Calculus of IT - Season 2 Episode 12 - Shaping the Future: Autonomy, Adoption, and the Four Pillars

We’ve talked resilience, compliance, AI, and risk - but what does it really take to become the architect of your organization’s technology future?

In this penultimate episode of Season 2, Nate and Mike step back to connect the big picture. It’s not just about weathering trends or keeping up with the latest tech - it’s about building systematic autonomy into every layer of IT leadership.

This episode covers:
- The Standardization Paradox: how to create innovation zones without losing operational control
- Matrix leadership and decision rights: thriving in the age of distributed authority
- The rise of composable enterprise architecture—and why optionality > efficiency
- Rethinking IT talent: why tomorrow’s teams need both deep specialists and versatile generalists
- Building adaptive learning and knowledge transfer into your org’s DNA

And, as always, we tie everything back to the original four pillars - Risk, Productivity, Automation, and Innovation - showing how true autonomy is the thread that connects them all.

Wrap up with our final IT leader archetype: The Autonomy Architect - the leader who builds for adaptability, modularity, and future strategic choice.

Next week: our grand finale, as we take everything we’ve learned into the future of Industry 5.0.

Keep fighting for autonomy, one decision, one architecture, and one team at a time.

Transcript

Season 2 - Episode 12 - Final - Audio Only
===

Trance AI Bot: [00:00:00] Our world where signal, we compute our dreams, data streams, and by make us

the,

Nate McBride: you got any other stories like that? Or is that the only one you [00:01:00] have? 

Mike Crispin: I got another one. Listen to this one. 

Nate McBride: Okay, go ahead. 

Mike Crispin: Uh, last Tuesday I had a meeting. I had a meeting about 10:30 AM Okay. Uh, it was a good meeting. I got off the meeting. Yeah. I stood up, I pushed my chair and underneath my desk. Okay. I walked up the stairs.

I went into the kitchen, uhhuh, I opened up the refrigerator. I took out some strawberry jam. 

Nate McBride: I'm at the edge of my seat. Keep going. 

Mike Crispin: I gently put it down on the countertop. 

Nate McBride: Yeah. And 

Mike Crispin: I went across the kitchen to the pantry and grabbed some peanut butter. Okay. And then I walked back near the jelly where bread box is this story having 

Nate McBride: by the way 

Mike Crispin: Yeah.

Where the bread box was. 

Nate McBride: Okay. And 

Mike Crispin: I took out the bread and I put the peanut butter very thickly on the bread and on the other side of the bread. I put some strawberry jam. Mm-hmm. And then I, I pressed the two pieces of bread together [00:02:00] and turned it on its side. Wow. And then back on the other side to make sure there was balance.

Amazing. I cut out an old piece of shit, plastic knife that was stuck in the sink, Uhhuh, and I cut it in half, and then I ate it, and I went back downstairs and had another meeting. 

Nate McBride: Okay, great. Oh, wait, are you done? Sorry. Yep. That was it. That was the story I was reading espn.com. 

Mike Crispin: Oh, 

Nate McBride: cool. 

Mike Crispin: Great. 

Nate McBride: That's a great story.

Um, maybe, maybe we won't do any more stories. Uh, I think this's 

Mike Crispin: a good way to open the show. I think people were really drawn in by that story. 

Nate McBride: No, we've, we haven't lost anybody, uh, who's listening. Do you wanna get another one? No, no, no. Just, uh, you know, save them for season three. 

Mike Crispin: Oh, don't, yeah, don't worry.

I got so many stories, especially right after lunch. Some good stories when I Good post-launch 

Nate McBride: stories. Okay. Yeah. All right. I'm digging it. Um, I ha I mean, I kind of have a story, but I can't say the story because [00:03:00] is a story from your direct report about you, so Oh, oh, good. Anything good? No. Yeah, it's pretty funny, but I'm not, you know, it's for, uh, it's not for like sensitive ears, so I'm gonna wait.

Mike Crispin: Oh, okay. Cool. I can't wait to hear it. 

Nate McBride: That peanut butter, Kelly, I'm not gonna openly indict anybody. No, no peanut butter and jelly involved in that story. Oh. Um, more like, um, yeah, anyway, we'll see. Can I get a hint? 

Mike Crispin: Gimme, gimme a hint. Just gimme a, some, can I get any nor morsel of anything? Well, 

Nate McBride: apparently I, I have to come and watch one of your, your, um, new hire orientations because it's something, it's something very special to watch.

Mike Crispin: Oh my God.

Nate McBride: Yeah. Let's talk about that. Apparently nobody, nobody was off on tangents. When you're holding new hire orientation, nobody. 

Mike Crispin: Oh, yeah, 

Nate McBride: yeah. Apparently it's very, by the book. [00:04:00] It's very like, you know, stick to the script. Nobody goes off in ad libs. 

Mike Crispin: What script, what, what script? That's the, that's the, that's the problem.

Nate McBride: Oh. Now, now we've started it. Now we're in it. 

Mike Crispin: Oh yeah. No, it's, uh, there's so much, so much room for us to, uh, to kind of go different direct. I, I kind have an idea of probably what you heard. I have a completely Would, would you 

Nate McBride: say, would you say, Mike, that there's a certain amount of autonomy that Yeah. You need to practice in order to write the ship of curriculum and education?

Mike Crispin: Absolutely. 

Nate McBride: There's an autonomy element actually. You know, 

Mike Crispin: you have to actually, you have to actually rehearse and kind of go through the orientation once beforehand. Yes. As well. That's an important piece. 

Nate McBride: So, who, who's, who's ultimately responsible in this case for autonomy? You as the IT leader. No, 

Mike Crispin: the owner of the, uh, of the process.

Nate McBride: Okay. [00:05:00] Oh, well, I'm sure if that person's listening, they're taking notes 

Mike Crispin: right now. There's plenty Play of good notes to be taken. 

Nate McBride: Yes. This episode chock full of notes. We should have basically a side podcast just on notes about this podcast. Um, now I'm burping up Phish. Ugh. So with that, with that stated, welcome back to the Calculus of It podcast, the home of the paradox.

We are gonna fucking get deep in some paradox tonight. I'll tell you that I got some paradoxes. We're gonna get into them. Oh yeah. We have arrived at episode 12. This is basically the last episode of the season, but we're gonna do one more so it's not. Episode of the theme. So we've gotten, we've gotten all the sad salads, all the ai, all the autonomy we've gotten through all of it to bring you to this moment.

Um, we, you [00:06:00] know, basically, or, or mostly like we did it all mo or mostly all. Yep. Or at least more than most, I dunno if that makes any sense. But I am Bob Barker. With me, as always is Rod Roddy, my host. Um, he'll, he'll calm down. We're gonna go ahead and bid a dollar and get the best prizes as we do every episode.

Love it. As I said, tonight marks our penultimate episode. We're gonna do one more, although episode 13, lucky number 13, is gonna be about Industry 5.0 something. As anyone who's listening to this show knows I'm obsessed with. And we're gonna finally spend one episode. Talking about the demise of civilization, how it's gonna happen from a, from a data tiering and price perspective.

And we're gonna end this, end the season with that. Hopefully one person out there hears it and decides to make a change. Um, but tonight we're gonna focus on one question, a single question. 

Mike Crispin: Yeah. 

Nate McBride: How do it [00:07:00] leaders like you and me and all of the good people that are IT leaders out there, preserve and exercise autonomy in an increasingly complex, fast moving vendor dominated, dominated world?

And we've, we've touched on every single one of those parts, but tonight for, for the last 11 episodes, or I guess 20, if you're counting all the multi-part episodes in Jorts, and if you wanna get, you know, semantic about it, um, we've deconstructed this challenge through every lens we could think of. From AI integration and regulatory compliance, from resilience building to vendor relationship management.

But as it tonight, we're gonna step back and look at the bigger picture. And we're not doing this to add extra episode. We're doing it because we're trying to wrap it all up. We're talking about shaping the future of technology adoption. Um, autonomy isn't just about managing what exists today. It's about having the agency to influence what comes next.

If you took nothing away from the [00:08:00] last however many hours of this season, that one statement, it's about having the agency to influence what happens next. That's the key. This is basically the dictionary definition of autonomy. We've tried to sort of hammer this into everyone's heads over the last, you know, 50 hours or so, however many hours we've put into this.

But most people think that they have autonomy, but then when they apply any of the lenses we've used this season to the idea, it's actually fricking fucking hard to get a handle on, um, how much autonomy you think you have versus you really have. So if you've been with us all season, you know that everything we discussed comes back to our four fundamental pillars that define necessary, our show, the future of it, leadership and risk, productivity, automation and innovation, the pair construct.

