Strategic Project Management

The French moralist and writer Luc de Clapiers de Vauvenargues said, "Men despise great projects when they do not feel themselves capable of great success."

I've been thinking lately about the choices we make everyday between obedience and excellence, and wonder if it is a lack of faith in ourselves or is it a system that has very effectively taught us that obedience is of more value than excellence.

With that in mind, I believe the traditional methods for approaching the project management process contribute to the problem.Traditional management methods unfortunately, favor obedience over excellence. Whether it's a rigid obedience to a particular methodology or the demanded obedience of an intransigent command-and-control management style, excellence suffers.

As project leaders, we can foster a project environment where individual team members can strive for excellence, projects can be successful and results can be exceptional. With that in mind, let me suggest the following five traits that will foster an environment that encourages excellence over obedience:

1. A focus on collaboration: Engaging the team and stakeholders in problem-solving and decision-making is critical for encouraging excellence.
2. Adaptability: Project teams and individual projects are always different. Successful project environments encourage a flexible approach to creatively solve problems with a fluid leadership style.
3. "Figure-it-out" resourcefulness: This implies creativity and occasional out-of-the box thinking to solve problems along with a tenacious, never-give-up approach to overcoming obstacles. This is not an environment where "It's not my job," or "I give up," is acceptable.
4. Highly-developed communication skills: It's paramount that project leaders and individual team members are able to effectively communicate. An atmosphere of excellence requires that everyone on the team is able to customize their communication style to the appropriate audience—otherwise, success will be elusive.
5. Flexibility: Adapted from a line in "To a Mouse" by Robert Burns, "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry." It doesn't really matter how well something is planned, there is always something or someone trying to throw a monkey-wrench into the works. Flexibility is the genesis of creative thinking—which is critical for facilitating an environment where excellence can thrive.

I sometimes wonder how often we "settle" for being mediocre because of the perceived "roadblocks" to excellence. I think it's interesting that de Clapiers is also quoted as saying, "Great success is commoner than great abilities."

I think this implies that greatness is within our grasp. All we really need to do is create the type of environment where excellence trumps obedience.

 

It's hard not to get excited about NCCA basketball and March Madness this year. Of course it doesn't hurt that Brigham Young's Cougars are ranked #3 at the beginning of March (despite some of the off-court drama). This may very well be the best Cougar team since their appearance in 1981 against Notre Dame.

That's probably the reason I've turned to a sports metaphor today. As a young athlete, there were many lessons I learned from my coach while swimming laps in the pool that continue to serve me today (despite the fact that there's no way I could ever fit into my old Speedo). In fact there are a few things that I think apply very well to the way we manage work:

1. Good coaches have a game plan: I'm sure there are a number of teams going into the tournament this year who believe they have a chance at making the final four or even winning. A project without an objective, or an un-articulated objective, probably doesn't have any better chance of success than a basketball team without a game plan.
2. Great coaches align individual goals with the game plan: Articulating the objective is just the first step. The real key to project success is getting everyone on the team motivated to achieve individual goals that contribute to team success.
3. Drills are important: Sometimes we assume that everyone on the team knows what they're doing. This isn't always the case. A good coach knows the strengths and weaknesses of the team and creates drills or exercises to strengthen the team's weaknesses. It's important to give team members opportunities to learn and improve their skills.
4. Great teams need the right people in the right roles: It's really easy to fall into the trap of filling a job role instead of filling a talent void. Everyday organizations turn away excellent talent because they rigidly adhere to arcane notions that titles or education are the ultimate measure of someones ability to effectively contribute. Avoiding that trap might make it a little more challenging to find the right person to fill your talent void, but it's well worth the extra effort.
5. Use the appropriate communication style for the audience: The best coaches know the best way to talk to individual athletes to motivate and inspire them. I think we've all probably been in situations where it's not what you say, but how you say it.
6. Don't forget to celebrate the victories: In the grind of day-to-day work, sometimes achievements go unrecognized because of the pressure of the next objective. A good coach knows that it's important to take the time to celebrate a win. It helps the team (and the workforce) feel like they've accomplished something. Otherwise, the job becomes a never-ending death march (which nobody appreciates).

Take a lesson from the coaches as you watch your favorite team during March Madness. You might pick up a few things that will help you be a better project leader.

Some years ago I read the book, The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and What to Do About It, by Michael Gerber. At the time, I became a huge Gerber fan. My focus became an almost dogmatic pursuit of the perfect expert system to eliminate the need for expert employees. It made sense to me, and I have recommended the book to countless people. However, over the years I have come to the conclusion that a "smart" system is no substitute for a talented and creative (dare I say, smart) person. Although I still believe there is value to creating a system,the system should foster and environment of creativity, collaboration and efficiency—I disagree with the notion that creating a smart system to replace smart people is a good idea.

Upon the recommendation of a colleague, I have been reading Seth Godin's book, Linchpin: Are You Indispensable?. Unlike Gerber, Godin suggests, "Every successful organization is built around people. Men and women who don't merely shuffle money, but interest, give gifts, and connect."

Godin seems to be speaking to something I have been feeling for along time, particularly for teams doing project-based work. In my opinion projects, by their very nature are unwieldy, challenging, dynamic and risky things. If they weren't, they wouldn't be called projects. They'd be operational or other work, and we wouldn't create plans to "try" to "manage" them. I say "try," because I don't know that we can completely eliminate the risk and challenges associated with projects. We "try," but I think that's all we can really do with a real project.

