GTIM Nation knows of my respect for Michael Maccoby, particularly his book The Gamesman: The New Corporate Leaders (Simon and Schuster, 1976). In it, Maccoby posits four basic archetypes of workers in the corporate world:
- The Gamesman sees his particular industry as a type of game. Because of this, he is more likely to have mastered the “rules,” as well as being more likely to take chances.
- The Company Man tends to assume the persona of the team around him.
- The Craftsman doesn’t care so much about who he works for, but cares a great deal about the quality of his particular output.
- The Jungle Fighter gets ahead through political machinations and deceit more than actual performance.
If Maccoby is correct (and I believe he is), then the savvy PM would gain an organizational behavior and performance insight by correctly identifying which of the archetypes most closely match the members of the Project Team. The problem with placing your team members into bins, though, is that if you make a mistake, the damage to Team morale could easily exceed the benefit of optimal task assignments. What’s the savvy PM to do?
I’m a firm believer in the idea that elements of a person’s speech, from range of vocabulary to tempo of delivery, can reveal much about that person’s level of education, background, and, most importantly, thought processes. The way a person writes can be even more revealing. And, as luck would have it, PMs have access to a regular source of the Project Team’s (or, at least the Work Package and Cost Account Managers’) writings, the Variance Analysis Report, or VAR. For the sake of this exercise, we’ll assume that a particular Cost Account has encountered out-of-threshold negative cost and schedule variances. If your Team’s real-life VARs contain elements of the example styles below, you just might have a reliable identification method for the Maccoby archetypes!
The Craftsman:
Variance Analysis: Both the negative cost and schedule variances are due to the amount of rework required to get the scope right on this Control Account. Whomever agreed to the original scope baseline should have taken into account the fact that the novel technical approach, using largely untested technology, might result in our inability to achieve the reliability and quality standards set out in the Technical Scope Documents.
Corrective Action: We shouldn’t have ever agreed to use an untried technical approach in the first place. But, now that we’re here, we should immediately issue a stop work order to the subcontractor, and complete the work using the traditional engineering approach. We may carry this variance to completion.
The Gamesman:
Variance Analysis: We were aware that the subcontractor’s use of this new technology carried an element of risk with it, which is why this Work Package is referenced in the risk management (no initial caps) plan. It should be pointed out that, had this new technology performed as promised, this Work Package alone would have saved more money than the entire fixed fee amount.
Corrective Action: Simply file a Contingency Baseline Change Request, and reference the entry in the risk management (no initial caps) plan as justification.
The Company Man:
Variance Analysis: Technically, this variance should not have happened. My entire Work Package Team has followed the company’s procedures to the letter, and I have personally surveilled time sheet entries to guarantee that no one has mischarged down to the nanosecond.
Corrective Action: Procedure KHG-10008874-A3Cd, subparagraph E, recommends that, in the event of an out-of-threshold negative cost variance, where the offending WP is referenced in the risk management (no initial caps) plan, that a Contingency BCP be prepared. However, Procedure DIK-877640-H8B4, subparagraph N, states that, simply because an event makes an appearance in a risk register doesn’t mean that it should automatically be considered a change in scope. I will need to consult with company executives to see how they think I should handle this variance.
The Jungle Fighter:
Variance Analysis: Perhaps if some of the members of the Proposal Team – whom I won’t name, out of professional courtesy – were to show more fealty to this company’s standards and stated goals, this variance wouldn’t have happened in the first place. If it weren’t for my friends Ken and Jerry over in Risk Management (of course Jungle Fighters think that the term “risk management” deserves initial caps) we would be in grave difficulty.
Corrective Action: We should prepare and submit a Contingency BCP. If it gets hung up in the Baseline Change Control Board, we could make an emergency appeal to the BCCB’s Deputy Chief, who has a very close relationship with the customer’s representative, if you know what I mean.
Now, this listing of writing styles should in no way be considered definitive. But if you recognize the utility of attracting Gamesmen and Craftsmen, using Company Men where they can contribute best (in secondary or support roles), and getting the Jungle Fighters off of the Project Team, then these stylistic nuances might be your best indicator of those archetypes.
Also, I’ll thank GTIM Nation to refrain from doing exactly what I prescribe in this blog, and identifying my Maccoby archetype based on my writings down in the comments section. I don’t want to risk my reputation of complying with ProjectManagement.com’s directions, after all. If you know what I mean.