So tonight we're gonna explore how these four pillars intersect when you're not just responding to technology trends, but actually actively [00:09:00] shaping them. So this is gonna come up as a number of themes, uh, a theme a number of times tonight as we tie it all back. Before we get to that, though, we have a slack board.

Yes, we do. Doing well. I think most discussions on the Slack boards centered around AI and cyber. Um, we don't get a whole lot of stuff going on with the other categories 'cause you know what, they're kind of boring. They're not really sort of super hot right now. But, um, sure you can join our Slack board.

This is a linked in our episode description notes. Anyone can join unless you're an hat vendor or Microsoft, you're not allowed to join. Um, as we approach the end of the season, it's been pretty awesome to see how that board has sort of shaped up. So join now. No, no hurry. It's free. Um, please do, if you wanna continue the conversations on our show or deep dive into anything else, you know, you can do it there.

It's a safe place. We also have in our show links going all the way back to the very beginning, uh, uh, links to [00:10:00] our bias of beer portal. They're very cheap and we make very good use of them in our merch store, which continues to grow as we speak. Um, so anyway. Mike, it's good to have you back. 

Mike Crispin: It's 

Nate McBride: good to have you back.

Good. To wrap it up, 

Mike Crispin: let's wrap it up. See, episode 12 is a biggie. 

Nate McBride: It is. Last season we went to episode 37, but that's because we read a book and then we had, we read a book for 29 episodes. Sure. Then we had a, a few episodes to catch up on everything we missed while we're reading the book, and then we sort of had the, the bots come.

So this season we didn't read a book, kind of dove right into the idea of autonomy. And tonight we're tackling, like I said before, one of the biggest questions of the whole season, which is how do you move from being a consumer of technology trends to becoming the architecture of technology futures.

Mike Crispin: Yeah. 

Nate McBride: That's really the big [00:11:00] question. I mean, we talked about this in the very first episode all the way through basically the third episode. You know, we're all consumers. We all have consumer, we. Desires and biases, and we buy things because we're influenced to buy them. Those definitely translate over into our corporate and uh, sort of office lives.

Yep. So how do we shape adoption rather than just respond to it? I mean, that's the big question, right? So this isn't about being an early adopter. We're having a kick ass a vendor evaluation process. 'cause those are just rote at this point. It's about exercising the kind of strategic autonomy that lets you influence not just for technologies your organization uses, but how those technologies evolve to serve your needs and the needs of organizations like yours.

And, you know, we've talked about this, this season multiple times. Is it more important to have a technology that you're going to use or a vendor that does that technology you're going to use? And, you know, we can [00:12:00] go back and forth on this, but if you know that you're gonna need a technology, then you should be able to build it so that you can insert any vendor into that slot.

As opposed to building your world around a single vendor. So we're gonna get into that tonight. And without further ado, L-F-G-L-F-G I've been, which I've been told means let's faring go. I, yes, I, I think you're right. I think the FI think the F has a couple different words. Meanings, maybe, perhaps. Um, I, I think there's something that you can probably throw away that don't, don't work well, but there's definitely one or two that work really well and the F plays there.

So we're gonna come back to a paradox. We've hit a bunch of times the standardization paradox. So that paradox goes like this. On the one hand, an IT leader needs consistency, predictability, and operational efficiency. That is a table stakes. No, no question about it. But on the [00:13:00] other hand, that same IT leader needs capabilities to experiment, adapt, and evolve.

And so most organizations treat this as an either or choice. You're either a one or a zero, but it leaders who strive for autonomy understand it's actually a design challenge. So we're gonna start with this. What do you think about that? I think it's a design challenge. A design challenge. 

Mike Crispin: Well,

I, if you're striving for autonomy, and I think that's the thing I, I, I just, I'm not really, it doesn't come to mind all that often. It's kinda a, it's an automatic thing, right? We're just talking about 

Nate McBride: Yeah. I mean it's automatic, but let's, let's, let's, let's, for both of us it's totally automatic. Yeah. The thing we wanna talk about is what is it that goes into that automation?

Like what goes into that process that allows us to be automatic? 

Mike Crispin: Um, well, I think [00:14:00] co collaboration and communication is one. And, uh, connection with, and I guess ultimately partnering with people and understanding their business needs. I mean, this, I'm just kinda this kind of more on the basics, I think For sure.

But I think, um, there's things that we've all mentioned before. Um, I think it's ultimately that we reach out, we connect, we build a plan, we build a strategy and the design of, of keeping, uh, autonomy. I have you talking about kind of the design problem there. Yep. Is, is trying to build sort of a, a flexible or kind of a composable architecture over time where you can, like you said, plug things in and take things out.

But I, I think what I have found in the last couple years is the more that you can kind of consolidate and simplify things, the more flexible you can be. That's right. If you've got. One tool or two or three tools that, uh, she said more, two or three tools that do the same thing, you know, that do the same [00:15:00] thing and you know, there's, there's, um, maybe someone brought something in from the last company and you're trying to retire something or you're trying to, uh, get one little feature you're waiting to get into the, this other platform.

Um, the more you can create fewer clicks for people and kind of keep their enterprise workflow simple, the more autonomy you'll have to make decisions with systems that will really kind of push the envelope and create an impact. 

Nate McBride: Agreed. So, so that's, that's great in all points. I mean, basically we go back to this paradox.

I think this is episode five, but we talked about the need to create sort of these innovation zones or areas, not just technical sandboxes, but. Yeah. Effectively, as an IT leader, you need to create an organizational structure that allows you for controlled experimentation without compromising core stability, eg.

Um, a full sandbox environment that never hits production, but that is fully Yeah. Flexing enough to allow [00:16:00] for full testing. These aren't just development, but they aren't just development environments or pilot programs. They're, they're like literally architectural and procedural spaces where the normal rules are temporarily suspended, read eliminated.

Yeah. So complete new approaches can be tested in a safe place. But yeah, see, here's the problem is that, you know, I say this and we do this, but here's where most companies get it wrong or IT leaders get it wrong. They treat innovation zones as completely separate from their governance frameworks and see.

That, that's, that's not good. Like I don't see that as being a good answer. Truly. Autonomous organizations build experiment experimentation directly into the governance process. Like, you won't do a thing until it's been experimented on. You won't do a thing until it's gone through a very rigorous process of, of testing experimentation and, and uh, seeing how it sort of fits.

So, so it's one thing to have an [00:17:00] innovation zone in full marks to you if you do, but it's another thing to have this additional governance process that layers that. So that allows you to see, um, risk assessment way beyond something that just happens after innovation. Yeah. You can see risk assessment, for instance, as something that enables innovation, but providing a clear boundary.

Mike Crispin: And if you're doing that innovation within those guardrails, like it's gonna be, it is definitely gonna be more applicable to when you actually have to release and support something. Because if you, you don't have any rules, you don't have any rules or any, you kind of keep thinking extremely loose kind of within that sort of, that I guess those innovation tiers that you're building or to, to learn and to build.

Then when you get them into production, it's like, wow, this isn't so great. This is really hard. Right? Because there's too many rules. So, so you get to start at the beginning and um, like you said, kind of keep the governance or keep a governance even. It's a lighter framework in place, I guess, so that it's any kind of governments.[00:18:00] 

Nate McBride: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, it requires moving beyond traditional ROI metrics for innovation initiatives. I mean, I think that basically if you're an R-O-I-T-C-O-K-P-I, whatever company, it all goes out the window when you're in the flow state of innovation. Um, when you're experimenting with approaches that might fundamentally change how you operate traditional metrics like ROI miss the point or don't even get the point.

I mean, companies that have gone all in on AI already, they fucking completely skipped over all this, um, metrics, sort of like, what's this going to do for us? They just went right into, well, we are gonna assume it's gonna work. Yeah. Metrics you do. You don't get to absolve yourself from metrics. You still need metrics to capture learning value.

Adaptability gains transformative potential, which is hard as shit to measure. Yes, but not just immediate financial returns. And, and by the way, these all [00:19:00] exist outside of ROI anyway, in my opinion. If you Yeah. Are like a, I'm not gonna say their name, but it rhymes with rhymes with Moderna company that decided that, fuck it, we're just gonna go all in.

Didn't do anything at all to provide a roadmap or understand how the value is gonna come back. You're just making up value as you go along. You're just making up. Well, yeah, like this new thing that we did, it saved us a hundred percent of our time, but there's no way, 'cause you didn't capture the previous baseline, you didn't have the governance in place.

