Playing Poker In The Swamp

 

In the United States, considerable political punditry pixel ink has been spilled on “The Swamp,” the nickname for the layer of bureaucrats whose collective decisions can seem to have a greater impact on public policy than those elected to office. But this hijacking of the authority to make key decisions within the organization is by no means confined to the civic sphere – it’s alive and well in the business sector, as well, and ignoring it only enhances its ability to shape the business model, often in ways that are counterproductive.

How did this management version of The Swamp get here in the first place? GTIM Nation knows of my reverence for the excellent Michael Maccoby, particularly his book The Gamesman; The New Corporate Leaders (Simon and Schuster, 1976). In it, Maccoby theorizes four basic archetypes in the workplace:

• The Craftsman doesn’t care so much about whom he works for, but cares a great deal about the quality of his output.
• The Company Man tends to assume the persona of the Team around him.
• The Gamesman doesn’t see his paycheck as food on the table or a roof over his head, but as a kind of token in some elaborate game he is playing. Because of this, the Gamesman archetype tends to (a) master the rules of this “game,” and (b) be more inclined to take risks.
• The Jungle Fighter gets ahead through cloak-and-dagger techniques, rarely through legitimate technical contribution.

So, how did the Jungle Fighter make his way into your organization, or, worse, your Project Team? He must have presented himself in his interview as being technically advanced, or at least more competent than the others applying for that job. I mean, he might have been straight-forward, and shared that his favorite workplace tactic was to engage in such toxic calumny that other Team members became afraid to even challenge the JF’s assertions in Team meetings, thereby assuming a patina of expertise, but I kind of doubt it. The very presence of any Jungle Fighter in the organization – and, I can assure you, there’s going to be at least one in any organization of size – means that some semblance of the dreaded Swamp is sure to follow.

Once this sort of unmerited managerial influence has a foothold, it’s enhanced by all of the members of the organization who have attained their positions through anything other than technical ability. I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit that, at one time, I sincerely believed that people advanced within their organizations based purely, or even mostly, on merit. Then I turned 14.

The reasons that people attain their ranks within a given hierarchy (other than entities like United States Chess) are often influenced by factors other than their technical capability. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, since each member’s ability to function within a team often makes the difference between success and failure. But being able to function at a high level with respect to inter-team relations does not make up for a lack of technical expertise, in my experience. If those in a position to determine, or even influence, the selection of the technical approach that the Project Team will be pursuing don’t know what they’re doing, no amount of interpersonal skills will save the project.

Meanwhile, In The Poker-Playing World…

In the game of poker, a “tell” is a change in a player’s expression or behavior that can serve as a clue as to their assessment of their hand. As with so many other games of skill with elements of randomness, some aspects of poker are highly analogous to the world of Project Management, and the presence of tells is one of them. If there are people in your organization in a position to influence the selection of the technical approach to the accomplishing of your Project’s scope, but are actually pretty clueless, how can they be identified? What are their tells?

It's my belief that one of the most obvious tells that someone who’s trying to influence the technical approach to accomplishing your project’s scope doesn’t really know what they’re talking about is a gross misjudgment of the level of rigor of the Project Management Information Systems, or PMISs. Most PM-types are wearily familiar with those who want little or no application of basic PM capabilities when some level is obviously called for, but the opposite is also true. Many projects that operate with highly detailed baselines, exhaustive Work Breakdown Structures, and over-regulated Critical Path schedules could operate just fine with far simpler information systems, but are prevented from doing so by their home organization’s policies and procedures.

Those pushing for little (or no) PM-based Management Information Systems are pretty much outing themselves as swamp critters, but what about those who insist on an overly burdensome system? A good litmus test here has to do with the question, Which is more important, attaining the scope on-time, on-budget, or provably following each and every requirement in the PM procedures? Of course, there are other tells (cough, insisting on a risk management [no initial caps] program, cough), but over-reliance on PM procedures to the point that they crowd out perfectly reasonable technical approaches to the Project’s central problem has to be one of the easiest to recognize.

So, look out, swamp people within the PMO! GTIM Nation knows how to recognize you when you bluff. You might just get called.