Culture and Sustaining Success

“Something needs to change… we’re not growing, we’re too slow, we’re not competitive, we need to manage costs…”

Change is an inevitable reality in business. Even the most successful company will face adversity, new competitors, market shifts, evolving customer needs, expense pressures, near-term shareholder expectations, etc. While it’s important to focus on adjusting course and remedying issues, the question is whether you will find yourself in exactly the same (or at least a relatively similar) situation again (along with how quickly) and that comes down to leadership and culture.

Culture issues tend to beget other business issues, whether it’s delayed or misaligned decisions, complacency and a lack of innovation, a lack of collaboration and cooperation, risk averse behaviors, redundant or ineffective solutions, high turnover resulting in lost expertise, and so on. The point is that excellence needs to start “at the top” and work its way throughout an organization, and the mechanism for that proliferation is culture.

The focus of this article will be to explore what it takes to evolve culture in an organization, and to provide ways to think about what can happen when it isn’t positioned or aligned effectively.

It Starts with the Right Intentions

Conformance versus Performance

Before attempting to change anything, the fundamental question to be asked is why you want to have a culture in place to begin with? Certainly, over the course of time and multiple organizations (and clients), I’ve seen culture emphasized to varying degrees, from where it is core to a company’s DNA, to where it is relegated to a poster, web page, or item on everyone’s desk that is seldom noticed or referenced.

In cases where it’s rarely referenced, there is missed opportunity to establish mission and purpose, rallying people around core concepts that can facilitate an effective work environment.

That being said, focusing on culture doesn’t necessarily create a greater good in itself, as I’ve seen environments where culture is used in almost a punitive way, suggesting there are norms to which everyone must adhere and specific language everyone needs to use, or there will be adverse consequences.

That isn’t about establishing a productive work environment, it’s about control and conformance, and that can be toxic when you understand the fundamental issue it represents: employees aren’t trusted enough to do the right thing, be empowered, and enabled to act, so there needs to be a mechanism in place to drive conformity, enforce “common language”, and isolate those who don’t fit the mold to create a more homogenous organizational society.

So, what happens to innovation, diversity, and inclusion in these environments? It’s suppressed or destroyed, because the capabilities and gifts of the individual are lost to the push towards a unified, homogenized whole. That is a fairly extreme outcome of such authoritarian environments, but the point is that a strong culture is not, in itself, automatically good if the focus is control and not performance and excellence.

I’ve written multiple articles on culture and values that I believe are important in organizations, so I won’t repeat those messages here, but the goal of establishing culture should be fostering leadership, innovation, growth, collaboration, and optimizing the contribution of everyone in an organization to serve the greater good. If that doesn’t apply in equal measure to every employee, based on their individual capabilities and experience, that’s fine from my perspective, so long as they don’t detract from the performance of others in the process. The point is that culture isn’t about the words on the wall, it’s about the behaviors that you are aspiring to engender within an organization and the degree to which you live into them every day.

Begin with Leadership

Words and Actions

It is fairly obvious to say that culture needs to start “at the top” and work its way outward, but there are so many issues I’ve seen over time in this step alone, that it is worth repeating.

It is not uncommon for leaders to speak in town hall meetings or public settings and proclaim the merits of the company culture, asking others to follow the core values or principles as outlined, to the betterment of themselves and everyone else (customers and others included as appropriate). Now, the question is: what happens when that person returns to their desk and makes their next set of decisions? This is where culture is measured, and employees notice everything over time.

The challenge for leaders who want excellence and organizational performance is to take culture to heart and do what they can to live into it, even in the most difficult circumstances, which is where it tends to be needed the most. I remember hearing a speaker suggest that the litmus test of the strength of your commitment to culture could be expressed in whether you would literally walk away from business rather than compromise your values. That’s a pretty difficult bar to set in my experience, but an interesting way to think about the choices we make and their relative consequence.

Aligning Incentives versus Values

Building on the previous point, there is a difference between behaviors and values. The latter is what you believe and prioritize, the former is how you act. Behaviors are directly observable; values are indirectly observed through your words and actions.

Why is this important in the context of culture? It is important, because you can incent people in the interest of influencing their behavior, but you can’t change someone’s values, no matter how you incent them. To the extent you want to set up a healthy, collaborative culture and there are individual motivations that don’t align with doing the right thing, organizational performance will suffer in some way, and the more senior the individual(s) are in the organization, the more significant the impact will likely be.