So the goal isn't to try to prove that every experiment will succeed. That's ludicrous. If you tried to do this, I mean, you could endeavor to do it, but my God, you'd be like, your innovative experiments would never end. If every single experiment had to succeed, you'd never finish. It would never, it would never, never happen.

I mean, the goal I think is to create a systemic capability for turning [00:20:00] promising experiments into production capabilities while running from the ones that don't pan out. Yeah, think about the way that you do process development and the way I do process improvement and, and how we each do those things from governance perspective.

Yeah. Like what are you going to do? Why are you going to do it? What happens if it doesn't work? And who needs to be involved and how much does it cost? Like these are the basics of learning from every single experiment that you do. Oh, we did this thing and it didn't work, so what did we learn? 

Mike Crispin: Yeah.

That's sometimes what the value is, is what you, what you learn. If you're not learning anything out of it, then doesn't make a lot of sense to do it to begin with. But I think that's where, you know, ultimately as you're employee, if you're innovating, I think there's also a state of like, people say, oh, I'm innovating it.

It's really just learning, like, uh, it's not really innovation until [00:21:00] you, you're actually seeing results. Uh. So I think, you know, you can, we can have these tents and these workshops and these other things and we call 'em that. But I think it's really about learning figure out new ways forward and taking the time on the side to, to figure out how we will get there.

'cause we can actually take a couple days and focus on something. Right? And I think just that piece alone is what is gonna drive some value because people's minds are on something new and different that maybe they can get energized about and get plugged into. 

Nate McBride: I don't think innovating needs to be like a gen de nobo idea that no one's ever sure considered innovating can be taking something that you already, I mean, obviously something, something you already have and improving it.

But if I have a large group that's currently using a thing and I want to figure out a way to innovate on it, I can't do that while they're using a production. I have to correct cover a new way to, and even the idea of doing experimental [00:22:00] innovation on a thing that's in production in and of itself is a Denovo innovation.

Yep. So I mean, this connects, so here's the first four pillars, callback, okay. So in this case, you're managing risk through structured experimentation. Rather than avoiding it, you're enhancing productivity by building organizational learning capabilities. And, and on that point, by the way, every single time that I truly get the sense that my company's empowered.

To experiment. I mean, 'cause they, they are, they, anyone in my company could go tomorrow and experiment on anything. And I think it was the coolest shit in the world. But every time that they do it, I am in awe of them for doing that. And they're, they're building an organizational running capability effect then using automation to scale successful experiments.

And you're ensuring innovation happens systematic systemically rather than [00:23:00] accidentally. I love it when this shit all ties back together. I mean, initially when we were talking about this season and then we started doing this season on the podcast at, at a point in the middle, I was like, oh my God. We're just kind of like, there's so much to cover.

I, we like the, we'll be like lost, you know, the season, the TV series. Yeah. We're really not sure how it's gonna end. We're just gonna make shit up as we go. But now we're getting back to getting back to the original point. So let's talk about that balance, like the balance of those things. I just wanna close up this topic, which is on the balance of these ideas and this idea that you need to create a space and space doesn't mean like something small, but I mean space as in like the figurative sense.

What do you think about that in terms of, especially now in the, if you frame it in context of generative ai, what do you think about that now in terms of making sure people understand there's a, [00:24:00] there's a way to fail and it's, and it's a, it's a good thing and you can measure it 

Mike Crispin: in terms of generative ai, I think just a small experiments that we've done.

People have realized, or have very, been very open about the hallucinations and the things that don't always work. And there's sort of, yeah, givens, right? With ai, um, and gen AI type scenarios where they're asking questions and data sets and those type of things, but they see the value in, in the other areas.

Like if they already know the data, then there's real value in it, and they can, they can bring, they can bring it forward. It saves them time. It's a a because a small sense of automation. So I think there's, I think the expectation, this is one of the few products I guess that has come out that's got so widely used, or just a, let's just say a whole evolution of products where it's okay for it to be wrong.

People expect it to be wrong, and, and so many instances it's [00:25:00] championing wrong. I think it's even better go a step further. It's check your answers. It's almost on every, every, uh, chatbot, you know, sometimes we get, make mistakes. It's like, yeah, just like people do, you know, like, yeah. It's fundamentally, uh, in some ways really the same as, as working with Treat, like I said, prior episodes, like treating it like people, people make mistakes, people fail.

It's okay to fail, but how do you quantify and how do you measure it? I think it, it may, it may be, um, not to over simplify it at all, but the fewer times you fail, the better you get. I mean, it, so sounds obvious, but like the, the better these systems get, that's gonna be I think where people begin to trust them more and more.

And I think there's concern that they fail too much, but wait till they get things right. More. Now, what does that mean? That means. There's a [00:26:00] whole other issue there. Right. You know, and there's um, where people start to trust these things more than people. And I think that's where we whole other discussion.

So this is a different type of balance. Yes. You know, we're talking about failure and success, uh, very generally here. And we're talking about sort of standardization of systems prior kind of governance around systems and standardization. I was talking about consolidating systems down to smaller bys, so it's easier to use.

And then there's sort of the, the overall, the, the flexibility and being able to get things done and try new things. And I think they can all live together. We've been given such a good wide tool, set of tools. Uh, great. Oh yeah. Configuration management platforms. It's less of a development framework.

There's so many resources and people we can plug into. There's so much advice that can be given both by humans and advisories and AI systems. And I mean, there's just [00:27:00] so much you can do where I think you can thread the needle and have that balance between these systems. But quantifying it all is, is a challenge.

And I do wonder like how many, uh, I think of, of maybe when you're in this early phases, people looking for, what's the actual end goal result? I think you're at a larger company with a big strategy. We're gonna wave AI into the product. We gotta make really sure there's gonna be a, there's gonna be a result or there's safety involved.

Nate McBride: I'd rather have it though that, that a person comes to me and says, you know, I have this idea, but I don't, I don't have all the specifics yet. Like, I'm working on it. Yeah. Um. Can you make me a place to try it out? And I'm gonna say yes, but I'm gonna check in with you in two weeks. Oops. Yep. And see if you've, see if you've got a place where you can start to articulate what your vision is and like, sort of what the outcome should be like.

I don't want you to go for four months and waste your time if you don't have some, some, some guardrails. [00:28:00] Agreed. So I'm gonna try and help that person sort of get there. Um, interestingly enough, we're doing a, we're not calling a hackathon, we're calling it le we're calling it Level Up Alio. 

Mike Crispin: I like, that's, uh, July, 

Nate McBride: July 31st, and the, the announcer went out today.

And we're encouraging every single person in our entire company, who's a full-time staff member from an admin assistant to the CSO to come forward with their, their hacks, their best things that they have that are cool, that are elegant, that save time, whatever. It doesn't matter how it works, right? Yep.

But. It's kind of incidental to the point, the reason we're doing this is because we want everyone to show what they do so that everyone else can see what everyone else is doing. Yeah. In terms of like all the shortcuts. Right. Well, to this whole point, we're doing four sessions leading up to this, uh, the big, the big, uh, kahuna where they're [00:29:00] two hour blocks where we're gonna kind of like do, um, open ideating.

I almost like shark Tank kind of stuff, but it's, at these moments I'm gonna challenge people to say, what's your end goal? Like, tell me about how you see this playing out. 'cause I, I'm gonna help you get there, but like, walk me through your idea. And the point is, in terms of innovation, I feel this is one of the, the safest ways to get all the ideas on the table.

And, you know, of course we gamified it. We're offering a. PS five Hamilton tickets, um, the Apple AirPods Max, and some other cool shit. Like, we're really gonna bring it to the next level. But it doesn't even matter what, what Alio gains from this is that we might get 30 people that show up. Okay, cool. But they're all innovating in a safe place to bring forward ideas that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else.

That's right. 

Mike Crispin: And, and given that time, given [00:30:00] that space. Right. That's the diff they're actually being given the time to look and or present what they've learned or what they're, and that's, that's, you don't see that often, right? No. I mean, it's like, oh, we don't, we don't have time to do that, or whatever else.

It's like, yeah, well that's why we gave them, that's why we 

Nate McBride: gave them nine weeks. I'm like, you know what? Let's give everybody a long lag time. Yep. Because they might have some super secret, you know, macro that they use every day. Or they might be using, what's the Microsoft, uh, toys? Is that what it's called?

Toys. 

