🧭Business Intelligence: Data Culture (Part II: Leadership, Necessary but not Sufficient)

Business Intelligence Series

Continuing the idea from the previous post on Brent Dykes’ article on data culture and Generative AI [1], it’s worth discussing about the relationship between data culture and leadership. Leadership belongs to a list of select words everybody knows about but fails to define them precisely, especially when many traits are associated with leadership, respectively when most of the issues existing in organizations ca be associated with it directly or indirectly.

Take for example McKinsey’s definition: "Leadership is a set of behaviors used to help people align their collective direction, to execute strategic plans, and to continually renew an organization." [2] It gives an idea of what leadership is about, though it lacks precision, which frankly is difficult to accomplish. Using modifiers like strong or weak with the word leadership doesn’t increase the precision of its usage. Several words stand out though: direction, strategy, behavior, alignment, renewal.

Leadership is about identifying and challenging the status quo, defining how the future will or could look like for the organization in terms of a vision, a mission and a destination, translating them into a set of goals and objectives. Then, it’s about defining a set of strategies, focusing on transformation and what it takes to execute it, adjusting the strategic bridge between goals and objectives, or, reading between the lines, identifying and doing the right things, being able to introduce a new order of things, reinventing the organization, adapting the organization to circumstances.

Aligning resumes in aligning the various strategies, aligning people with the vision and mission, while renewal is about changing course in response to new information or business context, identifying and transforming weaknesses into strengths, risks into opportunities, respectively opportunities into certitudes, seeing possibilities and multiplying them.

Leadership is also about working on the system, addressing the systemic failure, addressing structural and organizational issues, making sure that the preconditions and enablers for organizational change are in place, that no barriers exist or other factors impact negatively the change, that the positive aspects of complex systems like emergence or exponential growth do happen in time.

And leadership is about much more - interpersonal influence, inspiring people, Inspiring change, changing mindsets, assisting, motivating, mobilizing, connecting, knocking people out of their comfort zones, conviction, consistency, authority, competence, wisdom, etc. Leadership seems to be an idealistic concept where too many traits are considered, traits that ideally should apply to the average knowledge worker as well.

An organization’s culture is created, managed, nourished, and destroyed through leadership, and that’s a strong statement and constraint. By extension this statement applies to the data culture as well. It’s about leading by example and not by words or preaching, and many love to preach, even when no quire is around. It’s about demanding the same from the managers as managers demand from their subalterns, it’s about pushing the edges of culture. As Dykes mentions, it should be about participating in the data culture initiatives, making expectations explicit, and sharing mental models.

Leadership is a condition necessary but not sufficient for an organizations culture to mature. Financial and other type of resources are needed, though once a set of behaviors is seeded, they have the potential to grow and multiply when the proper conditions are met. Growth occurs also by being aware of what needs to be done and doing it day by day consciously, through self-mastery. Nowadays there are so many ways to learn and search for support, one just needs a bit of curiosity and drive to learn anything. Blaming in general the lack of leadership is just a way of passing the blame one level above on the command chain.

Resources:
[1] Forbes (2024) Why AI Isn’t Going To Solve All Your Data Culture Problems, by Brent Dykes (link)
[2] McKinsey (2022) What is leadership? (link)

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

𖣯Strategic Management: Strategy Design (Part IV: Designing for Simplicity)

More than two centuries ago, in his course on the importance of Style in Literature, George Lewes wisely remarked that 'the first obligation of Simplicity is that of using the simplest means to secure the fullest effect' [1]. This is probably the most important aspect the adopters of the KISS mantra seem to ignore – solutions need to be simple while covering all or most important aspects to assure the maximum benefit. The challenge for many resides in defining what the maximum benefit is about. This state of art is typically poorly understood, especially when people don’t understand what’s possible, respectively of what’s necessary to make things work smoothly. 

To make the simplicity principle work, one must envision the desired state of a product or solution and trace back what’s needed to achieve that vision. One can aim for the maximum or for the minimum possible, respectively for anything in between. That’s at least true in theory, in praxis there are constraints that limit the range of achievement, constraints ranging from the availability of resources, their maturity or the available time, respectively to the limits for growth - the learning capacity of individuals and organization as a whole. 

On the other side following the 80/20 principle, one could achieve in theory 80% of a working solution with 20% of the effort needed in achieving the full 100%. This principle comes with a trick too because one needs to focus on the important components or aspects of the solution for this to work. Otherwise, one is forced to do exploratory work in which the learning is gradually assimilated into the solution. This implies continuous feedback, respectively changing the targets as one progresses in multiple iterations. The approach is typically common to ERP implementations, BI and Data Management initiatives, or similar transformative projects which attempt changing an organization’s data, information, or knowledge flows - the backbones organizations are built upon.     

These two principles can be used together to shape an organization. While simplicity sets a target or compass for quality, the 80/20 principle provides the means of splitting the roadmap and effort into manageable targets while allowing to identify and prioritize the critical components, and they seldom resume only to technology. While technologies provide a potential for transformation, in the end is an organization’s setup that has the transformative role. 