This point ultimately comes down to doing the right level of due diligence during the hiring process, but also being willing to make difficult decisions during the performance management process, because sometimes individual performers with unhealthy behaviors cause a more significant impact than is evident without some level of engagement and scrutiny from a leadership standpoint.

Have a Thoughtful Approach

Incubate -> Demonstrate -> Extend

As the diagram above suggests, culture doesn’t change overnight, and being deliberate in the approach to change will have a significant impact to how effective and sustainable it is.

In general, the approach I’d recommend is to start from “center” with leadership, raise awareness, educate on the intent and value to the changes proposed, and incubate there. Broader communication in terms of the proposed shift is likely useful in preparing the next group to be engaged in the process, but the point is to start small, begin “living into” the desired model, evaluating its efficacy, and demonstrating the value it can create, THEN extend to the next (likely adjacent) set of people, and repeat the process over and over until the change has fully proliferated to the entire organization. The length of any given iteration would likely vary depending on the size of the employee population and the degree of change involved (more substantial = longer windows of time), but the point is to be conscious and deliberate in how it is approached so adjustments can be made along the way and to enable leaders to understand and internalize the “right” set of behaviors before expecting them to help advocate and reinforce it in others.

An Example (Building an Architecture Capability)

To provide a simple example, when trying to establish an architecture capability across an organization, it would need to ultimately span from the central enterprise architecture team down to technical leads on individual implementation teams. It would be impractical to implement the model all at once, so it would be more effective to stage it out, working from the top-down, first defining roles and responsibilities across the entire operating model, but then implementing one “layer” of roles at a time, until it is entirely in place.

Since architects are generally responsible for technical solution quality, but not execution, the deployment of the model would need to follow two coordinated paths: building the architecture capability itself and aligning it with the delivery leadership with which it is meant to collaborate and cooperate (e.g., project and program managers). Trying to establish the role without alignment and support from people leading and participating on delivery teams likely would fail or lead to ineffective implementation, which is another reason why a more thoughtful and deliberate approach to the change is required.

What does this have to do with culture? Well, architecture is fundamentally about solution quality in technology, reuse, managing complexity and cost of ownership, and enabling speed and disciplined innovation. Establishing roles with an accountability for quality will test the appetite within an organization when it comes to working beyond individual project goals and constraints to looking at more strategic objectives for simplification, speed, and reuse. Where courageous leadership and the right culture are not in place, evolving the IT operating model will be considerably more difficult, likely at every stage of the process.

Manage Reality

To this point, I’ve addressed change in a fairly uniform and somewhat idealistic manner, but reality is often quite different, so I wanted to explore a couple situations and how I think about the implications of each.

Non-Uniform Execution

So, what happens when you change culture within your team, but it doesn’t extend into those who work directly with you? It depends on the nature of the change itself, of course, but likely the farther “out” from center you go, the more difficult it will be for your team to capitalize on whatever the intended benefits of the change were intended to be.

My assumptions here are in relation to medium- to larger-scale organizations, where the effects are magnified and it is impractical to “be everywhere, all the time” to engage in ways that help facilitate the desired change.

In the case that there isn’t broader alignment to whatever cultural adjustments you want to make within your team, depending on the degree of difference to the broader company culture, it may be necessary to clarify how “we operate internally” versus how “we engage with others”. The goal of drawing out that separation would be to try and drive performance improvement within your team, but not waste energy and create friction in your external interactions.

There is a potential risk in having teams with a very different culture than the broader organization if it creates an environment where there becomes an “us and them” mentality or a special treatment situation where that team demonstrates unhealthy organizational behaviors or is held to different standards than others. Ultimately those situations cause larger issues and should be avoided where possible.

Handling Disparate Cultures

Unlike the previous situation where there is one broader culture and a team operates in a slightly different manner; I’ve also seen situations where groups operate with very different cultures within the same overall organization and it can create substantial disconnects if not addressed effectively. When not addressed there can be a lot of internal friction, competition, and a lack of effective collaboration, which will hinder performance in one or more ways over time.

One way to manage a situation where there are multiple distinct cultures within a single organization, would first be to look for some level of core, universally accepted operating principles that can be applied to everyone, but then to focus entirely on the points of engagement across organizations, clarify roles and responsibilities for each constituent group, and manage to those dependencies the same as you would if working with a third-party provider or partner. The overall operating performance opportunity may not be fully realized, but this kind of approach could be used to provide clarity of expectations and reduce friction points to a large degree.

