In any organization that builds things there is a need for someone that looks across all work to make sure things are being built well. Otherwise, the same problems will be solved in different ways, the same work will be done multiple times, and people will make siloed decisions without organization-wide context. In organizations that are large enough this is not just a job for one person but for a team. This takes different forms in various organizations, sometimes called Enterprise Architecture, or Organization Quality, or Quality Circles. They may also look at specific parts of a solution or techniques, like legal council or security.
There are different types of these groups. Legal council has specialized knowledge and is accountable when something goes wrong, for instance when a firm is sued. Security is the same way with data breaches. Their posture is one of protection. QA is similar as is HR. All of these groups are focused on reducing risk to the organization, and all have clear accountabilities when something goes wrong.
For EA in most organizations, these accountabilities are unclear. EA makes decisions but IT is accountable if something goes wrong.
Often Enterprise Architecture stands out from teams that build things in that they do not have authority except for veto power. They can kill projects and impede timelines. Without engagement, the build teams will react to a veto in one of two ways: fight or flight. For the former, political in-fighting ensues, and for the latter they will engage as little as possible. Neither is healthy. In the best case, a partnership is formed so this veto power need not be weilded. This should be the objective of Enterprise Architects.
This of course is a partnership among non-equals. One clearly has more power than the other. And this is key - the higher power (EA) must focus on increasing the power of the build teams - power cannot be stagnant, it must grow and expand.
Why is this true? Because the group with more power must compel the lower power to act without force. The lower power must understand the reasoning and trust that the higher power is working in the organization’s best interest. The lower power must also know that the higher power is listening and takes their concerns into account. Once this takes place, the team with less power can grown in understanding and alignment, and therefore has more ability to influence decisions. In other words, the goal needs to be taking the training wheels off. The higher power has not transferred power, but rather has created new power through sharing perspectives and has expanded what the organization can achieve.
Many Enterprise Architects do not operate in this way. There is a common perception of Enterprise Architects as dogmatic, pedantic, and/or aloof. Where might this arise from? Dogmatism could arise from a fear of new ideas, loosing control, or being seen as foolish. Pedants may want to show off their expertise, fear being seen as foolish, try to exert control to avoid being misinterpreted, or fear being judged. Aloofness may come about through fear of making a mistake / not knowing the subject matter or unaligned priorities / passions.
In short, there are 3 main causes at the individual level - the fears of loosing control, being dumb, or overall misalignment.
What would be causing dogmatic, pedantic, and/or aloof Architects to join (or grow into) the organization in the first place? The most obvious answer is a leader that is dogmatic, pedantic, and/or aloof. What if the leader is not that way? What are the things that he/she is looking for or valuing in Enterprise Architects that is mis-interpreted?
The positive corollary attributes are objective, thorough, and wise. My hypothesis is that a leader would be looking for these qualities. The leader could judge incorrectly, which could be because the leader is not skilled at assessing these qualities or because they cannot be assessed well ahead of time with current methods. The leader could also judge correctly, which means that the negative qualities only show up later or with other individuals.
The end result is that Enterprise Architects have a much bigger job than first understood, not only are they responsible for sound architecture, but they are more importantly necessarily responsible for the growth of the teams in their care. It is only through growth that Enterprise Architects can successfully influence an organization and achieve positive outcomes over the long term.