I talk a lot about communication between professional accountants and clients but I don’t think I’ve ever addressed the IT>professional communication issue. Most professionals I come across are pretty ambivalent veering towards hostile when it comes to discussing technology. Only last week, someone said their senior partner’s reaction to a call for a website face lift was:
“Don’t tell me we’ve got to spend 20-bloody-grand on it. I’m not having that.”
I recall my senior partner never turned on his PC – in nine (yes – 9) years.
So when I read that Andrew McAfee is being torn to shreds on Slashdot, my heart sinks. Elsewhere, Rod Boothby and Thomas Davenport are facing off. Or are they? In a private conversation, David Tebbutt correctly observed:
It would have been good had Rod and Thomas seen each other’s contributions before publication. The phrase “chalk and cheese” spring to mind. They’re talking about different things.
Same with Andrew and the Slashdot crew. Except they might have understood the components individually but not the broader sweep of his discussion.
This is true. And ever it was so. But I don’t think this is the whole story. Attitudes on the IT side of the house seem to be hardening. As do those on the management side. Check this by Thomas Otter:
There is something rather teenage about how software developers of a certain type react to those from outside the clique who dare stray on their turf, even unwittingly. They are mean, cutting, churlish, they think it is cool to be abusive and rude, but in fact, it is merely a poor guise for insecurity. I have lots of respect for people with deep technical prowess, but little respect for those that use that prowess to insult others.
They complain one minute that no one takes them seriously, or respects them, and then they get angry when anyone from outside attempts to get to know them better. Andrew’s piece is an attempt to create a simple framework to help managers understand IT better.
That’s pretty harsh though Thomas’s argument has merit. Look at this from a Slashdot commenter:
Bullshit! Managers need to participate in the design process of IT projects, especially applications that they their departments will be depending on. I hate managers who “iterate with programmers” on an actual application, spiral style – that is SO expensive and less secure (a highly refactored system is less secure that one that was done right the first time) You iterate with design docs, get involved early. Once you (as a manager) have a good design in play, then set your IT people loose. If you do not have at least a minimal understanding of the basics of how the web works, yet you are spending a million on a large enterprise web project, then shame on you or the board that hired you!
Check the language of misunderstanding and frustration.
No amount of posturing by either side will take away from the fact that IT and the business are often looking at issues from entirely different perspectives and with different frames of reference. That needs to change. IT should be integrated into the business on a foundation of collaboration.
Equally, IT has consistently been given a bad press for being obdurate and unreasonable. But then IT has never been given the recognition it deserves. We may well ask if IT Doesn’t Matter but I’d equally ask – would you be making as much money today:
- If you had to prepare accounts using 13-col analysis paper and a desktop calculator?
- Would you have access to the kinds of information all of us have freely available and which enhance your understanding of functionally important tasks like tax compliance?
- If you only had to rely on the printed version of Simons?
- Where would you be without email?
- Could you live without the spreadsheet?
This medium provides a great forum for working these things out. Recently for example, I was asked how I’d like to see passion expressed. I wouldn’t go as far as Hugh MacLeod. The language is too strong – even for me and I suspect others. But if we’re not prepared to engage in the kind of lively discussion Andrew eschews, encourages, (see comments re: correction) then I’m afraid nothing much changes. I know for example that some people refuse to take on Richard Murphy. They find his use of language and position intimidating.
Richard makes formidable use of logic in his totally one-sided and impassioned arguments. If you can rise to that challenge then take him on. He appreciates that. I’d wager that anyone who does would quickly find they’ve got a fascinating debate on their hands. Which in turn influences others.
I’ve oft argued that appreciating the passion of others requires looking beyond tone. It allows me to get closer to understanding points of view with which I might otherwise be intuitively opposed. In the same way I’ve always said – call me on facts, never on style but always question what I’m trying to communicate.
Technorati Tags: communications