Wrapping Up

The purpose of this article was to come back to a core element that makes organizations successful over time, and that’s culture. To the degree that there are gaps or issues, it is always possible to adapt and evolve, but it takes a thoughtful approach, the right leadership, and time to make sustainable change. In my opinion, it is time worth spending to the degree that performance and excellence is your goal. It will never be “perfect” for many reasons, but thinking about how you establish, reinforce, and evolve it in a disciplined way can be the difference to remaining agile, competitive, and successful overall.

I hope the ideas were worth considering. Thanks for spending the time to read them. Feedback is welcome as always.

-CJG 10/03/2025

Visualizing Experience

“Are we set up for success?”

This is a question that I’ve heard asked many times, particularly when there is a strategic initiative or transformation effort being kicked off. Normally, the answer is an enthusiastic “Yes”, because most programs start with a lot of optimism (which is a good thing), but not always a full understanding of risk. The question is… How do you know whether you have the necessary capabilities to deliver?

In any type of organization, there is a blend of skills and experience, whether that is across a leadership team or within an individual team itself. Given that reality and the ongoing nature of organizations to evolve, realign, and reorganize, it is not uncommon to leverage some form of evaluation (such as a Kolbe assessment) to understand the natural strengths, communication, or leadership styles of various individuals to help facilitate understanding and improve collaboration.

But what about knowledge and experience? This part I haven’t seen done as often partially because, if not done well, it can lead to a cumbersome and manually intensive process that doesn’t create value.

The focus of this article is to suggest a means to understand and evaluate the breadth of knowledge and skills across a team. To the extent we can visualize collective capability, it can be a useful tool to inform various things from a management standpoint, which are outlined in the second section below.

Necessary caveats: The example used is not meant to be prescriptive or exhaustive and this activity doesn’t need to be focused on IT alone. The goal in the illustration used here was to provide enough specificity to help the reader visualize the concept at a practical level, but the data is entirely made up and not meant to be taken as a representation of an actual set of people.

On the Approach

Thinking through the Dimensions

The diagram above breaks out 27 dimensions from a knowledge and skills standpoint, ranging from business understanding to operations and execution. The dimensions chosen for the purposes of this exercise don’t particularly matter, but I wanted to select a set that covered many of the aspects of an IT organization as a whole.

From an approach standpoint, the goal would be to identify what is being evaluated, select the right set of dimensions, define them, then determine “what good looks like” in terms of having a baseline for benchmarking (e.g., 10 means X, 8 means Y, 6 means Z, etc.). With the criteria established, one should then explain the activity to the group being evaluated, prepare a simple survey, and gather the data. The activity is meant to be rapid and directionally accurate, not to supplant individual performance evaluations, career development, or succession plans that should exist at a more detailed level. Ideally the dimensions should also align to the competency model for an organization, but the goal of this activity is directional, so that step isn’t critical if it requires too much effort.

Once data has been collected, individual results can be plotted in a spider graph like the one below to provide a perspective on where there are overlaps and gaps across a team.

Ways of Applying the Concept

With the individual inputs from a team having been provided, it’s possible to think about the data in two different respects: how it reflects individual capabilities, gaps, and overlaps as well as what it shows as the collective experience of the team as a whole (the green dotted outline above).

The data now being assembled, there are a number of ways to potentially leverage the information outlined below.

Talent Development: The strengths and gaps in any individual view can be used to inform individual development plans or identify education needs for the team as a whole. It can also be used to sanity check individual roles and accountability against the actual experience of individuals on the team. This isn’t to suggest rotations and “learn on the job” situations aren’t a good thing, but rather to raise awareness of those situations so that they can be managed proactively with the individual or the team as a whole. To the extent that a gap with one person is a strength in another, there could be cross-training opportunities that surface through the process.

Coordination and Collaboration: With overlaps and gaps visible across a team, there can be areas identified where individual team members see opportunities to consult with others who have a similar skillset, and also perhaps a different background that could surface different ways to approach and solve problems. In larger organizations, it can often be difficult to know “who to invite” to a conversation, where the default becomes inviting everyone (or making everyone ‘mandatory’ versus ‘optional’), which ultimately can lead to less productive or over-attended conversations that lack focus.

Leaders and Teams: In the representative data above, I deliberately highlighted areas where team members were not as experienced as the person leading the team, but the converse situation as well. In my experience, it is almost never the case that the leader is the most experienced in everything within the scope of what a team has to do. If that was the case, it could suggest that the potential of that team could be limited to that leader’s individual capabilities and vision, because others lack the experience to help inform direction. In the event that team members have more experience than their leader, there can also be opportunities for individuals to step up and provide direction, assuming the team leader creates space and a supportive environment for that occur. Again, the point of the activity is to identify and determine what, if anything, to do with these disparities where they exist.