Mike Crispin: MS. Toys, power 

Nate McBride: toys, Ms. Toys. I mean, I know one person uses toys, right? I want everyone to, to know about toys. I want everyone to look at Outlook rules and Slack workflows. And I want 'em to see all the things that are around them so they understand that the entire environment is an innovation sandbox.

Yep. Obviously there are some things that are off limits, but they know [00:31:00] this already. Right. So anyway, I belabor the point. 

Mike Crispin: No, very cool. I think it's awesome. 

Nate McBride: Well, so this brings us to the next level. So you are an N of three for department? I'm an N of two. Yeah. Hoping to become an N of three. Um, the person we made an offer to declined.

Mike Crispin: Ah, that's a bummer. 

Nate McBride: I know. So it's back to the well. 

Mike Crispin: Oh, that's a bummer. 

Nate McBride: It's back to the well, but I have some other sort of good leads and I think that we'll do pretty well. Um, but you know, the other part is, I was thinking about was the org chart. So we talked about ma, we talked about organization structures, I think back in episode 2029 or 30.

But you know, you know, I'm a big fan of decentralized it. We had some good discussions about this point. I think the traditional IT org chart with clear hierarchies and direct reporting relationships, you know, the whole old thing is, is becoming a relic. And this is obviously an unpopular opinion still probably to this day.

And we [00:32:00] discussed this back in episode one or season one or another. Um, but I think what's happening is today, while today's IT leaders are still operating in these sort of, these matrix environments. Decision making is distributed. Authority is shared. Influence tends to matter more than formal power. Um, only because it is so critical.

Now. Formal power really isn't that important. Sure. It does create a fundamental autonomy challenge. Um, and this relates back to the idea of innovation. So how do you maintain control, uh, strategic control when decision making is distributed across multiple stakeholders, business units, and even external partners?

And I don't think the answer is to fight against the trend. Um, not at all. I mean, despite the antiquated effect of matrixed it. Yeah. Um, this very matrix idea is here to stay distributed decision making. It's here to stay. 'cause they're often more effective at handling complex [00:33:00] cross-functional challenges.

I mean, it's, it's hard to dispute that fact. Yeah. But the answer, I think within all this, so when I think about my structure, like my team, so I, I have an and, and I'm two right now it's me. It's a very adept, uh, person who's focused on employee experience. Okay. Now, her unfortunate part is that I throw everything else at her too.

Do security do infrastructure. Like here's all your other things you have to deal with, right? Yeah. But the, the org that I envision is so excellent at Ober, at operating within these structures that while each one person is preserving their essential decision rights, and so I don't feel like Miranda has my, my number one has restrictions on her decision making.

I feel like the problem is, I. She's not exactly sure. 'cause it's not clear on which decisions to make. Yeah. Um, because we're only an N of two now, when we become an N of three, I think those, those, [00:34:00] those boundaries start to show up. They start to emerge. 

Mike Crispin: Yeah. 

Nate McBride: It becomes clear. So if I say you're responsible for all it training for new staff, that's a clear boundary Today.

It's not clear because there's new hire orientation, there's classes, there's uh, follow up, there's all kinds of, it starts to narrow down. Yep. So like the, the idea of a clear decision rights framework. So lemme ask you this question. Do you think that that it is, let's not, I don't want to tie it back to a number, let's tie it back to a scale.

Okay. Do you think there's a certain scale of it complexity where this. This excellence at operating across these structures becomes key. Like what would you say is the scale moment if you, if you had like, draw a catalytic event when you need to scale? 

Mike Crispin: Is that what you're asking 

Nate McBride: when No, when you need to, like [00:35:00] when, when excellence, when in general internal excellence at operating within a multi or a matrix structure becomes critical.

Like what's that moment 

Mike Crispin: I look at? Um, I guess the, the matrix type model more in the respect of small teams and creating small teams that are focused in certain areas of the, of the objectives, you know, that you're trying to achieve. So like if you've got a small group that's focused on process development or a small group that's focused on data governance, um, it's less about the reporting structure and more about the units, the, the, the units working together to a common goal and a very specific area.

Um. I, I like to sort of approach things that way, but I think from an a responsibility and ownership perspective, we're talking about sort of when the decision point is and what decision to make when is just, if, you know, just depending on the level of the [00:36:00] person who comes in, like they own the whole vertical of what they are, and they, and they, they're ultimately, ultimately, you know, the, the CIO is accountable to the executive team, but the, in terms of the ownership and the person should feel the ownership to manage the entire cybersecurity stack or this operation stack or the r and d stack.

Like they, not just the technology, but the people, the process as well. And you know, as, as you grow and scale as a company, I think that's where those people are empowered and, and you are really able to help them grow and learn and focus more in their development and also be able to manage up a bit as well.

As opposed to like having to kind of go through and make sure that the right decisions are made, or, yes, it's okay for you to make this decision or that decision. It's like you're coming in at a certain level of maturity and seniority, depending on where you're hiring. And [00:37:00] they, they own, they should own the whole component.

They, we should be learning from them, right? I mean, you and I kind of should be learning from all all, and they should feel completely empowered to make the decisions that they need to make. Well, I mean, on that point, and they should drive and build those teams, those, those distributed teams as well. They should have that ability to, to feel comfortable reaching out cross-functionally and, and, and building those, those synergies.

Nate McBride: Well, okay. I think that when you're having the conversation about, uh, who is able to influence who, well, I think within it, I am influenced by those that I hire. I, I hire people so that I can be influenced by them. I don't wanna hire somebody who's not going to challenge me to, to think differently.

Mike Crispin: Correct. 

Nate McBride: Um, regardless of their background, it's got to be somebody who's going to look at, look at me and say like, what are you thinking? Like, what, where do you think this is gonna go? Um, that's my kind of, my kind of direct [00:38:00] hire. Um, I think, I think that's pretty anyone's ever worked for me is like, of course anyone that I've ever worked with is like, that's the kind of person you hire.

You hire people that will challenge your stupidity. Um, but, but more important than that is like, I want them also, while they're challenging me to also feel empowered to make the best decisions using their own autonomy, but the autonomy of the department, like we have a certain number yes amount of, of trust cash built up.

So whenever, when they cash in some trust to make a decision, they're making it obviously for themselves. They're also making it for it. So it's like pulling from two different banks of cash and like my metaphor is way off the rails here, but I think you get the point. 

Mike Crispin: Well, I think you, you want to.

Someone in who's gonna challenge you, but you also have to, they also have to realize that they've got to be able to, they've got to be able to do some of the things that you need them to do as well. So I think it's for sure, I, it goes without saying, but I'm just saying, I've worked with people in the past where it's like [00:39:00] people will challenge and then it's time to get the work done.

And it's like, okay, you said you knew how to do this well. That, I think that that's when it's like, 

Nate McBride: there needs to be a, a clear decision rights framework. Like you don't have to pull out the VP card, like, okay, I'm the boss. And so that's the way it is. But I think that also too, if someone comes to me with an idea and they can't back it up, I'm gonna pull the head of IT card and say, okay, it's good.

But go back and maybe polish that up a little bit. Yeah. I we're not talking like, uh, like, or like racy matrices or shit like that, you know, we're talking about, I mean, those tools are good in the hands of the right people, you know, what the hell they're doing. Yeah. Talking about, yeah. Fundamental decision making principles.

Who can, who can make a decision when, what requires escalation? How confidence get resolved. And without this clarity, but everybody's having an idea and no one able to execute in any idea. 

Mike Crispin: [00:40:00] Yes. 

Nate McBride: Agreed. And, and which, you know, autonomy just is basically dead. Everyone's got autonomy at the same time. That's not good.

Like, you want everyone to have autonomy, but someone's gotta sort of like have the most autonomy at a moment from time to time. Um, but I mean, that clarity isn't, isn't alone, isn't enough. If you have a matrix environment, influence does play a part. It can be more important than authority. That trust you've gained that influence.

It has. Or that I, the influence of the idea can gain a lot of steam. Let's say you, let's say you have someone you hire. Yeah. And they managed to get into a conversation where they're sitting with a bunch of people who are like, sh, box sucks. I want SharePoint. And this person you hired is like, yeah. You know, actually SharePoint would be better.

Um, their influence, whether they know it or not, can have a dramatic negative effect on [00:41:00] what's going on. Sure. 'cause of course, you don't want SharePoint. Nobody consciously wants to put SharePoint in, um, in the world. That's a, that's a, this is a straight up fact. Speak to me, by the way, is completely wrong.

