Can we build it?

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has." For me this quote, attributed to American cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead, is the essence of modern digital transformation. Throughout my career, almost without fail, the truly transformative begins with a small endeavour by a group of remarkable individuals.

Implicit in Margaret's statement is the need to keep the small group together for long enough to make the change happen. In my experience this is especially true in the field of product development. Realising new concepts and building complex software is deep work which requires a shared vision and mutual understanding of the trade-offs and constraints forged over time. Course correction is based on regular informal feedback that is assimilated in the knowledge and wisdom of the team.

Moreover, product development, as with any joint human endeavour, requires a period of bonding and adjustment before the team settles into a rhythm of delivery. Product teams succeed or fail together and building this trust takes time. I'm often struck by the expectation in project plans that development teams reach maximum productivity on day 1.

Assembling and retaining a multi-disciplinary team of high calibre individuals in the large modern enterprise is challenging. Not only does it require multi-disciplinary recruitment and selection processes, but it often goes against the grain of the organisation. Many large organisations are optimised for administration. Their hierarchies, reward mechanisms and even their offices are rooted in a Taylorism factory mindset. This culture promotes and rewards uniformity and generalism. Resources, by which I mean people, are often treated as interchangeable commodities which can be reassigned at will, with the expectation of instant productivity. Alas the mental model of moving a generic individual from operating one factory machine to another, according to a defined set of precise and static instructions, is no longer valid. For deep work the mental load of shifting context and reforming new norms and ways of working is significant.

Attracting and retaining teams of high-caliber individuals is, as Margaret suggested, the root of every successful change. In this regard smaller, more agile organisations, focused on a product mission, have an advantage. They can offer more personalised incentives and can provide the flexibility that the modern generation demands of their employers. They can optimise their environment and processes around the deep work, unencumbered by the need for uniformity across a wider operational workforce. Large organisations sometimes create a specialist unit or division to enable this flexibility.

Partnering with an external organisation can also bring a level of stability in the development process that is hard to create internally in a modern enterprise. The contracted commitment to a partnership also provides a level of isolation from well-intentioned internal reprioritisation that can undermine a fledgling team. Agility in requirements is a good thing, agility in team members, particularly in the early days, not so much.

As leaders we all have a responsibility to create the environment for our teams to succeed. This includes the empowerment to hire the right individuals and the flexibility to keep them together for long enough to make the change.

(Views in this article are my own)