Sourcing Strategy: Where significant gaps exist (e.g., there is no one with substantial AI experience in the example data above), these could be areas where finding a preferred partner with a depth of experience in the topic could be beneficial while internal talent is acquired or developed (to the extent it is deemed strategic to the organization).

Business Partnership: The visibility could serve as input to a partnership discussion to align expectations for where business leaders expect support and capability from their technology counterparts versus areas where they are comfortable taking the lead or providing direction. This isn’t always a very deliberate conversation in my experience, and sometimes that can lead to missed expectations in complex delivery situations.

Risk Management: One of the most important things to recognize about a visualization like this is not just what it shows about a teams’ capability, it’s also what isn’t there.

Using Donald Rumsfeld’s now famous concept:

There is known – something for which we have facts and experience
There is known unknown – something we know is needed, but which is not yet clear
And the pure unknown – something outside our experience, and therefore a blind spot

The last category is where we should also focus in an activity like this, because the less experience that exists individually and collectively in a leadership team, there will be a substantial increase in risk because there is a lack of awareness of all the “known unknowns” that can have a material impact on delivering solutions and operating IT. To the extent that a team is relatively inexperienced, no matter how motivated they may be, there is an increased probability that something will be compromised, whether that is cost, quality, schedule, morale, or something else. To that end, this tool can be an important mechanism to identify and manage risk.

Wrapping Up

Having recently written a fairly thorough set of articles on the future of enterprise technology, I wanted to back up and look at something a little less complex, but also with a focus on improving transparency and informing leadership discussions on risk, development, and coordination.

Whether through a mechanism like this or some other avenue, I believe there is value in understanding the breadth of capabilities that exist within a team and across a leadership group as a means for promoting excellence overall.

I hope the ideas were worth considering. Thanks for spending the time to read them. Feedback is welcome as always.

-CJG 08/24/2025

Four Years In: The Patterns That Define Performance and Leadership

Having had this blog for nearly four years, I took a look at the nature of the articles written to date, and subjects included therein, wondering if there were any patterns that emerged. I found the resulting chart (above) interesting as a reflection of the relative importance I associate with certain topics overall. To that end, I thought I’d provide some perspective on what’s been written to date before moving to the next article, whatever that may be.

Leadership and Culture

The two largest focus areas were leadership and culture, which isn’t surprising given I’ve worked for many years across corporate and consulting environments and have seen the relative impact that both can have on organizational performance on the whole. Nearly two-thirds of my articles to date touch on leadership and one-half on culture, because they are fundamental to setting the stage for everything else you want to accomplish.

In the case of organizational excellence, courageous leadership has to be at the top of the list, given that difficult decisions and a level of fearlessness are required to achieve great things. By contrast, hesitancy and complacency will almost always lead to suboptimized results, because there will be apprehension about innovating, challenging the status quo, and effectively managing relationships where the ability to be a partner and advisor may require difficult conversations at times.

With leadership firmly rooted, it becomes possible to establish a culture that promotes integrity, respect, collaboration, innovation, productivity, and results. Where one or more of these dimensions is missing, it is nearly impossible to be effective without compromising performance somewhere. That isn’t to say that you can’t deliver in an unhealthy environment, you certainly can and many organizations do. It is very likely, however, that those gains will be short-lived and difficult to repeat or sustain because of the consequential impact of those issues on the people working in those conditions over time. In this case, the metrics will likely tell the tale, between delivery performance, customer feedback, solution quality, and voluntary attrition (to name a few).

Delivery and Innovation

With the above foundation in place, the next two areas of focus were delivery and innovation, which is reassuring given that I believe strongly in the concept of actionable strategy versus one that is largely theoretical in nature. Having worked in environments that leaned heavily on innovation without enough substantive delivery as well as ones that delivered consistently but didn’t innovate enough, the answer is to ensure both are occurring on a continual basis and managed in a very deliberate way.

Said differently, if you innovate without delivering, you won’t create tangible business value. If you deliver without ever innovating, at some point, you will lose competitive advantage or risk obsolescence in some form or other.

The Role of Discipline

While not called out as a topic in itself, in most cases where I discuss delivery or IT operations, I mention discipline as well, because I believe it is a critical component of pursuing excellence in anything. The odd contradiction that exists, is the notion that having discipline somehow implies bureaucracy or moving slowly, when the reality is the exact opposite.

