Sure, we know that project managers can save their organizations by delivering projects that improve competitiveness in the marketplace or increase profitability. But according to new research, that's not all.
According to a study by Christopher G. Myers, Bradley R. Staats and Francesca Gino, project managers can do something else: help the organization learn better from failure. The authors did not mention project managers specifically, but bear with me for a few paragraphs and I will make the case.
The researchers found that one barrier to organizations learning from failure is "high perceived ambiguity of responsibility." Put in more basic terms, when responsibility for actions was not clear to workers, the tendency was to attribute failure to a source outside of their control. This tendency keeps the workforce - the organization - from learning from failure. This is why organizations continue to make the same mistakes.
Conversely, when workers perceived low ambiguity of responsibility - higher clarity on who is responsible for what - their tendency is to focus on themselves when attributing causes of failure. They then learn from failure. The organization as a whole can then improve.
Now think about this: One of your responsibilities as a project manager is to organize work and assign responsibility. So it follows that by doing this well, you are a key facilitator of organizational learning. Doing the following can help your organization improve:
It seems simple to have clear tasks assigned to individuals, so people underestimate the work it takes to do this right on a continual basis. You should not underestimate the difficulty. You should also realize that by doing so, you help workers take responsibility for their own tasks.
The more we know about the benefits of project management, the closer we appear to being super heroes. Maybe we should be wearing Spandex and capes!
OK, that might be going too far.
The point of my last post was that coaching is both necessary and complex. Thinking about complexity we were focusing on remote coaching of diverse individuals. Consider the complexity of coaching when you have individuals from different nationalities, work cultures, religions, geographies, ethnicities, economies, assumptions about working with supervisors, and so on.
Try these tips for coaching at a distance. They do not replace general good coaching practice, just help you with the special situation of diversity at a distance. (The term "coachee" refers to the individual who you are coaching.)
With this special preparation and interaction, you can take an important step to getting the performance you need from your diverse and far-flung project team.
You hear people say things like, "If you take away everything but my ability to (sell, speak to the public, etc.), I will survive." For project managers, increasingly, coaching is becoming one of those skills. It is a skill so valuable that it can make up for weaknesses in other skills. Certainly it's saved me from difficult situations over the years.
Coaching in today's projects is as necessary as it is complex.
It is necessary because you need those who report to you (solid line or dotted line) to be at top performance. This includes contingent workers who may be new to your organization or entering your project mid-stream. It is necessary because there are times where you have to intervene quickly before one problem starts a stream of other problems. It is necessary when you must stop interpersonal conflicts before they make things worse in your project.
But, perhaps more importantly, this is becoming more common: project workers are not trained enough early on, leaving you or your designees to train during your project. Much of this training will have to be completed as coaching.
But - make no mistake - coaching can be complex, made more difficult when you are not geographically co-located. You may not see the individual's facial expressions or body posture, always very important, and you may have some cultural differences that keep you from that initial full understanding that is imperative to coming to a resolution.
What to coach about related to performance does not change even if someone is far away and in different culture. Just a few examples:
These are potentially difficult topics, and if you are working with a diverse workforce, you have to prepare in a special way to be sure you get it right, despite your desire to move quickly before things get any worse.
In a couple of days, I'll post tips for coaching "diversity remotely." Until then, consider the answer to this question about remote coaching: What letter does the best coaching question begin with?
New research helps us understand how to use collaboration better - and the findings do not mesh with what is currently fashionable.
The guidance we are hearing now promotes collaboration strongly. This story by NPR, for example, explains how workers are being tagged and tracked to determine how they use and move about the workspace. The objective is to design workspaces so that workers interact more efficiently. The article mentions experimentation using different snacks to find which is better to get people to congregate more in the break room.
What you know now is probably a summary of what has been reported as successful in previous years: co-locate workers, and if they are geographically separated, use technology to help them feel they are closely connected, and so on. Co-location is a value of the SCRUM methodology as well.
But wait, all this togetherness is not always the best way! Sometimes it is better to separate workers.
We know this from a timely study where researchers had different groups solve problems in different ways. You can read about the details, but the summary for our purposes here is that collaborating close together was better for researching and gathering useful information. There was less redundant work and more got done.
On the other hand, when information was applied to coming up with solutions, togetherness brought about groupthink - too much consistency and reduced creativity. The researchers concluded that the two activities, information-gathering and solutioning, required different methods of using workers. The former was best done with close collaboration. The later was got better results with much less collaboration.
There was a comment in the last part of the NPR story where a workspace designer recommended putting in secluded areas where workers can be alone to avoid group think. It was the study mentioned here that really clarified one activity that required seclusion.
What can you do with this information to help improve performance?
Try this tactic in a small way in your project. Maybe it will catch on and you will have been a change agent to create a more innovative culture in your organization. Sometimes the project manager role can be very powerful.
What are you doing to recruit new workers? Is it what you did five or ten years ago? Have you made only incremental improvements? Do you use the same outlets to promote your open positions? Do your recruiters do the same thing they have done for years to promote your open positions?
If you - or your recruiters - are in fact doing essentially the same thing that was done years ago, think about something. When technology is involved, are you doing anything else the same way that you were doing it years ago? A new report out from Ultimate Software should be a kick in the seat of your pants. Candidates and employees have remarkable new expectations of employers and recruiting.
Once you hire the best candidate, are you able to build a relationship over time with that new employee and be safe from turnover? According to the report:
Don't lose ground to competitors for talent. Make sure the recruiting process you use to find, hire and onboard your new workers is adapting to the expectations of the candidates. Some of these expectations are associated with Millennials now, but it won't be long until candidates from all generations have similar expectations. For example: