Voting along party lines

Election time is an apt occasion for reflecting on what politicians refer to as your core values, and I hope to make that phrase meaningful for perhaps the first time. Four years turns out to be a pretty good cycle for such examinations, even beyond the political realm.

As will most voters, most IT decision-makers and professional technologists -- the base that I consider relevant -- will tell you that they're freethinkers who aren't given to voting along party lines. I submit that most do vote consistently and predictably. Barring some catastrophic outcome from a prior decision, what you might call your core values are variations of deciding factors you settled on long ago. You can list the qualities that you consider most important in the candidates you choose for your communications infrastructure, partner relationships, workers, business processes, or vendors. Your areas of influence have changed as your career has moved forward, and technology hands you a new slate of candidates each time you cast a major ballot, but there are connections between the buying and hiring decisions you make now and those you've made since the day you crossed over from apprentice to professional.

You and everyone working for you have voting records worthy of critical examination. It isn't a matter of determining a right or wrong position but rather to accept that you and others have an overall consistency of criteria. When you examine and accept this in those areas where it applies, you'll learn what everyone but you likely already knows: Many of your votes are cast before the candidates get a chance to debate.

You're not alone if you make a show of casting a wide net for each of the major decisions you make. Spending or choosing well is presumed to be a matter of considering all of one's options. It isn't. The fact that you're still working in IT instead of waiting tables is a testament to the effectiveness of the bulk of the positions you've taken, even those that struck others as narrow-minded. Don't worry about that. Just set a standard by forcing others to go through the motions of driving down every possible avenue leading to a solution.

It's OK, even preferable, to vote predictably when the decision-making workflow is halted at your desk. "Let's go with this and leave room in the architecture for alternatives" is a great answer when it comes from someone with a track record of making good decisions. Get the machinery rolling quickly and work as few points of no return into your strategy as possible. The dread of having to change horses midstream leads to needlessly long decision paths and forces decision-makers into defensive positions when problems arise. Not only is this counterproductive, it harms the reputation of the person who reacts to criticism defensively.

Your position affords you quiet periods during which you can and should see what's out there. But don't be impulsive or impatient when you spot an opportunity to shift your point of view. In other words, don't try to make changes to your core values on your way to the ballot box, especially if your motivation is to impress someone with your flexibility. The consistent decision criteria you use have probably served you well. But do look at alternatives -- not for the vote you have to cast now, but for the next election. There is always another election.