Blog of Roger Greene, CEO

Okay, those are words I thought I’d never say.

I read an article about Ballmer a few months ago in which he said he had gone completely paperless. He used a laptop/tablet and various collaboration tools. That got me thinking. Paperless has been a stated goal of the computing industry for decades. Yet it remained on the horizon, like a mirage that never gets closer. I bet if you graphed consumption of printer paper over the years you’d see a steady increase, maybe even an acceleration. Years ago, a few weeks after Bill Gates famously hyped the paperless capabilities of an early tablet, he was seen taking notes in meetings with a pen and standard yellow pad. So much for paperless.

I figured that Ballmer is a pragmatic guy, and he did say, after all, that he had gone paperless, not that he was going to. So I thought I would give it a try. After a couple of months of working paperless (well, more precisely and to perhaps coin a term, lesspaper), I think a change may be in the air. I anticipated going paperless to be an annoyance, and I’m finding that I usually now prefer it. I discovered that marking up documents actually works better for me than writing on printouts. For starters, I and others can read what I wrote, which is sadly often not the case for my handwriting. I have access to the documents from any of several machines, and they provide a history of notes for future reference, whereas paper usually gets buried or thrown away. My notes are vastly easier to share with others.

This feels like an important time for computing, during which software vendors will have to rethink their products and how they are consumed. Paperless is one aspect of the changes that will have implications for the whole industry. It is our job to figure out those implications for IT and produce software that makes it possible for people to easily and securely benefit from these trends.

More on this another time…

Lance Armstrong has been in increasingly hot water for the past few years. With the release of the USADA report, it hit the boiling point. Even though I had thought for some time that Armstrong used banned substances, I was shocked at what the report revealed. What bothered me most was not that Armstrong doped. The pressures to succeed in bicycling are huge, the drugs were readily available, and the cycling organizations were never serious about enforcing the rules. This created a fertile environment for abuse. After the Festina and Floyd Landis scandals, among others, as well as accusations from Armstrong’s peers, to learn that he had become yet another dethroned Tour champion was no surprise. What bothered me so much was that Armstrong used his role as the leader to mislead his riders (“Don’t worry about it, it’s just vitamins”) and then, when they learned the truth, to pressure them to continue to take the banned substances or be kicked off the team. His will to win was so warped that he could coerce good people to make decisions that will shame and haunt them forever.

Although I think all of the cyclists who doped bear responsibility, I am not so sure what you or I would do in their place. Many had given up college for cycling – it was their dream and their all-consuming life. Imagine being inspired as a kid by Breaking Away. Imagine living that dream and discovering that the only way to sustain it was to continue down a path you had been manipulated to embark on. It is hard to know what any of us would do under the same circumstances, under the same pressure. Some cyclists had families to support. If they didn’t dope, they’d be kicked off the team. They learned that doping was common on other teams. Without the prestige of being a Tour rider, they would suffer economically.

While I have some sympathy for the other riders, I have none for Armstrong. He violated his responsibility as the team’s leader. He had economic and career power over these athletes. He used that power to push them down a cruel path that decimated their reputations and disillusioned millions of people.

During the height of Armstrong’s Tour prestige, someone told me that such accomplishments in a team sport like cycling require superb management and leadership. He said that Armstrong must have exhibited such exemplary leadership. It turned out to be an illusion. What Armstrong had were too much power, a willingness to cheat and coerce others to, and no regard for the consequences for his teammates, to say nothing of his and cycling’s fans.

Leadership is not just about bottom line results. It is also about managing in a sustainable way that respects and develops the team while adhering to core values. Armstrong flunked that test and deserves the hot water.

P.S. I admire Greg LeMond‘s courage in speaking out over the years at great personal cost. I believe in his integrity. (If you want more of a sense of LeMond, listen to this compelling half-hour interview.) I recall the thrill of his victories and look forward to a future where victory again is based on great athleticism combined with superb leadership and teamwork.