Uh, but you need, like, again, these networks of trust, and you and I as IT leaders, all IT leaders, spend so much time building that trust bank. Um, like everyone needs to be careful about how they're gonna parse that out. You need to be skilled at creating, communicating compelling technology visions. Help all your stakeholders understand how their interests align.

I think this is where many IT leaders struggle. I mean, certainly people that I know struggle with this, they're comfortable with like this technical decision making. Oh yeah, the system is better than that system. I got it. No problem. But they're less comfortable with the political and relational aspects, uh, distributed leadership.

Sure. And like if you have somebody in your [00:42:00] department in IT who's not in line with you, you're going to ha that's going to trickle its way all the way up to the top of all your decision making as you go forward. Do you need everybody to be in the same, not alignment, but um, appreciating this hierarchy of auto autonomous decision making?

So it kind of goes without saying, but I think it's kind of. Largely overlooked. You know, you find some, you know, you, you might call it like a sour apple, but that person's got their own vision. And do you really understand it? Do you understand their influence? And does their influence trump your influence?

That's right. And if you, I mean, here's the, here's another paradox for you. If you solely rely on influence, by the way, you'll inevitably become a slave to that influence and be unable to make any decisions without first having to go through this, this, uh, this dance, [00:43:00] this choreographed like, uh, influence, trade off effect.

Like, um, fight club, fight club, fight club. No one talks about fight club, 

Mike Crispin: not supposed to 

Nate McBride: talk about fight club. That's rules number one. And I think number two, I think you're right. Um. Same principle. That's a terrible metaphor actually. There's no fight called principle in it. No, we're not going to the ome.

We're not going to a basement to fight. We are not. We are not. There's, so basically you have to have governance models that pro provide both structure and flexibility. You need mechanisms that ensure diverse stakeholders can contribute to decisions without losing their coherence. You need processes that create alignment without requiring consensus on every single detail.

I mean, we do this, I know you do this between the IC steering committees, investment prioritization committees, policy and compliance groups, that's how we get it [00:44:00] done. We're distributing decision making while maintaining autonomy. Yep. That's, so those are the four pillars, right? You're managing risk and creating clear decision processes.

Rather than trying to control every decision, you're improving productivity by enabling faster, more informed decision making across the org, using autonomy to handle decisions, and you're fostering innovation by bringing diverse perspectives into the decision making process. So with all that going on and thinking about yourself, you are a growing IT department.

Yep. What is your vision, and you can be abstract about this if you want, but what's your vision for how it is you're gonna attribute autonomy among your team as you grow?

Mike Crispin: Well, I think right now, I mean just the culture of the group and have being able to make decisions, I think. [00:45:00] Both people on my team are able to make their, their own decisions about what goes forward and what doesn't. And and in my prior role, I did that, and I think to some extent some of my lessons learned was that, uh, you know, I did empower people and that sometimes I didn't push back enough.

So I, I think that's where, you know, I, I look in our scenario now, and it's a total, it's a balance. You try and be realistic about what we can achieve as a group, but you also give people and give this team, especially here at Cardian, the ability to take, this is yours, you own it, let's build it out. I'll try and help where I can, but I ultimately would like you to come up with some of the, the plan and the strategy and uh, or, or the plan and the strategy.

Um, and that's not easy. I think it's not easy to. Sorry, back up a second. To actually get an artifact and a result from that, 

Nate McBride: that's not [00:46:00] easy. Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to understand when you say your design name as owners of that, you're saying you own this? Yes. Is it like you're gonna live and die by the sword, or is they gonna own it up until the point where if it fails to, you will take over responsibility for the outcome?

Mike Crispin: I will. I will help. I will ultimately, as head of a department, you know, we're responsible. Whatever happens in it. Yeah. But in terms of as a leader holding someone account, we have to hold people accountable too. So I think that, you know, all, I just wanna be clear at that point, that's part that's part of owning something is that you get the, all the credit when it goes right.

But you also, you also have to, you have to learn and you know, to some extent be willing to change if it goes wrong. And I think that's, that's just a kind of a. Organizational maturity thing, hiring the right people, building the right comradery and trust within the group and, and [00:47:00] those type of, you know, those type of things.

Just getting to know a team as you get bigger, that's gets harder to do. But I will say that the bigger you get, the more autonomy I think groups have because they truly, you truly do not have time to measure everything, right? You just, you need to let them own it. That's why they're directors or senior directors or you, they, they're reporting in and you're, you're helping to make sure it's aligned with the strategy and the budget and the business goals and, and that's what's so fun about Cardies.

We're kind of in the weeds. We're getting stuff done, we're building things quickly. Whereas I think when you're in a bigger place, like you and I both have been in the past, is it's more about, okay, we're building the orchestra, we're conducting the orchestra, not playing the violin. I'm not playing the oboe, I'm not playing anything.

I'm more, I'm the orchestrator. Smaller company get, like you said, things might not go right. They come to you, fix them. You try and, and that can be fun for people that are technologists like us. Sure. But I think this, it's two different roles. I think as [00:48:00] time goes on and you grow a team, that's why it's fun planting the seed somewhere and growing the group where you continuing to take pieces and then you've got your first seat in the, or in, in the, in the string section who's in charge of the whole string section and is, is making sure that runs well.

And it just kind of scales from there as you grow. But people should feel empowered to make decisions and to be able to get things done. But they also to produce the results too. So with the ownership comes. Producing the artifacts and producing the, the presentations and the, you know, having the opportunity and the exposure to, to present and to do those things.

So those are all things as we grow that, you know, I want all of us to be able to do more of as we, as we move forward. Whereas we're completely kind of in the weeds with things, you know, as, as we're a small group and a, and a small company. It's moving very fast and it's pretty common, I think, for companies of our size that we're wearing a lot of different hats.

So, but you maintain, I think you maintain [00:49:00] autonomy through both of those models. If you're a good leader and you've got a good team around you and you've built the trust with your management team Yeah. To give you, I think if, if, um. A great, you know, example is like if you have issues on the service desk or, um, you know, the last 10 people or the last eight to 10 people didn't get their laptop until two weeks after they started.

And you know, they, things that happen, credibility is lost. The boardroom doesn't work, right. The phones don't work. Like, it's like all you for one, one issue that you have, you get knocked back five pegs. So it's like people might be, oh, you know, I want more responsibility. It's like, but the, maybe the basics have slipped and we need to build those back up.

And that happens, I think at those larger organizations a lot, it's hard to kind of keep things momentum going without real process development, process improvement, which involves a whole other, you know, maybe an off an office of the CIO or some sort of business process person or whatever. Oh my God. How big is this company that you're talking about?

I'm just talking about someone who [00:50:00] actually helps to manage the day to day in, in some of, when you get to be a much bigger team. 

Nate McBride: Sure. I-A-C-I-O. Oh my God. 

Mike Crispin: You know, I mean, like, I like someone who's ma like the administrative side of things. I know, I know. That's, uh, 

Nate McBride: that'd be pretty cool to have actually before I retire, be big enough.

That's the thing. We, 

Mike Crispin: I think we can call it something else. I mean, this, I think it would be a much cooler No, no, it would. I think that's the big, like the, the, like the, what's, what's the word? Like the, the marketing term for that, that role. And it's like, oh, you're gonna step right into other thing. Oh, it's, uh, 

Nate McBride: I know what you're talking about.

It's like a, a chief of staff or something. 

Mike Crispin: Yes. Yeah. Kinda like a chief of staff. But that's, that's, that's not as much what it is More like a a, a cross-functional kind of person. Would it be a 

Nate McBride: problem if I called this person my chief, uh, coffee maker?

Would that be, I mean, who's and salad maker? 

Mike Crispin: Who's, who's the, who's, who's Robert Deval playing The Godfather? 

Nate McBride: Is it conciliary? Yeah, that's what [00:51:00] you need one of those conciliary. Okay. I was always thinking I need like a hype man. You know, like money. My bosstones has the, the guy on stage who doesn't sing, but he dances every like on stage.

He's a hype guy. Yep. Yeah. I need like a hype person. 

Mike Crispin: I made me think of the guy from, um, guardians of the Galaxy. Groot. 

Nate McBride: Groot. Yeah. Yeah. Like that person. You need one of those too. Well, Groot does stuff. Yeah. I mean, your completely re should be like, like, uh, what, what was the, what was the, um, was it Michael?

