quantmleap

It’s a common scenario. You are managing a project and something goes wrong. You are following the established processes, take corrective actions and institute preventative actions to mitigate future risks. Irrespective of what actions you take, there is always a stakeholder (and there is always at least one) that will persistently raise questions and make comments like:

• “I’m sure I’ve asked for this functionality to be included, we discussed it 6 months ago, and I can’t understand how come just now you realised it is not covered”
• “We need to get to the bottom of this now! Why did this discrepancy not identified earlier given that I’ve been pushing for this for the past 3 months.”
• “Bunch of useless operators, the worst lot I’ve ever come across…”

See the pattern? As a project manager you are mainly occupied with achieving the project’s objectives and, while learning from past mistakes, attempt to chart a path into the future.

I’ve always been fascinated by the fact that mature adults seem to expend a lot of effort on disagreeing, or more specifically, raising un-necessary obstacles and concerns on issues that don’t really matter. It’s not just that some people like to disagree and voice their opinion; it is also the conduct in which they choose to do it: Assertiveness dipped in aggressiveness and disrespect to other’s feelings. Logic suggests that while it is productive to learn from past mistakes, it is counterproductive to labour over past misdeeds, as this can bring about a sense of under achievement and reduced motivation. It is commonly accepted that following a personal loss, one is expected to ‘move on’ and carry on with ones life. Grief should be an act of retrospection but without a resolution and determination to turn a page and face the future, such experiences can end up on a more negative note than necessary. Negative self reflection and blaming games cannot result in a win-win situation. It seems nevertheless that attempting to achieve win-win results is not the most common human endeavour. In many situations, many people will tend adopt a path of behaviour that will provide them with short term satisfaction at a risk of achieving an overall negative social or organizational outcome.

Why?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values) states that “Groups, societies, or cultures have values that are largely shared by their members. The values identify those objects, conditions or characteristics that members of the society consider important; that is, valuable.” We expect people to behave in accordance with their value system. Most people go to work with the aim of doing a good job, delivering value for money, while still maintaining their personal and professional integrity. What is it then that causes ‘normal’ people to deviate from a commonly agreed value system, one that calls for compassion, co-operation and collaboration, and sways them towards a set of behaviours that they will not usually exhibit in their natural environment (e.g. when they are home with their family, surrounded by their spouse and kids)?

An interesting angle to this issue is elaborated on by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner in Freakonomics. In the chapter titled “what do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common” they expand on the theme that people’s behaviour is a function of an incentive system. Briefly, “an incentive is simply a means of urging people to do more of a good thing and less of a bad thing”. Incentive can be introduced in three flavours, being economic, social and moral. The offshoot of this idea is that when people behave in a manner contrary to that which is expected of them, at least under normal circumstances, that means there is no incentive for them to do so, or at least that if any incentives do exist, they clearly do not work.

Good, socially acceptable, behaviour in the work place, one reflecting people’s moral values and representing their preferred personality both at home and in the office does carry an incentive – a positive incentive. Failing a project delivery and not delivering business value and project objectives also carry an incentive – a negative incentive. Ensuring a project is delivered as expected carries an incentive – a positive incentive. Bullying your team and pressuring them to meet project deadlines carries an incentive – or does it? On one hand, if your organization emphasizes delivery over job satisfaction, a tough, aggressive project manager will be judged by his results and the behaviour will carry a positive incentive. If, however, employees’ well being and emotions are of value to the organization, in that case such behaviour is likely to be result in a negative incentivise.

I am yet to come across a study classifying organizations by their practiced value system (practiced as opposed to their published one – as it is possible they might not be the same). To draw from my experience it seems like most organizations value the ‘bottom line’. Delivery first and people second.

Sounds almost like a derivative of capitalism. Or is it?

Think about it?

In my previous post, ‘It’s about communication, stupid’, I have introduced the idea that the single most productive way to increase the project manager’s overall effectiveness and efficiency is by focusing on increasing the PM’s communication skills. The premise behind this assertion is that although communication is an activity carried out by the listener, the responsibility to ensure the message does get across lies with the speaker. In the context of project management, it is the responsibility of the project manager to ensure that his/her communication is correctly accepted by the intended audience of that communication.

I have also mentioned that a number of techniques, based on proven psychological models, are now available to explain communication tendencies based on personality types. Two of the main ones are the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and the DISC Assessment model. The two models provide extensive elaboration on the effect that specific personality ‘ingredients’ have on the way people communicate. Both can be used to suggest ‘pre-emptive’ actions one can use in order to minimize conflict and drive communication to a successful conclusion.

Today’s post will continue this discussion and introduce the DISC model, a simple yet powerful method for identifying people’s personality type with a focus on the impact that their personality type is likely to have on their communication style. I have decided to focus on the DISC behavioural model as, at its core, it is (in my view) easier to understand and its basic principles can be quickly grasped and implemented without major complications.

