Values define the leader not objectives. Honesty, integrity, honor, valor, just to name some.
Whoever wrote and supported this article is leader defective.
The values of the leader are evidenced in the leader's staff. Hire a crook and he hires crooks. Hire someone who reads porn in the office and he or she hires those who read porn in the office. Point understood?
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Having recently left a company where the COO and one of the VPs were consumate porn surfers. As the IS Manager, I was perpetually impeded from doing things that security wise, that good for the company as a whole. In the COO's (also the HR department)case as far as I could determine, he was not hiring additional porn surfers to fill positions. I honestly think he didn't care one way or the other though...
... which brings me to your bullseye comment: Good ethics (some folks try to differentiate between personal and professional but they both come out of the same database table) are of the utmost importance.
... which brings me to your bullseye comment: Good ethics (some folks try to differentiate between personal and professional but they both come out of the same database table) are of the utmost importance.
Just because somebody has good values doesn't mean that they will be a good leader in a professional setting. Good values don't equal business competence. If you want to be followed, you have to prove you have the skills to get the job done. If you don't have that first, you won't be management so it won't matter what kind of person you'd hire.
Your point is adequate. But, the real world is filled with people who are in leadership roles and command power. Take for instance someone who owns a company and their power really is derived from that fact - they own the company. The owner (leader)can be despicable and he or she will be followed because they own the company. And, if they are devil worshipers they will not hire very religious people unless they enjoy the conflict and can use their power at work.
So, regardless of the values,the leader is the leader and if he or she wons the company, they are the boss and what they say goes. And, I contend after 45 years of experience in inudstry that people tend to hire people who emulate their own qualities and values, especially those who they work closely with. If someone is a racist they will not hire someone who they consider not acceptable because of race. Prejudice abounds in our soicety and values make it so.
So, regardless of the values,the leader is the leader and if he or she wons the company, they are the boss and what they say goes. And, I contend after 45 years of experience in inudstry that people tend to hire people who emulate their own qualities and values, especially those who they work closely with. If someone is a racist they will not hire someone who they consider not acceptable because of race. Prejudice abounds in our soicety and values make it so.
If I may, we are talking about three classes:
the manager, who is responsible for day to day activities, longer term activities
the boss, who has the power to make things happen
and the leader, who has the vision to see where things will go.
Leadership involves using all three to the best benefit of everyone involved with the decisions that have to be made. No one would argue with Bardzo that there are people in leadership positions who are less than adequate to the task, but I don't think this was the point of the article. There are practical leadership qualities as well as less definable qualities, and this article was pointing out the practical issues.
the manager, who is responsible for day to day activities, longer term activities
the boss, who has the power to make things happen
and the leader, who has the vision to see where things will go.
Leadership involves using all three to the best benefit of everyone involved with the decisions that have to be made. No one would argue with Bardzo that there are people in leadership positions who are less than adequate to the task, but I don't think this was the point of the article. There are practical leadership qualities as well as less definable qualities, and this article was pointing out the practical issues.
Leaders get the power that the followers give them, as well as what they derive, in terms of support and delegation, from those above them.
Case in point, a former manager of mine. He was highly skilled in business competencies yet his lack of integrity shot him in the foot. He would play power games with people, try to tweek their performance objectives so that they never quite made them, all the while taking on too much work in the name of trying to impress his boss and dropping balls everywhere. He would smile at you to your face while stabing you in the back, what ever it took to try and get promoted.
If something went wrong, he would go on a witch hunt to try and blame who ever he could.
The sad truth is, it has good business competencies (he is an excellent project manager, he is great with budgets, he showed upper management the light and got us extra staff when other managers could not). But because he has such poor values, it killed his overall results. He caused more strife and decention during his tenure in our department than just about the entire IT practice combined.
Eventually, his manager could ignore it no longer (you see he too is compitent with the numbers but not very trustworthy, and he is known for caring very little about his staff). My former manager's manager must have somehow felt some pain through this situation, for he forced my former manager to take a transfer out of the group.
You might be competent in your job, but if you don't have good values, it will catch up to you. You will finally embarass or cause some form of pain to your upper leadership or your co-workers or clients. If they can't trust you, they will find a way to get rid of you.
If something went wrong, he would go on a witch hunt to try and blame who ever he could.
