by DAN CALLOWAY
Published 26 November 2009 @ 21:39 UCT
WEAVERVILLE, NC – A Geek leader’s narrative is among the most important tool s/he has in nurturing motivation among the geeks who work for them. Glen (2003) posits that “a narrative defines for an organization, department, or project team the sense of identity answering the ‘Who are we?’ question that so often bedevils groups” (p. 226). This definition helps to establish the boundaries that define the geeks as members of the organization, as well as their relationship with non-geeks within the organization or the customers they support, and it hints as to their very purpose as a group. The embodiment of a geek leader’s narrative is crucial, especially in motivating geeks. When a geek leader displays consistency between narratives and behavior, the conceptualizations and information of his/her narratives are validated, and motivation can flourish. Inconsistencies in a geek leader’s narratives brings both the content and integrity of the leader into question, which can create distractions and most likely will foster an environment of dissention among the geeks.
This author once worked for a geek leader whose embodiments of his narratives were always inconsistent and all too often lacked the credibility and integrity one would expect of a supervisor. Specifically, in group meetings, the geek leader would often say one thing, and then turn around and do the opposite. This inconsistency in his behavior and truthfulness was detected by the geeks as a flaw in his character and brought into their minds serious doubt about his ability to lead effectively. The geeks would wind up constantly having to question his motives and frequently remind him of what was said in previous meetings, and then ask him for clarification. As a result, motivation within the group was always well below expectations, and the geek leader was never able to elicit among his workers the trust, respect and unity that was necessary to become an effective geek leader.
In concert with Glen (2003), the geek leader for whom this author worked in the past set out with an explicit goal of building trust and respect for himself, but failed to acquire it. As Glen (2003) so aptly puts it, “the formulaic and forced behavior that often accompanies a leader’s attempt to build credibility undermines the authenticity of his embodiment of his narratives” (p. 231). Among geeks, the trust and respect that geek leaders wish from the ones they lead cannot be sought but only granted. Instead, geek leaders earn the trust and respect of the geeks, which follows in due course, by consistently embodying the ideas and values of their stories.
Reference:
Glen, P. (2003). Leading Geeks: How to Manage and Lead People Who Deliver Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
WEAVERVILLE, NC - Reich and Benbasat (2000) argue that the establishment of a strong long-term alignment between IT and organizational objectives received its greatest influence from shared domain knowledge between the two factions. Here, shared domain knowledge is defined by Reich and Benbasat (2000) “as the ability of IT and business executives, at a deep level, to understand and be able to participate in others’ key processes and to respect each other’s unique contribution and challenges” (p. 86). Research conducted years later by Luftman and Kempaiah (2007) appeared to modify the findings of Reich and Benbasat (2000) by indicating that there are three reasons why attaining IT-business alignment has been so elusive: (1) the definition of alignment is frequently focused only on how IT aligns with the business organization; (2) organizations have often looked for a silver bullet wherein mature alignment cannot be attained without effective and efficient execution and a demonstration of value, but this is not sufficient; and (3) there has not been an effective tool with which to measure the maturity of IT-business alignment—one that can provide a descriptive assessment and a prescription on how to improve. Luftman and Kempaiah (2007) went on to identify six components of alignment maturity: (1) communications, (2) value, (3) governance, (4) partnership, (5) scope and architecture, and (6) skills. Furthermore, they identified five levels of alignment maturity within organizations: (1) Level One – initial or ad-hoc processes, (2) Level Two – committed processes, (3) Level Three – established focused processes, (4) Level Four – Improved managed processes, and (5) Level Five – optimized processes. They determined through their research that the majority of organizations are at Level Three on their alignment maturity scale.
Loading ...
Recent Comments