I was reading Tacitus, a first century Roman historian, and in doing so was drawn to a recorded dialog between a Parthian prince and his subjugated listeners, “Might is right with those who are at the summit of power,” he admonishes them. His words echoed the Athenian edict of almost 500 years earlier. Well-armed Athens was ruthlessly and causelessly annihilating the tiny island of Milos. Thucydides tells us the Athenians justified their actions with, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Thus, was handed down the rationalization that “might makes right.”
Now, this Parthian prince was destroyed by Rome and great Athens was subdued by an even greater Sparta, so one might conclude that “might makes right” is not the foremost criterion. Nevertheless, it persists as a philosophy of implementation. While I indeed have experienced this “might makes right” attitude with decision makers, my focus here is not on management, about which much has been written, but on the technology wizard, about which little has been composed.
Do technologists sometimes operate by this philosophy that “might makes right?” Yes, in the sense that a high technology reputation is often falsely equated with technology judgement. Or, similarly, that favorite projects, funded and already in place, are treated by technologists as sacrosanct and perfect: regardless of the facts otherwise and irrespective of the lack of results.
It happens like this. Technologists frustrate themselves trying to get a project funded and resources in place. This particular type effort is exhausting because technologists get scant fulfillment in producing reports, inking schedules, and forecasting outcomes. (“That’s a job for bean counters,” they would say.) Thus, once a team is formed and a project is in place, once the equipment arrives and the research begins, once salaries hit the payroll, technologists naturally want to continue the research and sustain the project indefinitely. Unfortunately, projects are thereafter often sustained even in the face of negative results and patent failures. Technologists keep pushing the decision makers to continue the project, give it more budget, hold the team together, citing reason after reason why the project should not only be continued, but elevated. “We can’t quit now, we’re almost there.” “The competition has nothing like this.” “We’ll take the market by storm.” These allusions may or may not be true. The unbiased and sincere evaluator must ascertain progress against quantifiable, targeted outcomes.
Now, the decision makers are not entirely faultless, here, as they may ignore what is said and they obviously have their own biases. Nevertheless, the decision makers rely upon their technologists to give them valid and factual assessments of the technology, the competition, the issues, and the portents. Projects that have budget often get more budget, not because the technology cries out with results, but because high-level technologists cry out, because momentum is great, reputations are huge, researchers are in place, and because warning signs are ignored – by the technologists who do the evaluating.
History is replete with examples. In the first draft of this blog I listed over half a dozen projects and companies where the technologists, themselves, almost carried the company into default. After my review, I realized that technologists would read those examples and say, “That wasn’t engineering’s fault. The marketing was poor. Management was just hosed up. They kept reducing the funding. The company was slow to react.” And, the list would go on.
But, the issue I am called to address is that technologists often let their own egos, established fiefdoms, and historical budgets dictate the technology plan instead of working with the decision makers to properly evaluate the direction the company should take. It is difficult to make those hard decisions and cancel a project or shift the funding elsewhere. No one, absolutely no one, likes to do that. Especially when jobs are at stake and reputations are on the line. It is easiest to stay with the status quo. (“No one ever made a mistake by going with ‘Big Blue'” is an ancient aphorism to point). I understand all that, but as a technology wizard, your job is to make an honest assessment. You must have integrity and not let internal feeling or external influences deter you from a proper evaluation of the technology projects.
Once given the facts, decision makers can decide whatever they like. That is their job. Your job as a technology wizard is to make factual, quantifiable, candid reports as to the efficacy, output, and future of each project.
Examine the facts. Listen to all the opinions of the team. Seek council with peers. Abandon stubbornness, ego, and historical precedence. Don’t base your decision on, “I made my assessment and that makes it right.” Base your assessment on quantifiable facts, clear goals, technology acumen, and a thorough analysis of variables. Don’t let “might makes right” produce disaster for you, your teammates, or your company.