For transformational synergies to happen, each person involved in the process must have a minimum of necessary skillset, knowledge and awareness of what’s required and how a solution can be harnessed. This minimum can be initially addressed through training and self-learning, however without certain mechanisms in place, the magic will not happen by itself. Change needs to be managed from within as part of an organization’s culture, by the people close to the flow, and when necessary, also from the outside, by the ones who can provide guiding direction. Ideally, a strategic approach is needed the vision, mission, goals, objectives, and roadmap are sketched, where intermediary targets are adequately mapped and pursued, and the progress is adequately tracked.

Thus, besides the technological components is needed to consider the required organizational components to support and manage change. These components form a structure which needs to adhere by design to the same principle of simplicity. According to Lewes, the 'simplicity of structure means organic unity' [1], which can imply harmony, robustness, variety, balance, economy or proportion. Without these qualities the structure of the resulting edifice can break under its own weight. Moreover, paraphrasing Eric Hoffer, simplicity marks the end of a continuous process of designing, building, and refining, while complexity marks a primitive stage.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Written: Sep-2020, Last Reviewed: Mar-2024

References:
[1] George H Lewes (1865) "The Principles of Success in Literature"

Considered quotes:
"Simplicity of structure means organic unity, whether the organism be simple or complex; and hence in all times the emphasis which critics have laid upon Simplicity, though they have not unfrequently confounded it with narrowness of range." (George H Lewes, "The Principles of Success in Literature", 1865)
"The first obligation of Simplicity is that of using the simplest means to secure the fullest effect. But although the mind instinctively rejects all needless complexity, we shall greatly err if we fail to recognise the fact, that what the mind recoils from is not the complexity, but the needlessness." (George H Lewes, "The Principles of Success in Literature", 1865)
"In products of the human mind, simplicity marks the end of a process of refining, while complexity marks a primitive stage." (Eric Hoffer, 1954)

𖣯Strategic Management: Strategy Definition (Part II: Defining the Strategy)

In a previous post an organization’s strategy was defined as a set of coordinated and sustainable actions following a set of well-defined goals, actions devised into a plan and designed to create value and overcome an organization’s challenges. In what follows are described succinctly the components of the strategy.

A strategy’s definition should start with the identification of organization’s vision, where the organization wants to be in the future, its mission statement, a precise description of what an organization does in turning the vision from concept to reality, its values - traits and qualities that are considered as representative, and its principles – the guiding laws and truths for action. All these components have the purpose at defining at high-level the where (the vision), the why (the mission), the what (the core values) and by which means (the principles) of the strategy.

One of the next steps that can be followed in parallel is to take inventory of the available infrastructure: systems, processes, procedures, practices, policies, documentation, resources, roles and their responsibilities, KPIs and other metrics, ongoing projects and initiatives. Another step resumes in identifying the problems (challenges), risks and opportunities existing in the organization as part of a SWOT analysis adjusted to organization’s internal needs. One can extend the analysis to the market and geopolitical conditions and trends to identify further opportunities and risks. Within another step but not necessarily disconnected from the previous steps is devised where the organization could be once the problems, risks, threats and opportunities were addressed.

Then the gathered facts are divided into two perspectives – the “IS” perspective encompasses the problems together with the opportunities and threats existing in organization that define the status quo, while the “TO BE” perspective encompasses the wished state. A capability maturity model can be used to benchmark an organization’s current maturity in respect to industry practices, and, based on the wished capabilities, to identify organization’s future maturity.

Based on these the organization can start formulating its strategic goals – a set of long-range aims for a specific time-frame, from which are derived a (hierarchical) set of objectives, measurable steps an organization takes in order to achieve the goals. Each objective carries with it a rational, why the objective exists, an impact, how will the objective change the organization once achieved, and a target, how much of the objective needs to be achieved. In addition, one can link the objectives to form a set of hypothesis - predictive statements of cause and effect that involve approaches of dealing with the uncertainty. In order to pursue each objective are devised methods and means – the tactics (lines of action) that will be used to approach the various themes. It’s important to prioritize the tactics and differentiate between quick winners and long-term tactics, as well to define alternative lines of actions.

Then the tactics are augmented in a strategy plan (roadmap) that typically covers a minimum of 3 to 5 years with intermediate milestones. Following the financial cycles the strategy is split in yearly units for each objective being assigned intermediate targets. Linked to the plan are estimated the costs, effort and resources needed. Last but not the least are defined the roles, management and competency structures, with their responsibilities, competencies and proper level of authority, needed to support strategy’s implementation. Based on the set objectives are devised the KPIs used to measure the progress (success) and stir the strategy over its lifecycle.

By addressing all these aspects is created thus a first draft of the strategy that will need several iterations to mature, further changes deriving from the contact with the reality.

