Think Globally, Act Locally

 Anyone who grew up in the 1970s through the 1990s probably recognizes the slogan “Think globally, act locally” from bumper stickers, t-shirts, and activist advertisements of the era, but I think this slogan actually has a lot of value for us to consider as leaders. In this context, I use “globally” to mean the entire organization and “locally” to mean your department, team, or unit that you manage. As leaders, we should always be thinking about the overall organization and how what we do impacts it, either positively or negatively. We should strive to align our actions with the common goals and objectives of the business, always pressing to further those as much as possible. This thinking recognizes the limitations of our reach as individual leaders, and brings to mind the sphere of influence concept:

There are things that we can control which are our own actions, the actions of subordinates, and the actions that the units we lead take. Then there are those things that we can influence (but not control) which are our peers and possibly our leaders through discussion and debate in meetings, emails, etc. Then there are those things that are completely outside of our control such as organization strategy, board and executive leader decisions, market pressures, and regulations. Basically, what this whole model shows us is that while we strive to help the organization move the needle on its objectives, we should put most of our concentration on those actions that we can directly control and the rest on what we think we can influence and align those actions with the goals of the greater organization, which is mostly outside of our influence.

At the end of the day, our responsibility as leaders is to do what we can to contribute to the success of the organizations for which we work. In order to do that effectively, we have to think about our organization (thinking globally) and align the actions of the units or departments that we lead with the goals of our organization (acting locally). If we always act and make decisions with the goals and objectives of the overall organization in mind and not just what is good for our teams and departments, we will find ourselves contributing and influencing more and more how our organization performs against those goals. You see our actions have influence beyond just the outcome of those actions. How we get to those actions can influence how others outside of our control think about and decide their actions and can have the effect of creating more unity around organizational goals.

Are Are Today’s IT Worker’s Missing Out on Understanding the Demands of the Job?

 

When I first started my career, back in the days of the dinosaurs 😊, positions in IT required a university degree. Coming from that background myself, having earned both an undergraduate and a master's degree, I initially supported this approach. As I moved into leadership and evaluated the fast-changing landscape of IT, I started questioning whether traditional degrees were necessary for success in the rapidly changing IT field. My experience with university education, both from a personal perspective and those that I have worked with over the years, is that most university educations taught outdated and obsolete technology and don’t really prepare employees for the technical aspects of their jobs. This led me to re-evaluate hiring practices, and I began prioritizing specific skill sets and certifications over formal education. It seemed like a win-win: employees gained valuable, job-ready skills quickly, and organizations benefited from their immediate contributions.

However, after several years of hiring employees without degrees, I began to notice a concerning pattern. Many of these employees, often younger and without formal university training, did not seem to understand the full demands of a salaried IT job. Unlike their counterparts with degrees, they appeared to expect a strict 40-hour workweek and consistently sought comp time or flex time for any hours worked beyond that.

When I reflect on my own experience, I realize that my time in university wasn’t just about learning technical skills. It also prepared me for the realities of a professional career. In college, it was regularly emphasized that certain fields, like accounting and IT, required flexibility. There were times when more than 40 hours a week would be expected, whether due to month-end closings or critical system maintenance. These discussions helped me understand that salaried positions often come with an expectation of extra time and effort, and the compensation reflected this.

In contrast, employees without university backgrounds often don’t seem to arrive with this understanding. While they are more technically proficient, they might not anticipate the broader responsibilities that come with a salaried role. This has emerged not just at one company, but across different employers and cities.

To be clear, my observations are anecdotal and may not fully capture the root cause of this issue. It’s possible that what I’m seeing is more of a generational shift, with younger workers in general expecting a stricter work-life balance. Or, perhaps, the trend reflects a difference in how skills-based training programs prepare individuals for the professional world compared to a traditional university experience.

As IT leaders, it’s worth considering whether this is an issue of education or simply evolving workplace expectations. While I don’t have a clear solution yet, I believe this is a topic that deserves attention. How can we better set expectations for new hires who come through non-traditional education pathways? Should we do more to explain the demands of salaried IT roles during onboarding? Or is this part of a larger shift toward rethinking work-life balance in tech?

I’m curious if others have noticed similar patterns. And if so, what steps have you taken to address this challenge?