The sad truth is, it has good business competencies (he is an excellent project manager, he is great with budgets, he showed upper management the light and got us extra staff when other managers could not). But because he has such poor values, it killed his overall results. He caused more strife and decention during his tenure in our department than just about the entire IT practice combined.
Eventually, his manager could ignore it no longer (you see he too is compitent with the numbers but not very trustworthy, and he is known for caring very little about his staff). My former manager's manager must have somehow felt some pain through this situation, for he forced my former manager to take a transfer out of the group.
You might be competent in your job, but if you don't have good values, it will catch up to you. You will finally embarass or cause some form of pain to your upper leadership or your co-workers or clients. If they can't trust you, they will find a way to get rid of you.
First, I think a word was missing fromone of the listed qualities: EFFECTIVE Communication.
Also, a willingness to pitch in and work with those on her/his team. Not just for show, but to really work, effectively. There is that word again.
Also, a willingness to pitch in and work with those on her/his team. Not just for show, but to really work, effectively. There is that word again.
Can anyone give me examples of how you can change the IT department from a cost center to a profit center? That is one area that I really struggle with how IT can do this? I see how I can save the company money but not make money for it.
Thanks.
Thanks.
IT work falls into a variety of areas: support, sustaining, emergency, and projects.
For support, you could determine your costs which are probably mostly labor hours and then track your time against the various departments that are supported. If your 'billable' hours at market cost for support are greater than your total actual support costs then you are profitable.
For projects, IT's contribution to the project could be seen as a percentage of the ROI for the project. For example, if the project has an ROI of 1 million and IT labor is 50% of the project, then IT's profitability for this project is 500k. Again this is assuming no costs beyond labor. There is also an assumption that the value-add for IT labor is the same as those that contribute the other 50% of the labor. On a project where the other 50% is, for example, data entry, then it wouldn't be a good assumption. If the other half were work by engineers then it would probably be a lot closer.
I realize that this is a lot simplified, but may help start the juices flowing
For support, you could determine your costs which are probably mostly labor hours and then track your time against the various departments that are supported. If your 'billable' hours at market cost for support are greater than your total actual support costs then you are profitable.
For projects, IT's contribution to the project could be seen as a percentage of the ROI for the project. For example, if the project has an ROI of 1 million and IT labor is 50% of the project, then IT's profitability for this project is 500k. Again this is assuming no costs beyond labor. There is also an assumption that the value-add for IT labor is the same as those that contribute the other 50% of the labor. On a project where the other 50% is, for example, data entry, then it wouldn't be a good assumption. If the other half were work by engineers then it would probably be a lot closer.
I realize that this is a lot simplified, but may help start the juices flowing
I understand what you mean but does industry really see this as being a profit center? If I am charging back other departments in my company then I am becoming a profit center by charging my own company.
I guess I define a profit center as being able to add dollars to the bottomline of the company. I see where IT can save money to increase the bottomline but not where it can add dollars to the bottomline.
I guess I define a profit center as being able to add dollars to the bottomline of the company. I see where IT can save money to increase the bottomline but not where it can add dollars to the bottomline.
It depends a lot on the nature of the business on how easy it is to show that you're a profit center.
If you're a software development company, IT is directly involved in making the products that make the company money. If you're a retail organization, then it's less clear.
It also depends how sensitive a company's management is to the issue. Some try to justify every nickle while another will invest millions on a project w/ no care in the world for ROI.
Another way to think about it is... Could an outside company do what you're doing better for cheaper? If so, then you're definitely not a profit center. Outsourcing non core competencies may be a good idea to be able to focus on where IT creates the most value for your company.
If I were 'King of IT', I'd be more in the middle of the road. I'd expect my support organization to work efficiently and in the best judgement of my underlings. And for projects of any size, I'd expect to see ROI figures and how the project fits into strategic priorities.
So overall, I guess my answer to your question is 'it depends'. Understanding where your resources are being used is always a good idea so that you can control and justify cost. On the other hand, creating chargebacks can discourage use even when it may be valuable. Kind of a catch-22.
If you're a software development company, IT is directly involved in making the products that make the company money. If you're a retail organization, then it's less clear.
It also depends how sensitive a company's management is to the issue. Some try to justify every nickle while another will invest millions on a project w/ no care in the world for ROI.