What was the, what was the, um, movie with, with, uh, oh my God. Michael Clayton, the Bagman. Michael Clayton, thank you. Yeah. Where he's a cleaner, like, like Winston Wolf. Yes. He's the fixer almost, right? A fixer. Yeah. Yeah. I can, by the way, by the way, if anyone's hiring a fixer, I'd be fucking awesome. I'm very discreet.

Honestly, you don't even see me. No one noticed that 

Mike Crispin: movie was so good. [00:52:00] 

Nate McBride: Yeah. 

Mike Crispin: That, that ending is so awesome. 

Nate McBride: So Michael Clayton, uh, one of the greatest movies, and by the way, if any, anyone's listening to this episodes and, and needs like a queen. Honestly, I'm a guy, like if you have a gambling problem or you want to, you know, hide a dead body or something.

I think I got it. Like, I'm not talking like, uh, what was the other, what was the other one? Uh, Ray Donovan. 

Mike Crispin: Ray Donovan, yep. 

Nate McBride: Yeah, I'm kind of, I'm kind. I could 

Mike Crispin: do 

Nate McBride: that. 

Mike Crispin: I could do that. He was a little tougher than Michael Clayton, but Michael Clayton was more cunning. I thought. 

Nate McBride: I'm more of a glass jaw. Like if I get punched, I'd, I'd, I'd pass out, but, and probably cry a lot.

But honestly, I think I could do those jobs otherwise anyway. I do too. I think you could do it. Oh, yeah. Or, or be a limo driver. Like, but like Lincoln lawyer, kind of like Lincoln lawyer, limo driver. I'm not, listen. 

Mike Crispin: You rode with me with McFadden. Remember that guy? 

Nate McBride: Yes. 

Mike Crispin: The, the nightclubs and stuff. 

Nate McBride: And I, I've used him, I, I used him a [00:53:00] few more times after that, by the way.

He's like, you know, 

Mike Crispin: all, he's got all the secrets. We, we used to have this, this guy who drove me and Nate around and, and, uh, and, and a few of my friends. And we were in our twenties and this guy was a ex-US marshal. And he just, I've never seen anyone not stop for so many red lights in my life. 

Nate McBride: Nope. Had he had no fuck to give.

Mike Crispin: He did not give a shit. And he was one of the coolest dudes. And he was super nice and he was always there for us. He always picked us up and drove us home. We're in a bad way. I know, man. He's the best. 

Nate McBride: He, he was like the Uber before Uber. You just call, you just call him up and he is like, yo, uh, where you at?

I'm like, well, I'm outside the bar. I'm sitting. He's like, I see you. Like how do you already see me? 

Mike Crispin: And he'll come whip. He'd come whipping around the corner, going the wrong way on Lansdown Street. To pick us up on Avalon, at Avalon and drive all the way up to the other end where Cas and Flag is going the wrong way.

Like a Field of Dreams moment. You've seen [00:54:00] the movie Field of Dreams. Yeah. The cars going the wrong way on Lansdown Street. He didn't care. That's like Right. He doesn't care. So that's great. But yeah, we need like one of those, you know, always. Alright, well I 

Nate McBride: mean, we don't have to put our resumes out there.

I mean, we're just saying like, if you're hiring a cleaner Yeah. Like, you know, you gotta get rid of the bodies you can call and we're, we're pretty good. We don't have any references yet. We're still, we're still working into the industry a little bit, but you know, there's always a first one. Oh man. Uh, so speaking of hiring people to do, get rid of the bodies.

So we're thinking about our departments, you need people that are. That have expertise in at least one domain, but you also need people that can see across all domains. And I think that's becoming the new norm. At least that's how I, I'm hiring people I'm talking to, that's how they're hiring, you know, gone are the days of the quote unquote CIS admin.

Or maybe they're not gone, [00:55:00] but they're becoming rarer in, in my opinion, um, especially in our industry. Yeah. Nowadays it's like, oh, you're a CIS admin. Great. What else can you do? At least that's how I'm asking it. And this creates a fundamental tension, I think, in how people build and manage IT teams, because you're like, okay, I need three people to do the job of six.

So you over here, you know, some security stuff. So you're also now gonna be my, my network admin. Oh, you're a network admin. No problem. I'm gonna enroll you in four classes. You'll be good to go. Like traditional approaches, treat this as a staffing problem. Hire more specialists, hire some generalists, and then hope that God they work well together.

But you and I both know that, that there's a better approach, which is autonomous IT leaders understand this is a general design challenge. It's not about just having the right people for niche roles. It's about creating structures and process that allow different types of expertise to combine effectively.

So even if you got the [00:56:00] person who's great at security but sucks everything else, and the person who's great at help desk person who's great at networking, as long as they all can work perfectly together, and I would, I mean, I wouldn't even think of a hiring that level of, uh, specificity anymore. But let's suppose that you did.

They need to, they need to like basically back each to their up perfectly. Mm-hmm. Maybe they don't like to, maybe it's not their primary remit, but. That's what they would do in my world. You get hired, you have to do every single job. Now you have a specialty, you know, like a face man. He like, he wooed the ladies ba, baris, explosives, uh, mad Dog Murdoch helicopters, seemingly, and, and cars.

Um, and what was it, Hannibal, he basically just fucked everything up. He just blew up shit. Right. That's the, A team. Everyone had their specialty, but they could do other things. That's what I hire for. [00:57:00] So these jack of all trades leaders or these jack of all trades ideas, you have at least one jack of all trades working for you.

I have one that works for me. So where, like, is there a point in time where you would stop hiring jack of all trades or Js or would you always hire Js? Because I would always hire jokes. I mean, Jack of all trades with one specialty. 

Mike Crispin: Yes. That's what I was gonna say. So I think Jack of all trades in the respect, jack of all trades in their specific areas.

So there's jack of all trades in the kind of, from a program management side, or an enterprise architecture side or cybersecurity side. 

Trance AI Bot: Yeah. They just take 

Mike Crispin: it down one level. I, I think there's, there's enough, like let's just say GRC or you know, risk. So you could have a cybersecurity person, a GXP person, a SOX person, a compliance person, a data governance person that's a jack of all trades in that stack, right?

Yeah, yeah. All those things. That's, that's [00:58:00] how I think of it as like I want somebody who's got no, they're hard to find, right? They're really hard to find. And then like from the IT ops, oh, super hard to find and IT ops perspective is, you know, infrastructure and employee experience and all those things.

Like they may be lines on a, on a job description, but they're huge. Like. Pyramids, right? I mean, of things that people need to know how to do and understand, and that's a jack of all trades. They've, you can have a really good person, uh, who knows endpoints and, um, package deployment and break fix and those type of things.

That's a specialty. But if you've got someone who can do employee experience, can manage the service desk tool set, can manage up, can manage down, yeah. Has outside resources and has built a network, um, understands the latest technologies and, uh, the business goals. And so this is kind of a jack of all trades and the um, um, manager [00:59:00] of kind of what we have from an IT experience per who gets it across the board, right?

It's exciting to have that. So I think that's when we're hiring people's, like make sure they know that. Those areas and really cover the whole job description because it, I think at companies like us, we are, we are taking big slices of the, of the departmental pie and we're giving really to one person, 'cause that's all we're gonna be able to do and allow them to be the vendor manager and allow them to be the strategist as well.

And um, yeah, and, and really it really drives some of that and it's, it's a great learning opportunity and build building opportunity for them as well if they haven't done it before. 

Nate McBride: Well, I mean, I'm totally aligned with you. I, I, for the rest of my career until I'm done being in it, I will only hire people that are, um, jack of all trades with, with one specialty.

So they should have one thing that they're amazing at, but they should know everything else. And regardless of role Yeah. You know, manager up [01:00:00] to senior director or vp, you should be able to do any role in the department. If you can't, you're, you're just not gonna continue to go on. Like, I don't see people for this role that I have open, I got 115 resumes or so.

Um, I read some of these resumes and it's like infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. I'm like, holy shit, you're screwed. Or Yeah. Uh, security all the way through have the last four jobs. Like, God, you're, you're, it's over. Um, yeah. And that's people that are, oh my God, the worst. It's just like PM for the last 20 years, like, oh my God.

Go, you have to work for big companies. You cannot be looking for small pharma. But then I, every now I catch a glimpse of somebody who's like, yeah, I was help desk, and then I was asked to become a project manager. Then I was asked to become a security person, and I'm like, bingo, you're, I want to talk to you.

Yep. That's somebody who kept getting thrown into the fire over and over again and had to learn through that process. But because of their [01:01:00] support background had that EQ needed to continue to go forward. And I think when I think about, this is me, when I think about the teams that are needed, I think that you're gonna need in the next five years, complimentary roles where specialists and generalists kind of come together to enhance each other instead of competing for influence.

