IT Leadership by System

My last post (below) talks about whether you can bottle innovation. I commented on an article (by Adventis Consulting) that advocates decoupling the creative side of innovation from the risk-taking side. An organization's culture should encourage creative people to come with great ideas continuously -- but not necessarily let them decide when and how those ideas actually get funded. That's a process best left to a dispassionate "system" -- much like a hedge fund might rely on a program trading in the futures (options) market.

Okay, that makes sense -- like I said last week, I get how betting on "futures" is like betting on futures -- and that there are indeed systems that do exactly that and very well.

So this week I am reading an article on IT leadership in the McKinsey Quarterly (August, 2005, registration required) by Eric Monnoyer and Paul Willmott — and it raises an issue which is I think germane to this left brain/right brain discussion. Monnoyer and Willmott are basically saying that IT leadership is not something best done by committee or governance models. Management by system simply does not get people juiced; nor does it get people aligned with THE MISSION.

". . . leadership can achieve what governance systems by themselves cannot." -- McKinsey Report (August, 2005)

The Adventis article is aimed at technology suppliers; while the McKinsey article talks to technology users. But managers in both groups have the same job -- which is to weigh technology risks and get other people willing to take them. And clearly a system can't do that, no matter how theoretically elegant its design. Still, I think there's some value in keeping either side of the brain from taking over completely -- and in knowing when to give ground and on which side. Maybe that's what leaders are supposed to do.