5 ways IT professionals drive executives crazy

An uncertain elixir of awe, mystery, and bewilderment often defines the relationship between IT professionals and executives. The awe emerges from admiration about the IT skillset they find essential to smoothly running the organization. The mystery materializes from a vague understanding of how IT professionals think, solve problems, and seize challenges. Bewilderment often pervades interactions between executives and IT professionals. Some executives treat the IT function like house plumbing; expecting it to run silently, “glitchless,” and out of sight. As one executive expressed it, “I consider the IT office at its best when I do not have to speak with them at all. A good IT office will handle very important, but largely invisible, functions without fanfare. I like to say that good organizations do routine things routinely.” Of course, when things go awry or crisis arises, they want the IT plumbers to dash to the rescue in a hurry!

Optimizing relationships between IT professionals and executives requires effort by all parties. A relationship defined by the plumber model might work in the short-term, but it rarely allows an organization to thrive and wisely pursue opportunities.

In an attempt to go beyond the plumber model and move to a healthier IT relationship, we interviewed dozens of executives about how IT professionals drive them crazy. The discussion below summarizes some of the most common reactions. One caveat: if we want to move to the healthy IT relational model, then executives would also need to discover “5 ways executives drive IT professionals crazy.” That’s a topic for another essay.

Failing to account for the humans behind the data and information

I vividly remember previewing the results of an employee climate survey with an executive. I was enthusiastically sharing the trend lines, statistical differences, and analytical implications. In the middle of the discussion, the executive stopped me and said, “Phil, you’ve got to remember that behind every one of those data points is a person who answered those questions. And they each have a story to share that may not be statistically significant, but it’s fundamentally important to them.” That stopped me cold.

Over the next few days, I tried to decipher what he meant before rolling out the data to the rest of the team. He wasn’t telling me to stop sharing the data and analysis. Instead, he was challenging me on three different levels: 1) share the information with sensitivity to people, 2) look beyond the data for the stories that people are trying to share with their responses, and 3) move away from a strictly objective way of viewing the data to the more subjective experiences of different groups with differing perspectives (DeKoch & Clampitt, 2022).

Professor Belinda Roman of St. Mary’s University in San Antonio heeds similar advice when analyzing economic data. She noted, “The math is great, but it’s people that we’re talking about. People in the form of businesses, in the form of communities, in the form of countries. So, we’ve always got to keep that in our mind as we’re doing the work” (DeBarros & Carr, 2024). Perhaps this is why she made the most accurate economic forecast for 2023 from a field of 71 financial experts who participated in the Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

In short, wise IT professionals never forget the people behind the data, models and technology; they ponder the implications of presenting the data to people with varying needs, interests, and stories.

Using “IT speak.”

Experts in all fields develop their own jargon, lingo, acronyms, and verbal shortcuts. Media professionals use terms like B-roll, VO, Nats, SFX, Chyron, jump cut, MOS, cutaways, and stop set. Likewise, lawyers routinely toss around terms like interrogatories, subpoena, voir dire, and motion for summary judgment, with the ease of a baseball player warming up for a game. “Media speak” and “lawyer speak” expedite communication with other experts in the field. Yet the average person, unfamiliar with this playing field, may be baffled, confused, and perhaps intimated by others throwing around terms they find baffling. Ditto for professionals in other specialties.

In fact, “media speak,” “lawyer speak,” and “IT speak” often inhibits communication with those outside the field and may undermine working relationships. The Forbes Technology Council, composed of 15 IT specialists, crafts an annual list of the top terms tech professionals use that are frequently misunderstood by others. These include terms and acronyms like AI, big data, blockchain, loT, SaaS Security, and CubeSat (Forbes Council Members, 2023). Even if non-experts can translate an acronym like AI, it does not guarantee there will be a shared understanding. Afterall, there are many different dimensions of artificial intelligence. Some forms of AI are far more advanced than others (Wolfram, 2023). If one person envisions the more robust type of AI than others, then conversations about the business applications and budgeting can quickly go sideways. Why? Because the two parties are essentially thinking about two different ideas – even though they are using the same words.

So, IT experts need to check that others understand key terms that they routinely use. In fact, it may be better to assume that others will not understand even certain key “tech” words,” even if someone nods their heads in apparent comprehension. Ron Reed, the former Executive Vice President at Discovery channel, put it this way:

Over the years I have worked with in-house information technology departments, IT freelance organizations, and a combination of both. In doing so, I have found it helpful to put into writing what I want to accomplish and why it’s important to our organization. To determine if we have the right people on the bus, we discuss what success will look like without using IT jargon and language IT departments sometimes use to impress people. I stress that it is important to avoid “IT speak” and instead use language that an average person can use and understand.