The DISC model suggests that the observed personality of people can be measured across four different dimensions and that all people exhibit all four behavioural factors in varying degrees of intensity. According to the DISC model people vary from one another by the degree in which they approach the following:

• Their preference in regards to problem solving issues
  
• Their preference in regards to how to relate to other people
  
• Their preference in regards to their surrounding and work environment
  
• Their preference in regards to keeping in line with rules and regulations
  

In line with the above, the DISC model identifies the following four personality types:

Dominance

Dominance – People with a ‘D’ behavioural tendency will demonstrate leadership qualities and quick problem solving attitude. They will strive to tackle the issue head-on and attempt to quickly understand the core issues at the heart of the problem, so they can quickly formulate an opinion and suggestions regarding their approach to have the problem resolved. As they hone down on the problem domain they will tend to ask ‘what’ questions (e.g. ‘what is the status of activity X’) as this type of questions calls for a specific and relatively binary (i.e. Yes/No) reply.

As they want to reach a resolution quickly they will, most likely, spend little or no time on small talk, they will be direct and blunt in their communication and could easily be perceived as lacking sensitivity and empathy.

If your PM is a ‘D’ here’s what you need to do/know:

1. Don’t ‘waste’ their time with small talk (it’s not that they don’t care about you, they do, but their mind is continuously thinking about the problem at-hand and how to get it resolved).
   
2. Talk to the point; communicate the relevant facts, conclusions and actions you intend to take in order to get the issues resolved.
   
3. Don’t get discouraged by their blunt and direct approach, it’s not you, it’s them.
   

If your team member is a ‘D’ here’s what you need to do/know:

1. As they exhibit quick problem solving attitude they might not go through the due diligence that you expect. Make sure they present you with their plan before they start on what they believe to be the correct course of action.
   
2. They like to make decisions and would appreciate it if you grant them the authority to take charge. Having said that, as mentioned above, make sure you monitor their progress and insist on obtaining their plan of attack prior to the work taking place.

Influence

Influence – People with ‘I’ behavioural tendency will demonstrate an outgoing approach towards other people. They will be talkative, expressive and sociable in the way they communicate and express themselves to others. Individuals with a natural disposition for an ‘I’ oriented behaviour will most likely be people oriented, seek to be the centre of attention, and demonstrate enthusiasm and energy when communicating. As their prime concern is the people with whom they communicate, their natural question will most often be ‘who’ (e.g. ‘who else will be working with me on this assignment?’) as they will mostly be concerned with their ability to remain the centre of attention while engaging with other people.

‘I’ people will be less concerned about reaching a resolution to the problem as much as they will be concerned about talking their way to a recognized resolution. They will spend a lot of time telling other people about their experience on working in similar circumstances, looking for the attention and recognition they feel they deserve.

If your PM is an ‘I’ here’s what you need to do/know:

1. Be prepared for long and animated discussions.
   
2. Don’t confuse them with information about themselves, unless the point of your story is actually them.
   

If your team member is an ‘I’ here’s what you need to do/know:

1. As they are mainly focused on themselves they might not give enough attention to the details you require. Make sure to state your requirements to them in a clear and definitive way.
   
2. They like to talk, and when you ask them for an update they will, if you let them, talk about every single aspect of their work they enables them to glorify themselves. Make sure they understand your reporting requirements and reporting style and insist that they comply.

Steadiness

Steadiness – People with a ‘S’ behavioural tendency will demonstrate clear preference towards a controlled and stable environment. Their attitude towards change would be cautious at best and if possible they will tend to shy away from high risk, change provoking, situations. Due to their innate desire to ‘keep the peace’ they are likely to be accommodating to other people needs, and will often attempt to find a common thread and a mutually agreed solution to complicated disagreements. As they dislike change, their natural question will most often be ‘how’ (e.g. ‘how will you perform this task?’), as they will seek to confirm that no out of the ordinary, change provoking, actions will be required in order to achieve the desired objectives.

If your PM is an ‘S’ here’s what you need to do/know:

1. Expect a friendly and supportive environment.
   
2. Expect not to be bombarded with harsh demands and tight deadlines.
   
3. Let them know early about any issues or risks you’ve identified as they will require time to digest the information and formulate their opinion.
   

If your team member is an ‘S’ here’s what you need to do/know:

1. They like to follow standards and procedures. If you intend to break any ‘rules’ make sure you discuss them earlier on to give them time to adjust.
   
2. As they are people oriented, be prepared to listen to them.
   
3. Follow up as they have difficulty prioritising tasks and would therefore have some difficulty meeting your deadlines.

Conscientious

Conscientious – People with a ‘C’ behavioural tendency will demonstrate clear preference towards sticking to established procedures and guidelines. They will often be the ones saying “that’s how we’ve always done it” and will promote doing things “the right way”. They will be analytical in their approach and accurate and orderly in their performance. As they like to adhere to established routines, their most likely question will be ‘why’ as they will try to understand the reason for doing things in one way or another, and attempt to map that against known standards and procedures.