And you might have a specialist, maybe you have somebody who is focused on development and their role is literally to develop code. Or software. Mm-hmm. You're probably not gonna throw a lot a help desk tickets to them, uh, even though they, they sh they can be an extra warm body if you need one, but they have to be able to work with all of your generalists, all the jack of all trades, all the jokes need to be able to say, that person's a developer.

I can rely on 'em to do X, Y, Z and also back me up in, in times of, of times of need. And that's what we've been doing. Like we've been starting to look at specialists in collaboration across all modalities, formal [01:02:00] and informal mechanisms that help deep expert share knowledge. So when I was at my last company, um, we had an an IT department of five and it was a requirement that everybody share what they're doing with everybody else.

So nobody would be black boxing, what they did from anybody else in the department. It worked out perfectly. Here's, I went to the lab and I fixed this machine. Here's what I did. If you need more information, let me know and I'm happy to show you exactly what I did. So everybody would know. This person did not feel insecure about their role.

They knew their role was secure and so secure, and they were they in their role that they were able to teach other people how to do that role. And I thought that was like a huge bonus. Um, so, and in addition to that, I mean, it's timely, right? I'm working with a client right now. I'm actually not working with 'em anymore.

I just finished up their engagement. But [01:03:00] it was a large company. There were 1200 people at one point. They didn't do knowledge transfer anywhere ever in it. Okay. Zero. Oh, wow. Okay. Um, and now they're paying the price for it. I think that a lot of times knowledge transfer has been viewed as mostly documentation based and, and training, but it's actually bigger than that, right?

Yeah. Yeah. Mentoring, relationships, job rotations, collaborative problem solving. So let's go back to the four pillars again. If you're managing risk by ensuring critical knowledge is concentrated, you shouldn't be. It shouldn't be is, it should not be concentrated in individual experts. It should be distributed.

You can be improving productivity by enabling better collaboration between different types of expertise. Imagine if somebody is an AI expert and they're able to train someone else in the department about ai. They, they become a, more than an NF two, they become a NF [01:04:00] five. I mean, they, they, they so deeply make their capabilities greater at bringing someone else in it along with them, um, using.

Of course, your autonomy elements to capture and distribute special knowledge more effectively. And then lastly, you're driving innovation by combining different areas of expertise in new ways. If I am an expert in X and Mike is an expert in Y and we hook up and we're like, oh my God, let's make Z and we're able to do it, that's because this exact element of innovation comes into play.

Yes. So there's really only two more pieces of this. One is it talent development and talent development. Love at this stage in our lives, in our careers is getting kinda weird. So the piece of technological change is unprecedented, right? We all agree on that. The skills that were even cutting edge three years ago are becoming commoditized.

So [01:05:00] how do we overcome this challenge? Like the autonomy challenge is how do you build the organizational capabilities that can adapt to. To these rapidly changing skill requirements without constantly turning through staff or falling behind our critical competencies. And the answer, by the way, isn't just faster training or more, more comprehensive skill inventories.

It's building adaptive learning. Yeah. Helps your, your IT org continuously evolve capabilities and response to changing requirements. How do we fucking do that? Because I think about this all the time. It's not Coursera, it's not gonna be some sort of online training. 

Mike Crispin: A lot of it is baked into the type of person you've hired from the beginning.

Someone who's able to change, someone who's adaptable, someone who wants to learn. Um, and, and that's, that's a, I think if you don't have that, it, it's, it's near impossible. I mean, you need to have, you need to hire the [01:06:00] right people. Then you can make some tough calls if they're the wrong person. Right. You gotta, you can make some changes.

But part of the the, I think great people across, not just in it, that you hire ones who know that things are changing faster and faster every day and they're going to have to adapt and the people who can adapt and change and who have more of an agile mindset and willing to look in different directions to do things better or to make their own life better and less stressful.

You know, it's just, well, sorry, can back up. Having humility and having, you know, having, you know, a learning mindset. I think it's not everyone's wired that way. I get that. But that's, but hold on. Lemme 

Nate McBride: pause one second though, Mike, because you just made a point. And so humility by the way is key. Like I, for my whole, all my twenties and thirties, I had no humility and now I'm just chockfull of it.

I admit I'm ignorant on so many levels. But you just mentioned something which is, like you said, find people that are willing to. [01:07:00] Oh, I just lost my thought. Willing to learn, willing to adapt. Willing to learn. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. They're, they're willing to learn that they, they see something as saying, not only are they willing, but they love to learn.

Well, so this is, this is what I hire for. Like somebody who says, oh, I'm not gonna learn that. I'm just gonna figure out how to make it work with what I do know. Like, go, that's too difficult. Let me figure out how to make it work with SharePoint as opposed to learning a new thing. Because 

Mike Crispin: we, we, I think, and many IT leaders love to learn and we learn from the people we hire else.

We're not, we're not, there's, there's not reciprocal VA value there. You, you wanna grow as a leader, you wanna grow your team. You want that person to be successful. You want them. If you go to another company someday and you wanna bring them there with you, you've built a relationship and trust [01:08:00] and they've learned, and you've learned, and you build a a really, and then they goes somewhere else and you've built a network.

Yeah. And it goes outside of just your company and, and what you're trying to achieve at that company. It's the, the network and how you ultimately can build success from multiple companies for multiple, uh, IT teams in the future. It all starts with people and hiring the best people. I think that, I think that is the most important thing across anything that we do, is that we bring good people in.

Take the technology and process and put it aside. People are, I think, the most important component. 

Nate McBride: So let me throw out to you then the question, which is, how do you forecast what skills you'll need tomorrow? I just ask ai. So I mean, we can keep hiring jack of all [01:09:00] trades and adapt them to what we need.

It's a definite answer and it actually a pretty good one. Right? 

Mike Crispin: Well, I think, you know, when I talk about managing AI, like people, I think this is where things start to transcend is if people are the most important thing and hiring the right people who are willing to learn, that's where there's this crossroads.

Yeah. In the next decade, because that'll become a new question, I think. But right now that is the most important thing, building. Building a team that can learn, that can execute, and that in some respects, if it's not always gonna be enjoyable, but likes what they do because then it comes through as. They couldn't get things done automatically.

In some respects, if they really like the challenge, they understand the political landscape, they're willing to, to push back and to let some things in. I mean, it's just having a great person around or people around that, that [01:10:00] help. And that's not, you're a 

Nate McBride: great person, Mike. 

Mike Crispin: It's not just an HR thing, it's a, it's, it's everybody.

Nate McBride: Well, I mean, there, there's a forecasting element that comes down to rote forecasting, which is, okay, we're a, we're a company about a hundred and sure it'll be 200. So therefore I would probably need two heads. Like there's that, there's that sort of on paper calculus. I see what you're saying. But yeah, but at the same time it's witch heads.

So, you know, clinicals gonna want a system and research is gonna want to do a thing. And you have to say. And here, well, here's what I would do, which is to say, I'm gonna go create a job that starts out by saying, Hey, you love ELNs, or you love clinical trial management systems, but guess what? You also love help desk security, networking, ai, you love to teach, you love to mentor, you love people.

You're just like being alive and and doing cool shit. Like that would be the [01:11:00] entire job description in a nutshell, right? Like the one I have posted right now, the job I have open right now reads pretty much just like that. Just, Hey, you're an expert in automation, AI, and middleware, but also you freaking love people and teaching and hanging out and doing cool shit.

But I don't think forecasting is enough. I think forecasting is one part. You also need. Uh, an internal learning capability that can change people up on what they don't know. And this is a key, right? So, um, anyone that's come through my departments for the last 20 years knows this to be a truth, which is day one, welcome.

Here's your ITIL program. Here's network plus security. Plus A plus. Um, here's all the classes you're gonna take AWS practitioner, you can get all of these. Oh, but I've been, you know, in the industry for 15 years. I don't give a shit. Do you know anything about, um, IPV six? What are your, what about your subnetting tables?

Here you go. Here's all these courses. [01:12:00] So it's about, and now these are pretty much rote and sort of like what I would call tier one learning, but you need to have a training program for every single employee in your department. Yeah. They can adapt to not only your, your environment, but to what they need to know about what's coming next.

So it moves, I think it moves away from sort of a more formal training program. Towards a more flexible approach, peer learning, uh, project based skill development, and just in time knowledge acquisition. So me sitting next to you and you pointing at a screen and saying, this is how I do that thing, that's one of the most valuable ways to train someone in it.

