Network Optimization

Some @ATKearney consultants have written an interesting article on Business Network Optimization

“Anyone thinking about rationalizing a network would naturally ask whether so many nodes are really necessary. Networks are a great deal more complicated than that, and managing them requires expansive strategic imagination.”

A simplistic accountancy view of a network looks at the direct contribution of each node. From this viewpoint, some nodes may not produce enough direct value to justify their continued existence, and there will be calls for these nodes to be closed or merged with their neighbours.

For example, there are several proposals currently under consideration within the UK National Health Service to rationalize Accident and Emergency provision by closing some hospital departments and relocating staff. These proposals are based on arguments about the optimal size of an Accident and Emergency unit, and on claims that smaller units are unlikely to deliver value for money or clinical  excellence.

Opponents of these closures point to the indirect effect of these closures, including the likely consequences on non-emergency healthcare services at those hospitals that will lack accident and emergency provision, as well as the wider social impact on the local community.

The example given in the A.T. Kearney article is the French postal service, and the authors assert the indirect value of the village post office, using an almost untranslatable French term l’animation du territoire, the “animation of the territory”.

The Kearney article identifies three types of business network, which it calls Production, Service and Distribution, and eight elements of network management which must be optimized together. It calls these KNOTs, which stands for Kearney Network Optimization Tools, and asks us not to think of them as merely a laundry list of best practices used to build an optimal network. 

The eight elements of network optimization (KNOTs)

The article illustrates the concept of indirect value in terms of the cross-over between physical and online retailing. If a customer views a product in a physical store and then orders it online, the physical store is providing some indirect value to the retail operation as a whole. It is therefore makes sense to optimize the entire online/offline network as a whole, rather than regarding them as two separate networks. See my post on Showrooming and Multi-sided Markets (December 2012).

Read more »

Maybe the Mayans were Right after all

If you believe the popular media, 2013 was never supposed to happen. The Mayan culture had this all figured out, or maybe their Strategic Planning Group got axed due to budget cuts. Either way – 2013 was supposed to end in December of 2012. As it is,…