Bottom line: when possible, translate the keys tech words into everyday language or point out specific examples to illuminate the concepts.

Downplaying learning and absorption costs

Most IT professionals are familiar with the classic research on the diffusion of innovation. The central thesis of the diffusion of innovation framework is that innovations are adopted by populations in differing but predictable phases: Innovators, representing approximately 2.5% of the population, quickly assimilate and experiment with the innovation. If the innovators create a certain amount of positive buzz, then the early adopters, representing 13.5% of the population, embrace the new idea, gizmo, or process. Again, assuming assimilation of the innovation and positive reviews, the early adopters are followed by the early majority (34%), late majority (34%), and laggards (16%), in turn (Rogers, 2003). The s-shaped adoption curve of the diffusion of innovation does a pretty good job describing something like mobile phone adoption over time (see illustration).

Yet, not all innovations are as successful as the mobile phone. In fact, each stage represents a potential ending point for further adoption. To be sure, predicting the likelihood of adoption at each stage proves challenging. That’s because researchers are still seeking to understand the network and learning dynamics at each stage. Far more certain is the likelihood that people who can be classified innovators and early adopters tend to underestimate the learning and absorption costs for those falling in other categories (early majority, late majority, and laggards). Why? Innovators and early adopters often use novelty and the “cool new thing” as the primary criteria for adoption. Think Apple’s Vision Pro. In contrast, people in the early majority, late majority, and laggard categories evaluate the utility of the innovations with a far more skeptical and discerning eye for the organizational costs/benefits.

Many IT professionals could be classified as innovators and early adopters. They appear to have an almost wizard-like ability to quickly absorb new information technology and processes. They are energized by being on the cutting edge. That’s great for organizations seeking to stay on top of the ever-changing world of IT but it can cloud judgment when estimating the organizational costs of employees learning new information technologies and fully absorbing them to maximize value.

At a certain point, adoption weariness can overwhelm people, particularly those who tend to dwell in the later stages of the diffusion model. These dynamics produce resistance to change, undermine organizational performance, and may well be a catalyst for “quiet quitting” morale problems (Harter, 2023). IT professionals need to take this into account before and during the rollout of new information technologies. Calculating these costs in terms of training, technical support, and overcoming skepticism is subjective but still necessary.

Even if learning and absorption cost projections prove off the mark, the mere calculation and discussion signals sensitivity to workplace climate and stress issues that will be appreciated by people falling in the early majority, late majority, and laggard categories. And, that kind of goodwill gesture could be the magic elixir to speeding adoption of a critical information technology or process.

Distancing it from other functional areas

If, in fact, many IT professionals naturally fall into the innovator and early adopter categories, then their departments may become out of sync with other functional units. The former Vice President of Operations at Dental City, Terri Resop, put it this way:

IT professionals need to talk to people, understand what they do, how they work, what they want. Listen, listen, listen. Ask more questions, observe, and deliver what users will use, find valuable, and actually enjoy - not what the IT professionals think users should use.

These sentiments were echoed by other executives we interviewed. One senior government official noted that:

Too many times I’ve seen entities procure technology without a clear understanding of the underlying business process (often the result of a vendor having a good sales force versus us being able to articulate the real business need). IT professionals must be integrated in the organization so that they really understand the business processes. We tend to let them isolate themselves from daily operations.

At the core, other functional areas often sense that IT professionals fail to recognize the historical value of certain processes and procedures. For instance, a department’s procedure that may seem nonsensical to an IT professional may well be rooted in some incident or issue that the department encountered in the past. Ignoring those legacy learnings or failing to ask the right questions to unearth them may well lead to unnecessary tensions. The tension may appear as classic “resistance to change” but in fact may be grounded in apprehension about loss of control and a sense of being undervalued.

IT professionals often circumvent such challenges by developing lengthy lists of specifications and standards. That’s probably necessary but not sufficient. Why? First, some department’s sensibilities are not easily coded into specifications. For example, while developing a motivating and effective training for IT security issues may lend itself to an easy set of specifications, the best programs also have an artistic and creative component that is well suited (and not standardized) to the type of employees and the organizational culture. Second, the functional unit’s personnel, especially long-tenured ones, may find it difficult to articulate the precise “rule of thumb” or heuristic that guides a decision-making process.

Consequently, the admonition of “listen, listen, listen,” which means listening between the lines for frustrations, pivotal stories, unspoken frameworks, and perhaps new opportunities. Listening in this fashion goes beyond merely interviewing others. To be sure, functional units want to be heard but it’s more than that – it’s recognition and appreciation of their expertise, mental maps, and learned wisdom. For instance, when an IT professional works with a colleague from marketing to coauthor an article, present a seminar, or lead a task force, the listening becomes more acute, resulting in better synchronization between the units.