Without defined, measurable, and repeatable processes, it is nearly impossible to drive continuous improvement and establish a more predictable operating environment over time. From a delivery standpoint, having methodology isn’t about being prescriptive to the point that you lose agility, as an example, it’s about having an understood approach that you can estimate and plan effectively. It also defines rules of engagement within and across teams so that you can partner and execute efficiently in a repeatable fashion. Having consistent processes also allows for monitoring, governing, and improving the efficiency and efficacy of how things are done over time.

The same could be said for leveraging architectural frameworks, common services, and design patterns as well. There is a cost for establishing these things, but if you amortize these investments over time, they ultimately improve speed, reduce risk, improve quality, and thereby reduce TCO and complexity of an environment once they are in place. This is because every team doesn’t invent their own way of doing things, ultimately creating complexity that needs to be maintained and supported down the road. Said differently, it would be very difficult to have reliable estimation metrics when you never do something in a consistent way and analyze variance.

Mental Models and Visualization

The articles also reflect that I prefer having a logical construct and visualizations to organize, illustrate, analyze, and evaluate complex situations, such as AI and data strategy, workforce and sourcing strategy, digital manufacturing facilities, and various other situations. Any of these topics involve many dimensions and layers of associated complexity. Having a mental model, whether it is a functional decomposition, component model, or some other framework, is helpful for both identifying the dimensions of a problem, and also surfacing dependencies and relationships in the interest of driving transformation.

Visualizations also can help facilitate alignment across broader groups of stakeholders where a level of parallel execution is required, making dependencies and relationships more evident and easier to coordinate.

Wrapping Up

Overall, the purpose of writing this article was simply to pause and reflect on what has become a fairly substantive body of work over the last several years, along with recognizing the themes that reoccur time and again because they matter when excellence is your goal. Achieving great things consistently is a byproduct of having vision, effective leadership, discipline, commitment, and a lot of tenacity.

I hope the ideas were worth considering. Thanks for spending the time to read them. Feedback is welcome as always.

-CJG 07/14/2025

Why Excellence Matters

A new leader in an organization once asked to understand my role. My answer was very simple: “My role is to change mindsets.”

I’m fairly sure the expectation was something different: a laundry list of functional responsibilities, goals, in-flight activities or tasks that were top of mind, the makeup of my team, etc. All relevant aspects of a job, to be sure, but not my primary focus.

I explained that my goal was to help transform the organization, and if I couldn’t change people’s mindsets, everything else that needed to be done was going to be much more difficult. That’s how it is with change.

Complacency is the enemy. Excellence is a journey and you are never meant to reach the destination.

Having been part of and worked with organizations that enjoyed tremendous market share but then encountered adversity and lost their advantage, there were common characteristics, starting with basking in the glow of that success too long and losing the hunger and drive that made them successful in the first place.

The remainder of this article will explore the topic further in three dimensions: leadership, innovation, and transformation in the interest of providing some perspective on the things to look for when excellence is your goal.

Fall short of excellence, you can still be great. Try to be great and fail? You’re going to be average… and who wants to be part of something average? No one who wants to win.

Courageous Leadership

As with anything, excellence has to start with leadership. There is always resistance and friction associated with change. That’s healthy and good because it surfaces questions and risks and, in a perfect world, the more points of view you can leverage in setting direction, the more likely you’ll avoid blind spots or avoidable mistakes just for a lack of awareness or understanding of what you are doing.

There is a level of discipline needed to accomplish great things over time and courage is a requirement, because there will inevitably be challenges, surprises, and setbacks. How leaders respond to that adversity, through their adaptability, tenacity and resilience will ultimately have a substantial influence on what is possible overall.

Some questions to consider:

Is there enough risk tolerance to create space to try new ideas, fail, learn, and try again?
Is there discipline in your approach so that business choices are thoughtful, reasoned, intentional, measured, and driven towards clear outcomes?
Is there a healthy level of humility to understand that, no matter how much success there is right now, without continuing to evolve, there will always be a threat of obsolescence?

Relentless Innovation

In my article on Excellence by Design, I was deliberate in choosing the word “relentless” in terms of innovation, because I’ve seen so many instances over time of the next silver bullet meant to be a “game changer”, “disruptor”, etc. only to see that then be overtaken by the next big thing a year or so later.

One of the best things about working in technology is that it constantly gives us opportunities to do new things: to be more productive and effective, produce better outcomes, create more customer value, and be more competitive.