If your PM is a ‘C’ here’s what you need to do/know:

1. Expect the focus to be on accuracy and adherence to standards and procedures.
   
2. They will want to know why you chose one approach as opposed to another.
   
3. Being reserved and task oriented they will spend some time analysing your report and then reply with a detailed set of instructions.
   

If your team member is a ‘C’ here’s what you need to do/know:

1. Make sure to explain your expectations and the reasoning behind them.
   
2. You won’t need to worry about them breaking away from existing standards and procedures.
   
3. Be ready to receive detailed progress reports.
   
4. They will be comfortable working on their own.
   

Identifying each of your stakeholders’ dominant personality type will assist you in tailoring your communication style in order to achieve your communication objectives and maintain or even improve your relationship with them.

Until next time.

Over the past few months I’ve been conducting an unofficial survey amongst professional colleagues and friends where I sought to obtain their response to the following question: “In your professional history, in those instances where you have been reporting to another manager, can you recall whether or not your manager has taken concrete, planned, actions aimed at progressing your professional career?” In other words, what I set up to investigate was whether or not people on my professional network have had positive experience with their managers, where their managers have taken it upon themselves to assist them in becoming better professionals. If I wanted to be even more blunt I would phrase the question as follows: “has any of your past managers actually did their job and met their professional obligations towards you?“.

You’d better pause here for a moment and think about this question for a moment. What was your experience like?

I’m certain you will not be surprised to hear that in the majority of the cases (probably over 90% of those asked) the answer was a resounding ‘NO‘, suggesting that the very people to whom they were reporting did not take the responsibility for their direct reports’ professional growth.

The reason I was not surprise is because my professional experience of almost 30 years has been exactly the same. I can say quite categorically that I have never met a manager that has demonstrated the basic interest in the growth of his employees. Sure, they were all concerned about the timeliness and quality of their direct report’s deliverables but assumed that the responsibility for ensuring their long term capability growth lies with somebody else, and not with them.

You might think that the situation would be different in project environments. After all the PMI strongly advocates a project management process which attends to the development of project team members. The PMBoK, in the Human Resource Management Knowledge Area discusses (in section 9.3 – Develop Project Team) the need to improve the competencies of team members in order to improve the overall performance of the project team. The guide identifies a number of tools and techniques aimed at achieving  this goal, and mentions, amongst others, the need to apply coaching and provide training, but no meaningful or detailed information is provided as to how this could be done in a project environment, where delivery pressures are always present. Irrespective of the above though, given the usual constraints imposed on projects where cost, time and quality issues seem to take precedence over all other issues, project managers are unlikely to rate the long term professional well being of their team members above the immediate project pressures, and as such the chances of project managers taking active interest in the long term professional development of their teams are low at best.

So we are back to square one.

There is clearly a need for a revolutionary change of attitude at all management levels. The Theory of Constraints teaches us that an organizational process is only as robust as it’s weakest component. The discussion above suggests that as far as staff development is concerned the chain as a whole is weak. Fixing this massive management deficiency requires slow but continuous improvement, where individual components are strengthened independently with the expectation that total chain improvement will only be achieved in the long run, once all parts have been similarly improved. Sounds abstract? Let me elaborate. If you, yes I’m referring to YOU, take up the commitment to improve your staff management attitude and commence taking planned, concrete measures to increase their long term efficiency and performance, that will be like fixing one component of your organizational weak chain. Most likely, when your direct reports become managers in their own right, they will implement the techniques they’ve learned from you (yes YOU) and a new generation of effective managers will emerge. That’s few more links in the chain. Imagine other managers making a similar commitment and voila, we’ve got a revolution underway.

The above discussion brings to mind the following story (based, as far as I understand on “The Star Thrower” by Loren Eiseley, 1907 – 1977):

Once a man was walking along a beach. The sun was shining and it was a beautiful day. Off in the distance he could see a person going back and forth between the surf’s edge and and the beach. Back and forth this person went. As the man approached he could see that there were hundreds of starfish stranded on the sand as the result of the natural action of the tide.

The man was stuck by the apparent futility of the task. There were far too many starfish. Many of them were sure to perish. As he approached the person continued the task of picking up starfish one by one and throwing them into the surf.

As he came up to the person he said, “You must be crazy. There are thousands of miles of beach covered with starfish. You can’t possibly make a difference.” The person looked at the man. He then stooped down and pick up one more starfish and threw it back into the ocean. He turned back to the man and said, “It sure made a difference to that one!”

It is up to you and no excuse in the world can change this reality. What would you do about it?

I hope you enjoyed this article. To help promote this site please do (one or all of) the following:
1. Share this article with others by using the ‘Sharing is caring’ buttons below.
2. Rate the article (using the Star Rating below). This will help me understand which posts hit the mark and which ones don’t. Try it out now, it’s fun.
3. Use the ‘Subscribe’ option at the top right corner of this page to receive notifications of future articles directly into your rss reader.

Until next time.