FOUR SAMPLE HBS ESSAYS, WITH COMMENTS
CHANGE ESSAY 3 — Savvy IT Consultant With Perhaps Too Much Attitude
As an Information Technology consultant to a major state’s Department of Motor Vehicles [DOMV], I led a 22 person cross-functional decison team (technical and management) in selecting a single vendor (from six) for a $10 million ‘call center’ upgrade.
My first hurdle was credibility. I was a twenty-eight year old consultant and most of the DOMV managers were older, sometimes by 10 years or more. I was extremely respectful to everyone, even going so far as to call senior people ‘Mr.’ or ‘Ms’ until asked to use their first name. I also made it a point of meeting individually with 10 leading managers my first two days on the job and personally asking for their help. Many Motor Vehicle senior people were ‘political’ and I made it a point to respect that as the ‘corporate culture’ (it helped that my Dad had been a state ‘lifer’ although not in this state). But I also confirmed from my consulting company that the very reason we were brought in was to make a merit decision. (This is not always the case.)
After ‘earning’ some good faith, I then made it clear, through weekly memos, technical reports, and meetings, that I was firm about reaching an objective decision. I actually made the process more quantative than strictly necessary. The danger of running this ‘wizard’ show was not getting full information about each department’s needs, but I tried to do that informally. Also, my clear objectivity ‘freed’ up the internal technical people, who proved very helpful.
When disagreements emerged, I resorted to an ‘objective scoring process’ to build consensus. At one point, I had to initiate a second round of scoring. I could have been more of “a people” person but given my age, the internal culture, and the limited task, the ‘super straight arrow’ model worked. [word count --303]
| Comment: A paradoxical topic, perhaps more suited to Q. 1 about leadership than this question because this answer is not really about how the writer helped an organization change, it is about how the writer helped an organization change computers, a key difference. One of the charms of this essay, in fact, is the writer’s awareness that he is not going to change this organization, it’s a bunch of Motor Vehicle ‘state-lifer’ types, and nobody is going to change that. The writer is smart enough to work around the political culture with his ‘wizard’ show (a great term I had never heard before). The writer is further aware enough to know that possibly he overdid the ‘straight arrow’ routine, but it was an acceptable strategy given the situation. Like most good essays (but see below) it gains force by self-awareness. In addition to discussing some business ‘buzz’ words (establishing respect, earning good will, respecting the corporate culture) we also have the author convincingly reflecting on his motives (maybe he was too much a straight arrow, he was putting on a wizard show, he understood the culture because his father had worked in a similar one). This essay runs a risk that you may not like this guy. He is both technical and crafty at the same time. I like this guy, but I am a little more cynical than the average HBS essay reader, who is more often than not a politcally-correct, therapeutically oriented, do-gooder type with a strong commitment to process. That type of reader might criticize the author for being elitist (he knows best), patronizing (intentionally calling his elders Mr and Ms) and anti-democratic (obscuring the consensus process with a ‘wizard’ show, and bragging about it in the essay). That all sounds a little nutty to me (I’ve worked in state government and know this situation exactly), but I’m not an admissions officer. You could make a strong case, given that possible critique, to change or abandon this essay. If other parts of the app. confirmed the “elitist” “wizard” picture, it could be fatal. Also realize that readers are not Saints and possibly not genius critics either. It is possible for this essay to annoy someone who could not really explain why, but the author would pay the price anyway. The writer does not have the chance to argue back. Personality in an essay is a strong suit, but subtle “attitude” can be deadly. Bear in mind that the subtext of every answer is a picture of you that the reader is drawing. You do get credit for your achievements, but the essays are mostly a way to get beyond your achievements, or more precisely, to use your achievements to show who you are. That is why the directions point you away from the facts and into the process. Describe how you were an effective leader, not what you accomplished, list how you helped change an organization, not what the change was, etc. OK? So would I advise submitting this essay? It would depend on the rest of the app. Usually disturbing traits (bragging, overstatement, lecturing, anger, pay-back, insecurity, fuzziness, immaturity, Pollyanna-ism, whining, shrillness, egotism, sexism) in one essay appear in all the essays. If the alleged elitism and smarmy self-satisfaction (‘Oh he is a happy straight arrow isn’t he’) in this essay were isolated, I would go with it. I still think it’s a strong essay. If it were all over the app., I would hold an intervention with the writer and his friends and family to cure it. |
