quantmleap

Just when you thought it is safe to go back to work, a 2009 study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation, and which was set to explore the use of media by young people (age 8 to 18 – born between 1991 – 2001) has found out (amongst other things) that:

1. Young people were found to devote an average of seven hours and 38 minutes to daily media use (an increase of 20% from an earlier study conducted in 2004 – in which it was found that the time spent on media use was 6 hours and 21 minutes).
2. The level of multi-tasking (i.e a combined use of varying modes of media simultaneously [for example, watching the TV, while at the same time browsing the net and sending a text message]) has increased from 26% in 2004 to 29% in 2009.

I’ve mentioned in an earlier post a 2008 study by Accenture that made the observation that people who were born between 1977 and 1997 (i.e. people who would be today at the age of 13 to 23 – corresponding roughly with Generation Y) expect their schools and employers to respect their IT preferences, including their computers and applications and that students and employees in the above age group would show a preference to use instant messaging, text messaging, and RSS feeds to communicate with their peers, clients and customers. The study further found that over a quarter of the employees surveyed use technology that is unsupported and unsanctioned by their employer. Amongst Gen Y employees, almost half reported that they use social networks, blogs, vlogs, or Twitter without having their IT departments’ approval.

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s study provide further reasons for concerns in Corporate HR and recruitment departments. The trend reported on in the Accenture report seems to be intensified with a generation, that is yet to enter the workforce, who’s time management attitude are or particular concern.

On one hand there will be the issue of over dependency on media, including the constant need to use social media tools in order to keep in touch with and keep track of family and friends. There is also an increased probability that there will be an increase in the unauthorized use of social media.

On the other hand, the over reliance on multi-tasking, the productivity impact of which has now been well and truly understood as having negative influence on corporate and project performances.

The trends shown in recent studies are not a real concern and should not be used as reasons to be alarmed. What they do however, is raise the awareness that the appropriate training and policies will need to be put in place in order to ensure that once this generation joins the workplace, they are able to be integrated in the smoothest and painless way possible. Project Managers who are on the recruitment path will need to be aware of the generational attitudes of this generation (fondly called Generation M² – as in ‘Multi-Media) while they make their HR decisions.

On a lighter note, this is what Mike Melanson from ReadWriteWeb.com had to say about this issue:

“With teens spending more time with media in a week than the average person does at a full-time day job, we can only wonder what this next generation will look like as they enter the work force.

Oh wait, are they called “bloggers”?

Have a great week.

Demian Entrekin has posted an article titled “What is the IQ of your Project Team“ where he proposes a set of variables that could be used to measure the team’s performance over time. The variables he suggests used are Skills, Ability to Learn, Experience, Speed, Communication, Unity, Curiosity and Openess.

Whereas I like his idea I would like to suggest we expand this concept and device the appropriate means to identify and manage the Project Team’s Emotional Intelligence (also referred to as ‘EQ’). In a nutshell, EQ refers to the capacity of individuals and teams to assess and then manage their emotions. In the context of a project team, the application of EQ will relate to the ability of the project team to identify, assess and then manage its interpersonal interactions. While there is no single definition for EQ, it is commonly accepted that it will include variables like Self Awareness, Social Awareness, Emotional Management, Change Management, and Self Motivation.

The rational behind the proposal to monitor a team’s EQ is based on the documented observation that teams with a higher EQ operate better than teams with an observed lower EQ. A research conducted by Australian researchers concluded that increase in the level of tested EQ resulted in improved decision making capabilities and ultimately an improved team effectiveness.

So, how would you increase your team’s EQ?

There are numerous techniques for improving team’s EQ and they include activities aimed at increasing Trust, Problem Solving, Listening, Appreciation, Solution Focused and others. See, for example, here and here. What ever method you choose to use don’t forget that the future of your project is largely in the hands of your team and as you fulfil your professional obligation to develop your team you really help them help you meet your project objectives.

I call this a win-win solution. Don’t you?

Gill Corkindale has published an interesting article dealing with the concept of ‘In leaders’ and ‘out leaders’. The definition of ‘in’ and ‘out’ is based on the amount of time that a leader spends with his/her team (in which case that would be ‘in’ leadership) and how much is spent with the wider organization (‘out’ leadership).

This question is very relevant to project managers who are required to spend and allocate time across a number of stakeholders, and finding the right mix could make or break the projects’ success.

Gill’s conclusion, as you would expect, is that executives need to balance the time they spend in both the In and Out arenas.  She also adds the observation that in addition to spending ‘In’ and ‘Out’ time, managers should also allocate time, separate from the above, to reflect on the time they spend. This, I guess, in another way of saying the managers need to plan their time. Planning the time is an additional dimension I would associate with project communication – the success of which can have profound implications on the perception of whether the project has run successfully or not.

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?

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.