Some people see that as a threat, because it requires a willingness to continue to evolve, adapt, and learn. You can’t place too much value on a deep understanding of X technology, because tomorrow Y may come along and make that knowledge fairly obsolete. While there is an aspect of that argument that is true at an implementation level, it gives too much importance to the tools and not enough to the problems we’re ultimately trying to solve, namely creating a better customer experience, delivering a better product or service, and so on.

We need to plan like the most important thing right now won’t be the most important 6 months or even a year from now. Assume we will want to replace it, or integrate something new to work with it, improving our overall capability and creating even more value over time.

What does that do? In a disciplined environment, it should change our mindset about how we approach implementing new tools and technologies in the first place. It should also influence how much exposure we create in the dependencies we place upon those tools in the process of utilizing them.

To take what could be a fairly controversial example: I’ve written multiple articles on Artificial Intelligence (AI), how to approach it, and how I think about it in various dimensions, including where it is going. The hype surrounding these technologies is deservedly very high right now, there is a surge in investment, and a significant number of tools are and will be hitting the market. It’s also reasonable to assume a number of “agentic” solutions will pop up, meant to solve this problem and that… ok… now what happens then? Are things better, worse, or just different? What is the sum of an organization that is fully deployed with all of the latest tools? I don’t believe we have any idea and I also believe it will be terribly inefficient if we don’t ask this question right now.

As a comparison, what history has taught us is that there will be a user plugged into these future ecosystems somewhere, with some role and responsibilities, to work in concert (and ideally in harmony) with all this automation (physical and virtual) that we’ve brought to bear on everyone’s behalf. How will they make sense of it all? If we drop an agent for everything, is it any different than giving someone a bunch of new applications, all of which spit recommendations and notifications and alerts at them, saying “this is what you need to do”, but leaving them to figure out which of those disconnected pieces of advice make the most sense, which should be the priority, and try somehow not to be overwhelmed? Maybe not, because the future state might be a combination of intelligent applications (something I wrote about in The Intelligent Enterprise) and purpose-built agents that fill gaps those applications don’t cover.

Ok, so why does any of that matter? I’m not making an argument against experimenting and leveraging AI. My point is that, every time there is surge towards the next technology advancement, we seldom think about the reality that it will eventually evolve or be replaced by something else and we should take that into consideration as we integrate those new technologies to begin with. The only constant is change and that’s a good thing, but we also need to be disciplined in how we think about it on an ongoing basis.

Some questions to consider:

Is there a thoughtful and disciplined approach to innovation in place?
Is there a full lifecycle-oriented view when introducing new technologies, to consider how to integrate them so they can be replaced or to retire other existing, potentially redundant solutions once they are introduced?
Are the new technologies being vetted, reviewed, and integrated as part of a defined ecosystem with an eye towards managing technical debt over time?

Continual Transformation

In the spirit of fostering change, it is very common for a “strategy” conversation to be rooted in a vision. A vision sets the stage for what the future environment is meant to look like. It is ideally compelling enough to create a clear understanding of the desired outcome and to generate momentum in the pursuit of that goal (or set of goals)… and experience has taught me this is actually NOT the first or only thing important to consider in that first step.

Sustainable change isn’t just about having a vision, it is about having the right culture.

The process for strategy definition isn’t terribly complicated at an overall level: define a vision, understand the current state, identify the gaps, develop a roadmap to fill those gaps, execute, adapt, and govern until you’re done.

The problem is that large transformation efforts are extremely difficult to deliver. I don’t fundamentally believe that difficulty is often rooted in the lack of a clear vision or as simple as having execution issues that ultimately undermine success. I believe successful transformation isn’t a destination to begin with. Transformation should be a continual journey towards excellence.

How that excellence is manifest can be articulated through one or more “visions” that communicate concepts of the desired state, but that picture can and will evolve as capabilities available through automation, process, and organizational change occur. What’s most important is having courageous leadership and the innovation mindset mentioned above, but also a culture driven to sustain that competitive advantage and hunger for success.

Said differently: With the right culture, you can likely accomplish almost any vision, but only some visions will be achievable without the right culture.

Some questions to consider in this regard:

Is there a vision in place for where the organization is heading today?
What was the “previous” vision, what happened to it, did it succeed or fail and, if so, why?
Is the current change viewed as a “project” or a “different way of working”? (I would argue the latter is the desired state nearly in all cases)

Wrapping Up

Having shared the above thoughts, it’s difficult to communicate what is so fundamental to excellence, which is the passion it takes to succeed in the first place.

Excellence is a choice. Success is a commitment. It takes tenacity and grit to make it happen and that isn’t always easy or popular.

There is always room to be better, even in some of the most mundane things we do every day. That’s why courageous leadership is so important and where culture becomes critical in providing the foundation for longer-term success.

