I Should Have Majored In Psychology

Way back when, I thought it useful to do two courses of study.  I wanted that CS (computer science) degree, but the whole topic, while fascinating, seemed so self-contained.

At the time, I thought adding coursework in economics was the right thing to do.  Even way back in the late 1970s (yes, I'm that old), I could see the two interweaving in very interesting ways.

I was wrong.  I should have chosen to add in psychology rather than economics. 

Because -- at the end of the day -- I'm finding that success with technology has more to do with how people perceive things rather than the hard facts we all work with every day.

Ever Rolled Out A Big IT Project?

I have.  Several times, as a matter of fact.  And -- each time -- I spent an inordinate amount of time lining up approval and support for what I was proposing to do.

The least of my problems was making sure the darn stuff worked as expected.  My most daunting challenge was usually changing perceptions with hundreds -- sometimes thousands -- of people who had a vested stake in the outcome.

If you work in IT, you've probably come to the same conclusion -- the technology will probably be ready far in advance of people's willingness to embrace it.

Accelerating Change Creates Value

I'm not just talking about IT here -- I'm talking about any leadership role in a large organization.  To create unique value, we have to change the way we do things.  The faster we can change and adapt, the more value we create for our organization and our stakeholders. 

And -- more often than not -- it's people's perceptions that stand between where we are -- and where we'd all like to be.

A while back, I was chatting with people who put together MBA coursework.  Since I tend to work with freshly minted MBAs here at EMC, they wanted to know what I found missing.

My answer was pretty clear: they need at least some sort of background in behavior psychology if they expected to be successful in any organization. 

After all, organizations are nothing more than collections of people.

And If You're In Marketing

I don't see how anyone could be successful in any form of marketing these days without a deep and empathetic understanding of the human psyche, and how it manifests itself in your target audience.

Yes, showing ROI and "business value" is essential.  But I'd offer that's just table stakes.  There's so much good technology out there today that there are many ways to solve a given enterprise IT requirement.

Worse, when we as vendors come up with something new and interesting (as is frequently the case at EMC) but is a departure from conventional thinking, it takes an inordinate amount of time to get people comfortable with the new approach.

People will often say things like "well, we need time for the technology to mature".  Fair enough.  But more often, I'm thinking it's less about the technology, and more about time needed to have perceptions change.

One of the most frustrating recent examples for me personally was enterprise flash drives.  EMC launched them at the beginning of 2008.  They worked absolutely perfectly at the time.  But adoption was slow, mostly because it was an entirely new idea.

Adoption started to pick up dramatically during 2009.  Not because the technology was any better -- it was simply that people had gotten more comfortable with the concept.

Since EMC's business model involves investing a lot in new and disruptive technologies, this inherent psychological barrier to "something new" is often front-and-center in my mind.

We're All Wired For Survival

I know this is controversial, but I believe that studying social behavior in primates is a pretty good prerequisite for understanding social behavior in human beings.

All sorts of behavior psychology literature points to our evolutionary adaptation to change and external threats.  Something comes at us hard and fast, we fully engage and react -- is this new thing a threat?  Should we stop, or run, or prepare ourselves to meet the threat head on?

We approach the new thing cautiously.  We turn to others that we respect for their insight and opinion.  We take the most tenuous steps possible, ready to turn and flee if something bad happens.

Conversely, when things in our environment change slowly, we barely react.  We don't feel threatened, so we don't react much.  We can't help it -- it's the way we're wired.

I guess I've always realized that we all have this evolutionary blind spot, so to speak, so I'm always on the lookout for that pattern of small, seemingly insignificant events that are harbingers of something potentially more disruptive.

Back To IT Again ...

As far as I can see, we're in the midst of a significant change in how we as an industry thinks about IT infrastructure.  And it's not entirely driven by technology, either.  I'll go on record that our collective enterprise IT psychology is starting to change in reaction to significant external events.

The "big event" might be a dramatic reduction in IT budget as a result of the sour economy.  Or, in many cases, new IT leadership joining the organization.  Or M&A.  Or some other big "triggering event".

Regardless of the circumstances, far more IT professionals are now interested in doing infrastructure very differently than they've done in the past.  Fewer and fewer people are signing up for "old school" ways of thinking.

You can use the term "cloud" to signify a new way of doing things.  Building IT infrastructure as shared pools that are dynamically used.  Using operational models that are more focused on end-user outcomes, rather than specific technology disciplines.  And consumption models that are convenient for the people who use them, rather than the IT organization that delivers them.

When I have 60 minutes with one of EMC's customers or prospects to discuss private clouds, I usually spend the first 30 minutes describing the technology, the model, the rationale, etc. etc.

And then we hit this soft, impenetrable barrier -- people's perceptions.

And I usually spend the next 30 minutes drilling into this unavoidable truth, and working with the customer to find a way to get started towards the really heavy lifting ahead: changing people's perceptions, usually within the IT organization itself.

Bottom line: the technology works as advertised.  Yes, there are a few gaps here and there, and like most things technological things could always be better.  But, given the current state of affairs, there are absolutely no technological barriers to IT organizations starting to build their own version of a private cloud -- be it with VCE technology or something else.

No, the big challenge is not with technology, or with vendors.

Nope, it's within our own heads.

We Have Met The Enemy ...

We all just "know" how enterprise IT is supposed to be done. 

