IT Governance Lessons from George Washington

Guest blog by Gregory J. Fell, excerpted from his book, Decoding the IT Value Problem. 

It’s an understatement to say that George Washington was a great leader. He was an exceptional leader. He was also one of those rare individuals who can listen to the opinions of others without wavering from his true course.

Washington knew when to dive into the details of a problem and when to step back. If he was alive today, I am certain that he would appreciate the need for good IT governance.

In his role as commander-in-chief of the revolutionary army, Washington was surrounded by strong-willed, proud, and often egotistical men. Many of his subordinates were genuinely brilliant, and many of them had been successful entrepreneurs or seasoned soldiers before joining the revolutionary cause.

Washington’s senior officers and advisors were self-confident, experienced, knowledgeable, and accustomed to getting their way. They truly believed that they knew what was best, and they weren’t afraid the share their opinions.

To many, Washington’s management style seemed mysterious and mortifying. He would listen with the courtesy of a gentleman. He refrained from indicating his agreement or disagreement. To some, he seemed removed or aloof. To others, he seemed the embodiment of patience.

Many of his officers believed that Washington had too much patience. Some perceived him as indecisive. Some even accused him of being a coward.

Through it all, Washington maintained his stance as a keen listener and patient judge. He did not rush to a decision. As Richard Brookhiser observes in George Washington on Leadership, “With the fate of the army, and the country, on his shoulders, Washington was willing to take an extra moment.”

Indeed, it is fair to argue that Washington’s patience was in large part responsible for winning the war. His patience was no doubt buttressed by his belief in a simple overarching strategy: Win the war.

The main lesson we can draw from Washington’s approach to leadership is that when you have your own strategy, listening to others and taking their advice into consideration is relatively easy. Listen to the people around you, consider their recommendations, and stick to your strategy.

Why We Need IT Governance

IT governance is a process for making sure that the details are covered and thoroughly understood by all stakeholders. In most companies, IT governance is a four-letter word. It evokes images of long, boring meetings on subjects that don’t seem particularly interesting to most people.

George Washington knew the importance of governance, and he understood why it was important part of winning the war. While his generals proposed bold plans, Washington focused on what seemed to be trivial details. He reviewed food supplies and clothing, reviewed powder levels, and evaluated the impact of the army’s movement on supply lines.

He realized that while these details wouldn’t by themselves win the war, failing to address them would surely result in defeat. I think the same principle is at work in IT governance. It might not be exciting, but it is a necessity. Failure to address it will not lose a battle, but it might cost you the war.

A Process for Generating Commitment

IT governance provides a natural antidote to fear and resistance to change. IT governance is also a good business practice that yields positive results. In my experience, the difference between successful IT projects and unsuccessful IT projects usually boils down to business commitment. IT governance is the best way for generating the kind of business commitment required for guiding IT projects from conception through successful completion.

It’s helpful to think of IT governance as a process for making absolutely certain that the company’s key executives and managers meet together and say, “This is what we’re going to do—are we in agreement?”

From my perspective as an experienced corporate CIO, the idea of people coming together to discuss capital projects makes complete sense. That being said, I am astonished and somewhat saddened by how few CIOs seem to meet regularly with the key influencers and decision makers in their companies to talk about IT projects. It’s not surprising that so many IT projects fail.

Meeting periodically with senior management to talk about IT is a major challenge for many CIOs. Close working relationships with peers are prerequisites for success in most business scenarios, but for some reason, many CIOs find this part of the job difficult.

This I can state with absolute certainty: The CIOs who have the best and most productive relationships with their C-level peers are often the ones who have developed and maintained the best IT governance processes.

In business, almost everything depends on some kind of process. Why should IT governance be the exception to the rule?

At Terex, we had a strong governance process, and our ERP implementation was fairly successful. Executives from other companies often asked me, “How are you guys able to pull off a global single instance, across multiple geographies, with all of your manufacturing, engineering, purchasing, and financial processes? How can you pull all that stuff together in a company that is so very diverse?” My answer was “We have a strong governance process.”

When I’m talking with people who need IT projects, but who aren’t familiar with IT governance and who expect the IT group to just “wing it,” I usually begin by saying something like this:

“90 percent of IT projects fail. They don’t fail because of technology; they fail because IT and the business are not aligned. If you want this project to succeed, IT and the business must be aligned. IT governance is a process for achieving that alignment. I need your commitment to that governance process, or I cannot commit the resources of IT to your project.”

That puts the ball in their court. If they’re not willing to commit to a governance process, why should IT commit to implementing their projects?