I hope the ideas were worth considering. Thanks for spending the time to read them. Feedback is welcome as always.

-CJG 06/05/2025

The Seeds of Transformation

Introduction

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” – John F Kennedy, May 25, 1961

When JFK made his famous pronouncement in 1961, the United States was losing in the space race. The Soviet Union was visibly ahead, to the point that the government shuffled the deck, bringing together various agencies to form NASA, and set a target far out ahead of where anyone was focused at the time: landing on the Moon. The context is important as the U.S. was not operating from a position of strength and JFK didn’t shoot for parity or to remain in a defensive posture. Instead, he leaned in and set an audacious goal that redefined the playing field entirely.

I spoke at a town hall fairly recently about “The Saturn V Story”, a documentary that covers the space race and journey leading to the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 20, 1969. The scale and complexity of what accomplished in a relatively short timeframe was truly incredible and feels like a good way to introduce a Transformation discussion. The Apollo program engaged 375,000 people at its peak, required extremely thoughtful planning and coordination (including the Mercury and Gemini programs that preceded it), and presented a significant number of engineering challenges that needed to be overcome to achieve its ultimate goal. It’s an inspiring story, as any successful transformation effort should be.

The challenge is that true transformation is exceptionally difficult and many of these efforts fail or fall short of their stated objectives. The remainder of this article will highlight some key dimensions that I believe are critical in increasing the probability of success.

Transformation is a requirement of remaining competitive in a global digital economy. The disruptions (e.g., cloud computing, robotics, orchestration, artificial intelligence, cyber security exposure, quantum computing) have and will continue to occur, and success will be measured, in part, based on an organization’s ability to continuously transform, leveraging advanced capabilities to its’ maximum strategic benefit.

Successful Transformation

Culture versus Outcome

Before diving into the dimensions themselves, I want to emphasize the difference I see between changing culture and the kind of transformation I’m referencing in this article. Culture is an important aspect to affecting change, as I will discuss in the context of the dimensions themselves, but a change in culture that doesn’t lead to a corresponding change in results is relatively meaningless.

To that end, I would argue that it is important to think about “change management” as a way to transition between the current and desired ways of working in a future state environment, but with specific, defined outcomes attached to the goal.

It is insufficient, as an example, to express “we want to establish a more highly collaborative workplace that fosters innovation” without also being able to answer the questions: “To what end?” or “In the interest of accomplishing what?” Arguably, it is the desired outcome that sets the stage for the nature of the culture that will be required, both to get to the stated goal as well as to operate effectively once those goals are achieved. In my experience, this balance isn’t given enough thought when change efforts are initiated, and it’s important to make sure culture and desired outcomes are both clear and aligned with each other.

For more on the fundamental aspects of a healthy environment, please see my article on The Criticality of Culture.

What it Takes

Successful transformation efforts require focus on many levels and in various dimensions to manage what ultimately translates to risk.

The set that come to mind as most critical are having:

An audacious goal
- Transformation is, in itself, a fundamental (not incremental) change in what an organization is able to accomplish
- To the extent that substantial change is difficult, the value associated with the goal needs to outweigh the difficulties (and costs) that will be required to transition from where you are to where you need to be
- If the goal also isn’t compelling enough, likely there won’t be the requisite level of individual and collective investment required to overcome the adversity that is typically part of these efforts. This is not just about having a business case. It’s a reason for people to care… and that level of investment matters where transformation is the goal

Courageous, committed leadership
- Change is, by its’ nature, difficult and disruptive. There will be friction and resistance that comes from altering the status quo
- The requirements of leadership in these efforts tend to be very high, because of the adversity and risk that can be involved, and a degree of fearlessness and willingness to ride through the difficulties is important
- Where this level of leadership isn’t present, it will become easy to focus on obstacles versus solutions and to avoid taking risks that lead to suboptimized results or overall failure of the effort. If it was easy to transform, everyone would be doing it all the time
- It is worth noting that, in the case of the Apollo missions, JFK wasn’t there to see the program through, yet it survived both his passing and significant events like the Apollo fire without compromising the goal itself
- A question to consider in this regard: Is the goal so compelling that, if the vision holder / sponsor were to leave, the effort would still move forward? There are many large-scale efforts I’ve seen over the years where a change in leadership affects the commitment to a strategy. There may be valid reasons for this to be the case, but arguably both a worthy goal and strong leadership are necessary components in transformation overall

