The Dark Side Of Career Development

I attained my PMP® certification soon after I graduated with my MBA, and I’m pretty sure that if that version of Michael could have read this blog, his response would have been to think the author to be overly cynical at best, and likely a flat-out curmudgeon. Alas, young Michael, that’s not the case – I know everything you know, and a whole bunch more besides, much of it delivered somewhat painfully. For those members of GTIM Nation with fewer career advancement scars than I have, I have a few things to pass along.
First, the organization based on a pure meritocracy doesn’t exist. The closest may be United States Chess, where your standing equals your ranking, period. But even here players have been known to try to “psych out” their opponents, meaning that they will engage in allowed but bizarre tactics in-tournament to try and throw their opponents off of their games. When I was playing tournament chess back in high school, I once played against an opponent who was decked out in full ski clothing, including a parka and heavy mittens. He could barely move individual pieces.
I beat him, handily.
But back to the point of the creation of business models that, contrary to any of the Mission Statement or Company Values pablum, ultimately operate in ways that actually frustrate the most talented or insightful employees. Sure, demonstrated talent backed by hard work dramatically increases your chances of success, and those successes will normally lead to career advancement – but that’s not always the case. I had the misfortune to work for an organization chock-full of people who had become remarkably adept at distancing themselves from project failure, but glommed on to project successes like Great Lakes lampreys. So prevalent was this behavior that I had to wonder if it was being taught at some in-house seminar. When I, personally, was assigned the heavy lifting on a particularly difficult piece of scope, the “corporate” person assigned was nowhere to be found, and contributed absolutely nothing to its pursuit and completion. When it became clear that I was actually going to deliver on-time, on-budget, this fellow was suddenly in my office, hovering over me at each of the very last steps of the task, while still contributing nothing. Weeks later, during a review of the performing quarter, this person was being complimented for having “accomplished” this difficult task. My name wasn’t mentioned at all.
And then we have the Office Politicos, those whose main goal is to advance their own personal interests, even if such advancement comes at the expense of the others on whatever team is unfortunate enough to have them in its ranks. These people’s favorite tactic is the ex parte communication, where only one side of an argument is presented to decision-makers. These conversations aren’t confined to gossip or calumny – in fact, they don’t have to be personal at all. But there’s a reason why ex parte conversations are not allowed in the field of Law, and that reason extends to discussions about business and management decisions, as well. Attempting to influence any decision that impacts a Project Team (or other organizational unit) without bringing in the basis for alternatives is not only disingenuous, it dramatically reduces the odds that the optimal – or even workable – strategy gets selected.
The last scenario I want to address is the one where a new leader (or entire management team) is introduced into an existing PMO or other macro-organization. The brutal reality here is that loyalty, not merit or talent, is the coin of the realm when it comes to whose career is advanced, and whose is frustrated. I’m not without sympathy or understanding here: the new/transplanted leader/management team has, no doubt, experienced significant success using a set of specific management strategies and tactics, and are typically brimming with confidence that those strategies will work here, too, if only the extended organization embraces them. Unless the new manager/team is exceptionally advanced, anyone not a superior who even suggests that those new techniques aren’t necessarily optimal, or even workable, will be viewed as an obstruction to the newbies and their success narrative, an obstruction that must be neutralized (or even eliminated) immediately. It’s rather unfortunate that those who know this newbie effect to be true, and adjust their interactions accordingly, can be perceived as patronizing. True, some workers can be positively obsequious when dealing with higher-ups, and use this approach to get ahead. I hold these types of people to be very off-putting, if not insufferable, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about those who are genuinely pursuing a goal of excellence, but must face the fact that they may be in a position where whatever flag is being raised by the execs must be saluted. It’s a difficult situation, but one that will likely present itself somewhere along a PM’s career path.
Many other organizational behavior and performance pathologies exist that can disrupt the talented, hard-working PM’s career trajectory, unfortunately. But, as that career path unfolds, sticking with the pursuit of excellence approach, while more difficult, will pay dividends that the glommers, politicos, and organizational reality rejecters will never know.
And I can live with that.