I think my son's doing an internship right now at an MSP, and he is been there for a little over two weeks and I've been asking him, you know, how's it going? And a lot of his time is spent standing over someone's shoulder and watching them pointing at a screen and say why they did the thing they did.

I'm like, that's the most brilliant training you'll ever got [01:13:00] if someone's able to get a screen and say, here's why I'm making this change. So, you know. Yeah. The person behind them can retain that. You can't get better training than that. 

Mike Crispin: You're right, right in the middle of it. 

Nate McBride: Yeah. And this is where like, um, you know, so.

Knowledge transfer becomes even more critical, right? So the company I mentioned before, the 12 person company, um, no knowledge transfer. So every time someone left, obviously they were just losing information. You can't afford to have critical knowledge locked in anyone's heads. So even when you have like a kick ass jack of all trades working for you and they're doing great things, everything that they know has to be captured somewhere.

Agreed. 

Mike Crispin: Yep. That's where runbooks are important. I think that's a big Yeah. Runbooks. Yeah. J just, just write it down and may it helps them too. Yeah, 

Nate McBride: absolutely. I mean, 

Mike Crispin: it helps to write stuff down. 

Nate McBride: Oh, totally. And in this case you're, you're managing risk by building [01:14:00] adaptive capabilities. Rather than just focusing on current competencies, you're improving productivity by creating more effective learning.

Mike Crispin: Yeah. 

Nate McBride: You're, um, transforming your autonomy by making sure people are knowledge sharing and have skill development amongst everybody, including you, and you're driving innovation by continuously developing new org capabilities. So even if you hired a staff of three that were awesome, if they all just are only as awesome as they are today and never get more awesome.

That doesn't help the org. They have to be in a constant state of getting more and more awesome to actually help that company.

So now we're gonna wrap it up, Mike. Like we, we've come to the end of the season, so to speak. This is amazing. I know. It's, it's worth stepping back and reflecting on what we've learned and we've been everywhere in this journey. We've explored the challenge from every possible angle I could think of, from vendor relationships to regulatory compliance.[01:15:00] 

AI integration talent management. But tonight, innovation matrix leadership, composable architecture, and adaptive talent represent something sort of the basic fundamentals. We started back in episode two. With that, they're not operational challenges to the mechanisms for which IT leaders shape the future rather than just respond to it.

Again, we've said this a hundred times over this series, you can either shape the future or respond to it. Your choice. Yep. Yep. And that's how you're gonna move from being a consumer of technology trends to being an architect of technology futures. So let's connect these back to the four foundational pillars.

Risk management in an autonomous organization isn't about avoiding avoiding uncertainty. It's building capabilities to navigate uncertainty productivity. It isn't about optimizing current process. It's about building the organizational capacity to continuously improve and adapt those processes.[01:16:00] 

Autonomy. It's not about, not about replacing human judgment, right? It's about amplifying human capability. Mm-hmm. And free people to focus on higher value activities, not the innovation. It's not about adopting the latest technologies. It's about building systematic capabilities for generating, evaluating, implementing new approaches.

So the thread that connects to everything is autonomy. The ability to make decisions strategically that truly serve your organization's needs rather than just following vendor roadmaps, industry trends, or regulatory minimums. But autonomy isn't something you achieve once and then maintain. It's something you continuously earn through the decisions you make, capabilities you build, and the relationships you develop.

It requires constant attention to the balance between short-term efficiency and long-term adaptability between individual expertise and organizational capability. Between [01:17:00] standardization and innovation. So looking ahead to next week's finale, we'll be exploring how all this plays out in the context of Industry 5.0 won't, not giving away, but it's about this something no one's thinking about today really, except for a couple people, but it's right in front of us who will own our data.

Oh boy. So I'll say this before we wrap up, Mike. Uh, I think we started episode one with the idea that we would have an archetype every episode and I wrote one for every episode. Yeah, I think we did three total. We talked about an Archetype IT leader that would be essential to the theme of the night. But I do have one.

Mike Crispin: Okay. 

Nate McBride: That I'd like to talk about. The autonomy architect. Yep. [01:18:00] The autonomy 

Mike Crispin: architect M, so the 

Nate McBride: signs that you might be dealing with an autonomy architect, they talk about building capabilities, not just solving problems. They see every technology decision as an opportunity to increase or decrease future options.

They invest in things that don't show immediate ROI, but create long term strategic flexibility. They're equally comfortable discussing technical architecture and organizational design. It measures success not just by current performance, by adaptive capacity. The autonomy architect's favorite phrases.

How does this decision affect our future options? What capabilities are we building that just that sort of problems are we solving? Let's design this to become composable from the start. We need to design and optimize for adaptability, not just efficiency. And lastly, [01:19:00] what we need to be true for this to work at scale.

How does our Fearless IT leader embody the Autonomy Architect model? One, through strategic strategic capability building, they focus on developing organizational capabilities that transcend specific technologies. Two, it build systems and processes that create options rather than just solving immediate problems.

Three, they invest in learning and adapting mechanisms. Second, architectural thinking every level. One, they apply architectural principles to organizational design, not just technical systems. Two, they create modular composable approaches to our teams processes and governance. And three, they design for evolution and change from the beginning.

Overall. Number three, future oriented decision making. Number one, they evaluate every decision based on input impact, on future flexibility and capability. Two, they build scenario planning and [01:20:00] adaptive strategy capabilities. And three, they create mechanisms for continuous environmental scanning and adjustment.

And lastly, autonomy preservation. Through design, they can consciously design systems, processes, and relationships to preserve decision rights. They build redundancy and optionality and critical dependencies. And lastly, they create governance mechanisms that enable rather than constrained strategic choice.

The autonomy architect understands that in a world of accelerating change, the most valuable capability is an expertise in any particular technology. It's the ability to continuously build and rebuild organizational capabilities and preserve strategic choice and enable adaptive response to whatever challenges and opportunities emerge.

There you have it. Autonomy in a nutshell. Wrap 

Mike Crispin: it up in a bow wrap up in a bow bevy. So all you need is an autonomy architect. 

Nate McBride: [01:21:00] Autonomy architect. That's all you need. I would love to have one of those. An aa. An aa. Well, you can have an associate director, autonomy architect, a DA a DAA,

um, or da a da. So that's what it is, people, it's about preserving and maintaining autonomy as an IT leader, knowing where you can sort of still continue to drive decision making and having the, the, the bulwark behind you to do that. Knowing when to make a zero decision versus a one decision. Yeah. We've got it all.

I mean, if not, we missed anything. I don't know where it is. But like I said, next season, or sorry, next episode, final episode. We're going to totally deviate from autonomy. [01:22:00] We're going all in an industry, from industry. That's gonna be awesome. That'd be a good episode. It's the final one of the season. So, um, all right, so if you liked our show, liked our season, give us all the stars, give it up.

Um, whatever you listen to, as always, donate to a comedian. Donate to the L-C-A-A-C-L-U. Don't be a dick, don't be a addicted to people in it. Um, be cool. You're paid back in spades. Be nice to animals. Be nice to old people. Have your part spade or neutered. Finally, keep fighting for autonomy. Yes, every decision, every architecture, every team, every line of code, keep fighting.

It's harder than ever in today's complex environment, but more important than ever to, you're an IT leader. Do not just simply roll over, go play golf, go see the latest boondoggle, whatever, [01:23:00] um, and not do the right thing. Everyone will benefit if you are always involved in this idea. 

Mike Crispin: Any last words, Mike? No, I'll just say that I think the, talking about people being kind of the core to everything that you do is, is really important as you build out your team.

And it helps provide autonomy. You can have autonomy if you have people that are willing to learn, uh, yeah. And that, and can teach you something at the same time. So I, you know, maybe sounds just basic, but those kinda things that I go by and, and every time I've. Moved maybe onto a new company. That's always what I miss the most of the, the people that I've worked with and, you know, that have, that I've learned something from and hopefully they've learned something from me.

Nate McBride: Cool. All right everybody, well see you next week, um, for episode 13. [01:24:00] We'll wrap it up. 

Mike Crispin: Rock and roll, man. Thank you, Nate.

Trance AI Bot: Flashing screens that glow so bright in the, we take flight our side,

the

through the cyber paths we glide in the circuits we fight. No restraints, no need to hide [01:25:00] in the system. We.[01:26:00] 

In the.

Zeroes. One that can we control that it's binary. Whisper in the night. Flashing screens so bright in the we holding.