Digital transformations: the impact of leadership conflict and the mask of corporate ambiguity

A certain amount of leadership conflict is to be expected in any large digital transformation programme. Sometimes, it is actively encouraged to avoid the leadership team descending into groupthink.

Tension at the top and the mask of corporate ambiguity are ever-present risks to transformational change

This tension at the top often stems from the fact that senior leaders have reached these positions of authority precisely because they have very strong and very clear views on what they believe is right for the transformation initiative – they also have very strong and very clear views on most things.

So far, so good. A bit of leadership friction stops the executives developing the illusion of invincibility and allows ideas to be challenged to the benefit of the transformation.

But…

Differences of opinion between leaders can result in each using subtle nuances in wording when communicating strategy and requirements to those that are tasked with implementing the transformation strategy, and this is where problems can occur.

The mask of corporate ambiguity

(Please note: corporate ambiguity is distinct from corporate amnesia – the ability of some to forget what they have told you previously, at a time that is most convenient for them and least convenient for you – but both conditions can be, and often are, displayed by the same individuals.)

The tactic of corporate ambiguity, when used to mask differences of opinion at the top of the transformation function, gives some leaders the flex they seek to allow them to shift direction or focus (on both strategy and what must be delivered) without taking much, if any, responsibility for the cascading impacts these changes have.

These impacts normally take the form of a drag on delivery timelines and cost overruns, either as a result of teams not working on items that are the top priority or the rework required when the dreaded phrase of “This is not what I asked for…” is inevitably doled out.

A situation can now develop where tension at the top leads to some level of corporate ambiguity, and this results in a delivery that does not meet the needs of the transformation.

The upshot of this is pressure being applied further down the management line, this time at the heart of delivery, as the question of “How could this have happened?” is rightly asked, and the inescapable post-mortem begins.

Trust is eroded and there is a risk of a vicious cycle developing, where delivery teams find themselves in the unenviable position of having to continually seek clarifications, resulting in yet more delay, more inefficiency and increased cost.

Uncertainty is not the problem

Some level of ambiguity is expected in the complex, volatile and dynamic business environment that exists nowadays. It is something that we all have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Ambiguity, in and of itself, is not the main issue. The inability of some leaders to admit to gaps in their knowledge (mistakenly thinking that this demonstrates weakness) and the timeframe of the deliveries that depend on the areas of uncertainty are more of a concern.

It is understood that absolute certainty is impossible to achieve the further the strategy horizon (or implementation of this) stretches into the future.

However, imprecise direction regarding items that are being delivered in the near term is a different matter.

Again, a degree of uncertainty is still generally understood and expected, even for near-term deliveries. The only difference with uncertainty surrounding deliveries that are close at hand is that the ambiguity needs to be embraced and tackled with some degree of urgency.

Achieving clarity now will save a world of pain and cost later, and all parties need to work together, in an iterative manner, to crystalise what is required.

How do we fix it?

Let’s face it, changing the way the leadership function operates is not an option, but left unchecked, the cascading effects of tension at the top and the resulting increase in corporate ambiguity will reduce the effectiveness of the delivery function and increase the cost of delivery.

So, assuming that the creative tension at the top continues, how do we mitigate the risk of corporate ambiguity on what is being delivered?

60-minute strategic action sessions

At the strategic level, I like Steve Duesbury’s idea of the 60-minute strategic action session (from his LinkedIn article How Top Companies Turn Ideas Into Action. FAST!) to create clear direction and remove ambiguity, starting with those items that need attention now (i.e., the near-term deliveries).

The strategic action sessions consist of no more than five participants (including the moderator). They last for no more than 60 minutes, allocating time for participants to present ideas, build consensus and produce actions and issues. The actions and issues are then grouped into the following four categories:

• Act: Items that will be acted on immediately.
• Invest: Items that the team want to act on but require additional time/money/resources.
• Improve: Items that will not be tackled due to their low value but may be considered later.
• Ignore: Items that will not be considered further.

The structure of these sessions is designed to create focus and to force decisions to be taken and actions to be produced.

UX-led requirements extraction

Moving out of the strategy sphere and into the world of delivery, we can go a long way to removing uncertainty by producing clickable user experience (UX) prototypes.

Short sessions are arranged where a UX designer and a business analyst sit with the leaders to mock-up a visual representation of what is actually needed. These mock-ups are then taken away and a pixel-perfect, clickable UX prototype is produced (normally within 48 hours) to be replayed back to the leaders.

This process is repeated until agreement is reached that the UX model represents what is required. This then becomes the requirements artefact, in place of any lengthy business requirements definition (BRD) document.

The results of this process are a significant improvement in the quality of requirements being produced, and a decreased likelihood of significant change to requirements once agreement has been reached that the UX prototype meets the needs of the business.

Closing thoughts

Tension at the top and the mask of corporate ambiguity are ever-present risks to transformational change, so it is in the interest of the entire transformation initiative that these risks are mitigated effectively.

60-minute strategic action sessions and UX-led requirements extraction are two approaches, operating at different levels, that are useful to break out of the cycle of unclear direction, build the wrong thing, fix what’s wrong, argue about lack of delivery and spiralling costs (repeat ad infinitum).

In the realm of delivery, these two approaches can prove to be very effective when used in concert, with a UX prototype acting as the basis for discussion in the 60-minute strategic action session (though in this instance the strategic action session is concerned with specific delivery items rather than strategic concerns).

Have you used any other approaches to remove ambiguity and deliver effective change? If so, I’d love to hear them, so please comment below.

About the author

Brian Harkin is the CTO of Kynec and a visiting lecturer at Bayes Business School (City, University of London).

He is passionate about the intersection of people, technology, and innovation and has developed the Galapagos Framework to help leaders and organisations transform the way they direct digital change.

All opinions are his own and he welcomes debate and comment!

Follow Brian on Twitter @DigitalXformBH and LinkedIn.