The business funds projects, IT buys the stuff, and charges it back to the business.  Business users demand dedicated infrastructure and don't want to share.  You can't have a fully virtualized environment and still deliver predictable service levels, security, compliance, etc.  Mission-critical apps can't be virtualized.  You can't trust an external service provider with your stuff.  The tools aren't good enough.  There are software vendors who don't like virtualization. If you make IT easy to use, people will use it irresponsibly. Etc. etc.

None of these statements are categorically true, when you think about it.  In one sense, they're all perceptual barriers that we've created for ourselves.

I'm Talking To You

If you're reading this blog, there's a fair chance you've got a progressive and aspirational nature when it comes to enterprise IT.  You know what the technology can do for your organization.  You're doing everything you can to accelerate virtualization in your environment.

And you're probably encountering barriers left and right.  You go searching for more "facts", more "proof points" -- and starting to suspect that another agenda might be in play.

My suggestion?

Go read up on behavioral and motivational psychology.  A while back, that's exactly what I did.

And, like me, you'll probably find an incredibly powerful new set of tools and frameworks to move your agenda ahead simply by acknowledging and working on people's perceptions.

Because -- at the end of the day -- perception is reality.

Comments

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=15100911]

great post about our changing collective thoughts.

Much like our belief's that driving an SUV was the epitome of transportation in terms of comfort and safety, we're realizing that a honda civic isn't quite so bad as we thought and on top of that, we're saving money on gas.

Being located and doing business in SE Asia, I can understand the perception as to why the big boys of IT have trouble. I can tell you that it isn't about technology because no one else comes close to US ingenuity.

No sir. Its the adaptation of cost vs. what we're willing to put up with vs. utility.

If it works without much fuss, its considerably better then what methods we're using now and the price is right then we will buy it.

Comes back to psychology and the perception and willingness of human beings.

[Jeff Oliver]

Great observations, Chuck. My last three years working in technology (2007-2009) I was responsible for several very large infrastructure projects (EMC being a big part of our implementations). I value my MBA greatly, but I became increasingly aware that it was my BA in psychology that I relied on for daily survival and progress in the corporate world. Managing infrastructure projects is more about perceptions, behavior, motivation, and relationships than it is about technology. I think some IT managers are figuring this out now.

[Sundararajan]

Excellent thoughts about the reality(perception) that IT in most organizations are waking up to realize. In the past, IT use to actually work in Silo with no "commitment" to respond to the business as to how it is spending the money funded by the business. In most organizations, IT use to create that "perception" in the minds of the business owners that they are adding significant value to business and don't ask them how they do it as they perform some of the most complex tasks in the planet !
Today, business owners realize that IT does help in automating the key business functions but at the same time make significant mistakes and waste company's money.
I am not surprised to see that most of the CIO's around the world are now closely working thier CEO's and CFO's and take additional responsibilities to run other functions like facilities, operations apart from "complex IT".

Today, CIO's are more than happy to let the business owners know that IT is not an "rocket science lab" within thier business, but a guide in transforming business and save costs for the business.

[Alex McDonald]

Interesting, and a good post. But I think you may be on the wrong tack; a longer response (and my apologies for using your blog to advertise mine, but needs must) here. http://blogs.netapp.com/shadeofblue/2010/01/selling-innovation-risk-and-habit.html

[Doug]

I think that it is extremely difficult for someone who has mastered a very complex intellectual framework that took years to develop, to change their perception and adapt. It’s not that they intellectually can’t, it’s because it’s painful. It’s interesting to dig into the Meyers Briggs personality profiles. Some analytical types, btw, very common in IT roles, build very complex frameworks that describe their worlds. It was built module by module, battle by battle. For some people, a new idea can be exhausting because they don’t view the idea as incremental; it is instead weighed against an entire framework. It’s like stopping a fast moving large fly wheel. The natural reaction often based on self preservation is to dismiss it, to reject it, to reduce observation frequency. But here is the rub. There is a whole new generation of professionals who are in the throws of building their own mental frameworks. They are formulating new ideas and take pride that their thinking is new and advanced and will embrace new things that can help differentiate themselves. They didn’t participate in the battles of the previous generation and are willing try new things- to observe with curiosity. Marketing people can see the new generations emerging; they come in waves. I was listening to a key note delivered by an EVP at another large systems company in which he shared that a great deal of their time on the product management side is spent observing teenagers in gaming environments as they build complex systems using commodity parts in a collaborative environment. It may have been a stretch, but his opinion as expressed in his presentation was that “these kids”, whether they are know it or not, are helping design the data centers of tomorrow. Is it true that significant shifts in perspectives are more often than not championed by a new generation of thinkers? There are some great exceptions in this world, people who make it a conscious effort to refrain from quick judgments and see their entire live as “a learning”. We so often get into the trap, after learning the ropes, of reducing the frequency of observation in our environments. While people are living healthier and longer, nothing will age one faster in business life than observing less.

[Chuck Hollis]

Doug -- as I read through your reply, it made sense.

People do build up the frameworks you suggest, and introducing an orthogonal idea can be very mentally exhausting -- and not everyone is always up for that.

The trick might lie in the ability to slow introduce an idea in small pieces, each of which is somewhat digestible, but collectively have great power.

Thanks for the extremely thoughtful comment.