Elevating data-based decisions over judgment-based ones

Philosophically, most IT professionals recognize that every key decision cannot be data or evidence based. There are organizational issues, decisions, and projections that can use data to provide guidance. Yet, that data cannot provide the certainty some people crave to make a timely or complex decision. The clock is always ticking, and more data or evidence will not help. In fact, the wait for more data to be gathered, processed, and analyzed may well translate into opportunities lost or problems metastasizing.

Take, for example, Dr. Deborah Birx who was a member of White House COVID task force. In her intriguing and revealing memoir, she laments about the lack of data and research regarding whether mask mandates provided protection (Birx, 2022). Two main problems emerged from this perspective. First, more data probably will never fully settle the science question or prove definitive to some policy makers. There are still well-credentialed people on both sides of many of these issues (Gadarian et al., 2022). One director of a major medical institution told me, “I still don’t know for certain that masks work because the science is all over the place, but I still wear one in certain situations.” So, she made that choice based on her judgment rooted in years of clinical work and professional experience.

The second problem emerges from wicked problems involving multiple issues with differing cost/benefit calculations that don’t lend themselves to simple data analysis pointing in the “right direction.” Consider the latest evolution of professional baseball uniforms. The performance data suggested that decreasing the size of the team’s name and removing the stitching on player uniforms would increase player speed and flexibility (Adler & Beaton, 2024). Easy decision, right? Not so quick. What about team branding and fan reaction? Bigger logos and stitching have a historical appeal to fans who identify with the team. What’s a team to do? This is the kind of decision that involves weighing some rather tangible data against more intangible, less easily quantifiable judgments.

Philosophically, IT professionals may well know this. Practically, though, many implicitly resist the judgment-based decision. There is always more data to gather, newer models to test, faster data-generating tools, quicker analytical testing, and so on. There is a certain magical allure that IT professionals find almost irresistible in practice – after all that’s how they can use their talents to solve wicked problems. But what drives executives crazy is that at some juncture, it’s going to come down to a matter of judgment. To be sure, IT products can provide guardrails and touchpoints but they can’t replace judgment (at least not yet).

Many executives would be delighted and astounded if an IT professional would say during a discussion at one these strategic inflection points, “My department can gather more information, process it quicker, and produce all kinds of enticing, fingertip information but at the end of the day, this is really a judgment call. And I’m willing to live with potential costs and likely benefits of our collective judgment regardless of which way we go. More data, faster processing, and sexier analytics will not replace our collaborative analysis and problem-solving approach.” Such sentiments temper over-reliance on an exclusively IT mind-set while cultivating cooperative decision-making practices.

In conclusion, IT professionals will continue to be seen as the Harry Potters of the working world; surrounded with a certain sense of awe and mystery. But they can remove much of the bewilderment of working relationships by proactively addressing the five tendencies discussed above. That may be the only way for organizations to realize the full potential of IT sensibilities, generate innovative value, and seize revolutionary opportunities. Strategic discussions about AI will require IT professionals who can demonstrate understanding of employees, speak in understandable terms, calculate the learning and absorption costs, become integrated with the specific needs of other functional areas, and fully assert when the organizational leaders’ collective judgment trumps insights gleaned from IT tools. Such abilities represent a different kind of wizardly skill that even Harry Potter might find enchanting.

Acknowledgments

I thank all the executives, some anonymously, who helped with this essay including George Reed, Ron Reed, Terri Pawer, Kate Burns, Michael Alexander, Dave Kievet, Robby Kerr, Jeannette Terry, George Starnes, Laurie Butz, Rosangela Berbert, Rick Fantini, Bryce Carlson, Oliver Zornow, Danielle Bina, and Shauna Froelich. And, much thanks for the wonderful editorial assistance from Laurey Clampitt.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Phillip G. Clampitt

Phillip G. Clampitt (PhD, University of Kansas), the Blair Endowed Chair of Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, was previously designated the Hendrickson Named Professor of Business. Phil has won numerous awards for his teaching and scholarship, most recently being a finalist for the University of Wisconsin Regent’s teaching award. The Wall Street Journal and MIT Sloan Management Review highlighted his work on “Decision Downloading,” which details how companies can effectively communicate decisions to those not involved in the decision-making process. His article, “Five ways leaders can turn pushback into progress”, was published by MIT Sloan Management Review and honored as one the top leadership articles of 2023. His book, Communicating for Managerial Effectiveness (Sixth edition), is a Sage Publications best seller (see www.mycmebook.net). His most recent book, Leading with Care in a Tough World, was co-authored with Bob DeKoch (see www.leadingwithcare.net).