BBSˮľÇ廪վ¡Ã¾«»ªÇø
·¢ÐÅÈË: westpoint (Ò»Ö»½ÅÕ¾²»×¡Á½Ö»½Å×ß²»¶¯Â·µÄÀϺýÍ¿), ÐÅÇø: AdvancedEdu
±ê Ìâ: Statement 3
·¢ÐÅÕ¾: BBS ˮľÇ廪վ (Sun Dec 20 18:49:39 1998) WWW-POST
As an Information Technology consultant to a major state's Department of
Motor Vehicles [DOMV], I led a 22 person cross-functional decison team
(technical and management) in selecting a single vendor (from six) for a $10
million 'call center' upgrade.
My first hurdle was credibility. I was a twenty-eight year old
consultant and most of the DOMV managers were older, sometimes by 10 years or
more. I was extremely respectful to everyone, even going so far as to call
senior people 'Mr.' or 'Ms' until asked to use their first name. I also made
it a point of meeting individually with 10 leading managers my first two days
on the job and personally asking for their help. Many Motor Vehicle senior
people were 'political' and I made it a point to respect that as the
'corporate culture' (it helped that my Dad had been a state 'lifer' although
not in this state). But I also confirmed from my consulting company that the
very reason we were brought in was to make a merit decision. (This is not
always the case.)
After 'earning' some good faith, I then made it clear, through weekly memos,
technical reports, and meetings, that I was firm about reaching an objective
decision. I actually made the process more quantative than strictly
necessary. The danger of running this 'wizard' show was not getting full
information about each department's needs, but I tried to do that informally.
Also, my clear objectivity 'freed' up the internal technical people, who
proved very helpful.
When disagreements emerged, I resorted to an 'objective scoring process' to
build consensus. At one point, I had to initiate a second round of scoring. I
could have been more of "a people" person but given my age, the internal
culture, and the limited task, the 'super straight arrow' model worked.
Comment: A paradoxical topic, perhaps more suited to Q. 1 about leadership
than this question because this answer is not really about how the writer
helped an organization change, it is about how the writer helped an
organization change computers, a key difference. One of the charms of this
essay, in fact, is the writer's awareness that he is not going to change this
organization, it's a bunch of Motor Vehicle 'state-lifer' types, and nobody
is going to change that. The writer is smart enough to work around the
political culture with his 'wizard' show (a great term I had never heard
before). The writer is further aware enough to know that possibly he overdid
the 'straight arrow' routine, but it was an acceptable strategy given the
situation. Like most good essays (but see below) it gains force by
self-awareness. In addition to discussing some business 'buzz' words
(establishing respect, earning good will, respecting the corporate culture)
we also have the author convincingly reflecting on his motives (maybe he was too much a straight arrow, he was putting on a wizard show,
he understood the culture because his father had worked in a similar one).
This essay runs a risk that you may not like this guy. He is both technical
and crafty at the same time. I like this guy, but I am a little more cynical
than the average HBS essay reader, who is more often than not a
politcally-correct, therapeutically oriented, do-gooder type with a strong
commitment to process. That type of reader might criticize the author for
being elitist (he knows best), patronizing (intentionally calling his elders
Mr and Ms) and anti-democratic (obscuring the consensus process with a
'wizard' show, and bragging about it in the essay). That all sounds a
little nutty to me (I've worked in state government and know this situation
exactly), but I'm not an admissions officer. You could make a strong case,
given that possible critique, to change or abandon this essay. If other
parts of the app. confirmed the "elitist" "wizard" picture, it could be fatal.
Also realize that readers are not Saints and possibly not genius critics
either. It is possible for this essay to annoy someone who could not really explain why, but the author would pay the price anyway.
The writer does not have the chance to argue back. Personality in an essay
is a strong suit, but subtle "attitude" can be deadly.
--
¡ù À´Ô´:¡¤BBS ˮľÇ廪վ bbs.net.tsinghua.edu.cn¡¤[FROM: 202.120.16.72]
BBSˮľÇ廪վ¡Ã¾«»ªÇø