Another way to think about it is... Could an outside company do what you're doing better for cheaper? If so, then you're definitely not a profit center. Outsourcing non core competencies may be a good idea to be able to focus on where IT creates the most value for your company.
If I were 'King of IT', I'd be more in the middle of the road. I'd expect my support organization to work efficiently and in the best judgement of my underlings. And for projects of any size, I'd expect to see ROI figures and how the project fits into strategic priorities.
So overall, I guess my answer to your question is 'it depends'. Understanding where your resources are being used is always a good idea so that you can control and justify cost. On the other hand, creating chargebacks can discourage use even when it may be valuable. Kind of a catch-22.
I have worked in a bank where the internal IT department made a reasonable profit but the internal charges were highly criticized. When price sensitivity is high we normally see customer satisfaction is low. I see IT or IS as an internal service provider who should enable the objectives of the business and not seek to be (too) profitable. The key to fair internal charging, even if it makes a profit, is transparency. Regular credits back to the business when IT has over recovered also shows a fair approach. If you estimate the labour time/cost for a project and it goes over then this becomes a real issue if the project does not deliver, has a high TCO and low ROI. If the opposite is true no-one will care.
My advice is to focus on service delivery and be measured on that first. Build credibility and trust with the business before worrying about making a profit.
Hope this help
Ben C
IT Director
My advice is to focus on service delivery and be measured on that first. Build credibility and trust with the business before worrying about making a profit.
Hope this help
Ben C
IT Director
Without playing the Blue game (internal inter company charges). Green Money come from outside the company, that means some form of IT sevices/products become a product sold for profit by your company, including old assets.
First up, identify your current inventory of resources and what you have in excess. If you have a blade server that is being underutilized, do hosting services. Another is if you are doing in-house applications, why not make this as a SaaS service and provide this to the public on subscription basis. These are just a few examples. Any effort from your end to convert it to profit center will be highly appreciated by the executives.
Any dumb CIOs would look good when he is surrounded with the best people.
From #6:
It?s possible for a department of tech pros to be managed by a person who isn't technically inclined. However, being technically savvy usually helps a CIO stand out as one of the greats
Particularly in smaller companies - where the CIO and CTO jobs are held by the same person - or even smaller ones where the IT Manager sits 1 level below the top - I don't think it's possible to NOT be tech savvy! In general, managers and executives need to understand the challenges/complexities that their subordinates face. Understanding doesn't require the detailed knowledge that the line people need to do their jobs, but the technically ignorant don't even have the background necessary for the understanding they do need to lead/manage well!
I addressed this in a blog post about 2 years ago:
http://new-business-paradigm.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-much-does-boss-need-to-know.html
I'll be posting this under the video as well
It?s possible for a department of tech pros to be managed by a person who isn't technically inclined. However, being technically savvy usually helps a CIO stand out as one of the greats
Particularly in smaller companies - where the CIO and CTO jobs are held by the same person - or even smaller ones where the IT Manager sits 1 level below the top - I don't think it's possible to NOT be tech savvy! In general, managers and executives need to understand the challenges/complexities that their subordinates face. Understanding doesn't require the detailed knowledge that the line people need to do their jobs, but the technically ignorant don't even have the background necessary for the understanding they do need to lead/manage well!
I addressed this in a blog post about 2 years ago:
http://new-business-paradigm.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-much-does-boss-need-to-know.html
I'll be posting this under the video as well
Often, people are stronger leaders than they realize. Having effective leadership skills in business requires a refined toolset for success. Being a business superstar is great, but succeeding as a leader should always be your primary goal.
I'm thinking that my top quality, "Leading by Example" covers a lot that your list doesn't - big leaders who take a fall in some way (look at all the political leader fallout from bad judgment calls!) never propsper. You can read my own top 10 in my article Top Ten Effective Leadership Skills in Business (http://leaderskillstraining.com//categories_developing_leadership_skills_article.htm).
I'm thinking that my top quality, "Leading by Example" covers a lot that your list doesn't - big leaders who take a fall in some way (look at all the political leader fallout from bad judgment calls!) never propsper. You can read my own top 10 in my article Top Ten Effective Leadership Skills in Business (http://leaderskillstraining.com//categories_developing_leadership_skills_article.htm).
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