An aligned and supportive culture
- There is a significant aspect of accomplishing a transformational agenda that places a burden on culture
- On this point, the going-in position matters in the interest of mapping out the execution approach, because anything about the environment that isn’t conducive to facilitating and enabling collaboration and change will ultimately create friction that needs to be addressed and (hopefully) overcome
- To the extent that the organization works in silos or that there is significant and potentially unhealthy internal competition within and across leaders, the implications of those conflicts need to be understood and mitigated early on (to the degree possible) so as to avoid what could lead to adverse impacts on the effort overall
- As a leader said to me very early in my career, “There is room enough in success for everybody.” Defining success at an individual and collective level may be a worthwhile activity to consider depending on the nature of where an organization is when starting to pursue change
- On this final point, I have been in the situation more than once professionally where a team worked to actively undermine transformation objectives because those efforts had an adverse impact to their broader role in an organization. This speaks, in part, to the importance of engaged, courageous leadership to bring teams into alignment, but where that leadership isn’t present, it definitely makes things more difficult. Said differently, the more established the status quo is, the harder it may resist change

A thoughtful approach
- “Rome was not built in a day” is probably the best way to summarize this point
- Depending on the level of complexity and degree of change involved, the more thought and attention that needs to be paid to planning out the approach itself
- The Apollo program is a great example of this, because there were countless interim stages in the development of the Saturn V rocket, creating a safe environment for manned space flight, procedures for rendezvous and docking of the spacecraft, etc.
- In a technology delivery environment, these can be program increments in a scaled Agile environment, selective “pilots” or “proof-of-concept” efforts, or interim deliveries in a more component-based (and service-driven) architecture. The overall point being that it’s important to map out the evolution of current to future state, allowing for testing and staging of interim goals that help reduce risk on the ultimate objectives
- In a different example, when establishing an architecture capability in a large, complex organization, we established an operating model to define roles and responsibilities, but then operationalized the model in layers to help facilitate change with defined outcomes spread across multiple years. This was done purposefully and deliberately in the interest of making the changes sustainable and to gradually shift delivery culture to be more strategically-aligned, disciplined, and less siloed in the process

Agility and adaptiveness
- The more advanced and innovative the transformation effort is, the more likely it will be that there is a higher degree of unknown (and knowledge risk) associated with the effort
- To that end, it is highly probable that the approach to execution will evolve over time as knowledge gaps are uncovered and limitations and constraints need to be addressed and overcome
- There are countless examples of this in the Apollo program, one of the early ones being the abandonment of the “Nova” rocket design, which involved a massive vehicle that ultimately was eliminated in deference to the multi-stage rocket and lunar lander / command module approach. In this case, the means for arriving at and landing on the moon was completely different than it was at the program’s inception, but the outcome was ultimately the same
- I spend some time discussing these “points of inflection” in my article On Project Health and Transparency, but the important concept is not to be too prescriptive when planning a transformation effort, because execution will definitely evolve

Patience and discipline
- My underlying assumption is that the level of change involved in transformation is significant and, as such, it will take time to accomplish
- The balance to be struck is ultimately in managing interim deliveries in relation to the overall goals of the effort. This is where patience and discipline matter, because it is always tempting to take short cuts in the interest of “speed to market” while compromising fundamental design elements that are important to overall quality and program-level objectives (something I address in Fast and Cheap, Isn’t Good)
- This isn’t to say that tradeoffs can’t or shouldn’t be made, because they often are, but rather that these be conscious choices, done through a governance process, and with a full understanding of the implications of the decisions on the ultimate transformation objectives

A relentless focus on delivery
- The final dimension is somewhat obvious, but is important to mention, because I’ve encountered transformative efforts in the past that spent so much energy either on structural or theoretical aspects to their “program design” that they actually failed to deliver anything
- In the case of the Apollo program, part of what makes the story so compelling is the number of times the team needed to innovate to overcome issues that arose, particularly to various design and engineering challenges
- Again, this is why courageous, committed leadership is so important to transformation. The work is difficult and messy and it’s not for the faint of heart. Resilience and persistence are required to accomplish great things.

Wrapping Up

Hopefully this article has provided some areas to consider in either mapping out or evaluating the health of a transformational effort. As I covered in my article On Delivering at Speed, there are always opportunities to improve, even when you deliver a complex or high-risk effort. The point is to be disciplined and thoughtful in how you approach these efforts, so the bumps that inevitably occur are more manageable and the impact they have are minimized overall.

I hope the ideas were worth considering. Thanks for spending the time to read them. Feedback is welcome as always.

-CJG 12/29/2024