♟️Strategic Management: Vision (Just the Quotes)

"Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality." (Warren G Bennis, 1988)

"Vision is the art of seeing things invisible." (Jonathan Swift, "Thoughts on Various Subjects", 1703)

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." (Arthur Schopenhauer, "Parerga and Paralipomena", 1851)

"Management techniques are obviously essential, but what matters is leadership. [...] Leading the whole organization needs wisdom and flair and vision and they are another matter; they cannot be reduced to a system and incorporated into a training manual." (Anthony Jay, "Management and Machiavelli", 1967)

"The engineering is secondary to the vision." (Cynthia Ozick, "The Hole/Birth Catalog", 1972)

"Leadership is lifting a person's vision to higher sights, the raising of a person's performance to a higher standard, the building of a personality beyond its normal limitations." (Peter Drucker, "Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Challenges", 1973)

"The source of good management is found in the imagination of leaders, persons who form new visions and manifest them with a high degree of craft. The blending of vision and craft communicates the purpose. In the arts, people who do that well are masters. In business, they are leaders." (Henry M. Boettinger, Harvard Business Review on Human Relations, 1986)

"Management skills are only part of what it takes. [...] Managers must also be corporate warriors or leaders. These unique individuals are the problem identifiers. They possess a strong sense of vision; view firefighting as an opportunity to do things differently and smarter; and are business strategists who help identify key corporate growth issues." (John W Aldridge, Management Review, December 1987)

"Few, if any, forces in human affairs are as powerful as shared vision." (Peter M Senge, "The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization", 1990)

"Many leaders have personal visions that never get translated into shared visions that galvanize an organization. What has been lacking is a discipline for translating individual vision into shared vision." (Peter M Senge, "The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization", 1990)

"Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively." (Peter M Senge, "The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization", 1990)

"[…] the most successful strategies are visions, not plans. Strategic planning isn’t strategic thinking. One is analysis, and the other is synthesis." (Henry Mintzberg, "The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning", Harvard Business Review, 1994) 

"Sometimes strategies must be left as broad visions, not precisely articulated, to adapt to a changing environment." (Henry Mintzberg, "The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning", Harvard Business Review, 1994)

"Enterprise Engineering is not a single methodology, but a sophisticated synthesis of the most important and successful of today's change methods. 'Enterprise Engineering' first explains in detail all the critical disciplines (including continuous improvement, radical reinvention of business processes, enterprise redesign, and strategic visioning). It then illustrates how to custom-design the right combination of these change methods for your organization's specific needs." (James Martin, "The Great Transition, 1995)

"Management is a set of processes that can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organizations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles." (John P Kotter, "Leading Change", 1996) 

"To attain quality, it is well to begin by establishing the 'vision' for the organization, along with policies and goals. Conversion of goals into results (making quality happen) is then done through managerial processes - sequences of activities that produce the intended results." (Joseph M Juran, "How to think about quality", 1999)

"Enterprise architecture is the process of translating business vision and strategy into effective enterprise change by creating, communicating and improving the key requirements, principles and models that describe the enterprise's future state and enable its evolution. The scope of the enterprise architecture includes the people, processes, information and technology of the enterprise, and their relationships to one another and to the external environment. Enterprise architects compose holistic solutions that address the business challenges of the enterprise and support the governance needed to implement them." (Anne Lapkin et al, "Gartner Clarifies the Definition of the Term 'Enterprise Architecture", 2008)

"Strategy is the serious work of figuring out how to translate vision and mission into action. Strategy is a general plan of action that describes resource allocation and other activities for dealing with the environment and helping the organization reach its goals. Like vision, strategy changes, but successful companies develop strategies that focus on core competence, develop synergy, and create value for customers. Strategy is implemented through the systems and structures that are the basic architecture for how things get done in the organization." (Richard L Daft, "The Leadership Experience" 4th Ed., 2008)

"Vision is a capacity to understand a position and to generate solid strategic plans." (Diego Rasskin-Gutman, "Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind", 2009)

"Despite the roar of voices wanting to equate strategy with ambition, leadership, 'vision', planning, or the economic logic of competition, strategy is none of these. The core of strategy work is always the same: discovering the critical factors in a situation and designing a way of coordinating and focusing actions to deal with those factors." (Richard Rumelt, "Good Strategy Bad Strategy", 2011)

"Image theory is an attempt to describe decision making as it actually occurs. […] The concept of images is central to the theory. They represent visions held by individuals and organisations that constitute how they believe the world should exist. When considering individuals, the theory refers to these images as the value image, trajectory image and strategic image. The value image is based on an individual’s ethics, morals and beliefs. The trajectory images encompass the decision maker’s goals and aspirations. Finally, for each trajectory image, a decision maker may have one or more strategic images that contain their plans, tactics and forecasts for their goal. […] In an organisational decision-making setting, these images are referred to as culture, vision and strategy." (Christopher B Stephenson, "What causes top management teams to make poor strategic decisions?", 2012) 

"Strategic planning is not strategic thinking. Indeed, strategic planning often spoils strategic thinking, causing managers to confuse real vision with the manipulation of numbers." (Henry Mintzberg)