If we put other repetitive work or work in general aside for a minute and consider the needs of projects, it doesn't take long to realize that our project teams should include the best and brightest performers in our organizations. What's more, those teams of highly skilled and talented individuals should be lead by our very best. Those who are able to see, as Godin describes, that "The indispensable employee brings humanity and connection and art to her organization. She is the key player, the one who's difficult to live without, the person you can build something around. The indispensable employee—I call her/him a linchpin—is a person who's worth finding and keeping."

What's more, as project leaders, we should be striving to be the linchpin in our organization—striving for excellence ourselves. What does that mean? According to Godin, "Excellence means that you're indispensable. At least right now, in this moment, there's no one else I would choose but you."

However, I realize that these two goals might be challenging in organizations that are stuck in the "E-Myth" world. I can even relate, there was a time when I thought that way too. That being said, I agree with Godin when he suggests, "The good news is that more than ever, value accrues to those that show up, those that make a difference, those that do the work that matters."

The world is looking for project leaders who can step up and lead efforts that produce real value for their organizations. "Now, like it or not, the world wants something different from you," says Godin. "We need to think hard about what reality really looks like now."

The other day I shared some thoughts I had regarding a recent webinar I attended with Audrey Apfel, Gartner Managing Vice President, "One-Size-Fits-All" Doesn't Fit, and like it or not, business as usual, isn't any longer. The way we manage projects and other work is changing. And, the way organizations look at work is changing too. We have a unique opportunity to be the linchpin.

"Instead of focusing on complying with management as a long-term strategy for getting more stuff and being more secure, we have a chance to describe a powerful vision for our future and to actually make it happen," says Godin.

I couldn't have said it better myself.
 

Late last year I finished reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. Reading Pirsig's narrative about quality, I couldn't help but relate it to how we approach work. "The place to improve the world is first in ones own heart and head and hands," he writes, "and then work outward from there."

It's easy to put too much reliance into the system, the technology or the process—but ultimately, it's the individual and how that work produces what Pirsig describes as quality. "Real Quality isn't something you lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas tree," argues Pirsig. "Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and objects, the cone from which the tree must start."

As project leaders, creating an atmosphere where the workforce feels more like they are part of the work (the Taoist calls it wei wu wei, or doing not doing) is critical for any real improvements in how we get work done. "Doing not doing" is like a ballerina that is no longer doing the dance—but becomes the dance.

In the early days of Tiger Wood's career, he was a great example of this. He practiced and practiced to the point that whenever he hit the golf ball, he didn't need to think about it anymore—he just stepped up and hit the ball. Perfectly, as if the golf ball hit itself. Sometimes athletes and other skilled professionals reach this same level of awareness in their individual disciplines. They don't think about what they are doing, the just do it—or it becomes so second nature that they don't need to do it anymore, it just happens.

Is the ability to do this an aptitude? Is it something that can be learned—or even selected? I think it is all three. Creating an atmosphere where this can take place allows those project team members who might come by this awareness naturally to thrive, but there may be others on the team who just won't get it. There will be some of them that will be teachable and others that won't. The challenge for a project leader is weeding out those who don't or won't get it, and replacing them with those who can, or do. This is particularly important in organizations that empower their workforce with more autonomy and ownership. There may be some team members who just can't or won't respond, and will be slackers no matter what you do. They will need to be replaced with a workforce that understands and thrives in an environment like this.

"Is it hard?" asks Pirsig. "Not if you have the right attitudes. It's having the right attitudes that's hard."
 

It doesn't really matter if it's music, clothing or even religion, we can get exactly what we want without compromises—you can download the songs from your favorite album (excluding that one song you don't like), watch the television programs you like whenever you want to watch them and buy jeans made specifically for your personal style, size and body type. And, don't forget fantasy-league football, baseball and basketball teams with fan-picked rosters.

It would appear that the era of one-size-fits-all has come and gone.

Nowhere is this more true than in how we approach managing projects and other work. I attended a recent webinar hosted by Gartner Managing Vice President and Distinguished Analyst, Audrey Apfel, titled: Be Prepared for the Future of Program and Portfolio Management, in which Apfel argues that over the next few years organizations will invest 30% less time and money in what we would traditionally consider project management. This is not to say that project leaders won't have plenty to do, in fact, I think they will be busier than ever—they will just be busy doing different things.

Apfel suggests that there is a growing understanding that project management practices don't always work in the real world. The linear nature of projects doesn't always fit with the way work gets done. I must agree. It's no secret that most people don't exclusively work on projects—they also do a lot of other work unrelated to formalized project work.

Apfel describes how we approach four basic types of work, which resonate with my personal opinions:

1. Simple: This is what we would define as non-project work. For many people, this is where they spend the majority of their time. This type of work is often managed with simple "to do" lists or other tools. The simple nature of the work doesn't diminish the value of the work (or the need for visibility into the work), only the way in which it is managed.
2. Complicated: This is the work we would traditionally associate with projects. We can analyze cause and effect to create a reasonable plan to approach the work.
3. Complex: This work would be defined as program work. The work is different from project (or complicated) work because the only way to really understand the cause and effect relationship is through retrospective. And often, it's necessary to nudge the outcome to get the desired effect.
4. Chaotic: This is not the type of work most of us deal with on a regular basis from a project investment point of view. This work describes the work driven by the "squeaking wheel." We act because someone's told us to do so. I call this the "drive-by" work we all deal with on an unfortunately regular basis.

I don't think anything about the above is earth-shaking, but is the face of what we will more than likely be dealing with as the role of project leader evolves. With this in mind, one of the first questions we need to as is, "What is the type of work we're doing?" and "How can I produce value as quickly as possible?"

Over the coming weeks, we'll talk more about this "evolution" and what it means to us and our role as project leaders. Needless to say, I'd be interested to learn more about how your organizations are dealing with the death of a "one-size-fits-all" methodology.