The Project Shrink

Technically you could describe a giraffe as an elephant whose trunk is its neck.

And curling is bowling on ice.

This is an important mechanism used by our brain to make sense of something new. Associate with something we do know and take it from there.

Seth Godin, the master marketer, productive author and Uber-blogger, wrote this week:

"When you launch a new idea or project into the world, you'll probably use connections to what has come before as a way to tell your story. …

Here's the thing: you can't stand out if you fit in all the way, and thus the act of deciding which part isn't going to match is the important innovation. … You can't be offbeat in all ways, because then we won't understand you and we'll reject you. …

The others... Not a little off. A lot off."

I have this workshop about Stakeholder Management, which uses "The Wizard Of Oz" as an educational vehicle. It's fun. It's effective. But not something you would find in a typical PM course. To balance with tradition I use the phrase "Stakeholder Management" instead of "Witch Hunting". And I wear a suit instead of a cape.

Just to reassure.

I write about how identity, your perception and expression of it, influences information consumption and production. And vice versa. When I put it like that, no PM is interested, although I think it is important and helpful to them.

So I put it in a different package. Project Leadership and Project Communication. Nobody knows exactly what that is about, but it is something that feels familiar. So, I'll take it from there.

I take familiar sounding themes. And write, well, weird. Or different about them.

At least. I hope you experience it like that.

The balance between offbeat and onbeat, familiar and new, is related to the balance between homogeneity and diversity in teams.

Diversity creates different viewpoints and other ways of looking at the world in general. This clash of perspectives produces creative solutions. Diversity creates resilience. Homogeneity makes sure the group operates as one.

This is creates the eternal question: how much diversity do you need and which parts shoud exactly be offbeat?

Impossible to answer. This question. Is.

Because it's the Wrong Question.

Cultural diversity can provide different interpretations of situations. The difference is upbringing, history and personal experiences shape your brain, color your views, create your filters. It’s not the cultural diversity per se that is of importance, it’s the resulting cognitive diversity that is of essence.

And I come to think that we are all way more cognitive diverse than we think.  It's a matter of our perception of our identity and the way we express it.

Because, this is the kicker … we are all outsiders. Always. We are always offbeat. Somewhere.

As Havi Brooks explains this brilliantly in a post called "The clan of the outsiders":


"My father likes to call himself the white sheep in his family because the rest of them are all eccentric nutjobs. Which they are. But the truth is that he is also an eccentric nutjob.

In fact, more eccentric than the rest of them and at least as much nutjob.

My brother and I also have equal claim in our family to the dubious role of the odd man out. Or sheep. Whatever.

In fact, pretty much everyone I know self-defines as “other”, “different”, “weird” or “crazy”.

Even the people who seem to me to epitomize normal and well-adjusted are totally caught up in their own personal dramas about how they’ve always been different."


If the surroundings are comfortable and safe enough (that is the cohesion/homogeneous part) we are more likely to express our identity and embrace our identity, and that takes care of the cognitive diversity part.

It's not just a matter of team selection. It's a matter of creating comfortable and safe organizational environments.

So in the end, it's all about optical illusions. We need to find something familiar to be reassured that all is safe and comfortable. And then, only then, are we ready for new things.

Familiar.
Safe.
Associate.
Small Step.
Breath.
Getting comfortable in new.
Getting familiar in new.
Safe.
 

Bas de Baar is a writer who draws about people in transition. He loves to make visual maps and travel guides for the collaborators of our brave new world.

Isn't it cool to work virtually with people from all over the world? You are in the States. Your developers in India. Your testers in Brasil. Your customer in Germany. How cool is that!?

But if you don’t know each other, have no face-to-face communication, how does communication work?

You'll find the answer in online dating research.

Yeah, I know. I read the funkiest stuff.

First, there is the all important question: can social relationships develop online?

Social Information Processing Theory (SIPT) by Joseph Walther, a professor of communication studies, provides an interesting viewpoint. How do you get to know someone without nonverbal cues? Without face-to-face interaction?

Basically, according to SIPT, it comes down to using the online information and interaction that is available. Profiles, images, textual cues in email like language and grammar. According to Social Information Processing Theory you can develop genuine social relationships online, without face-to-face interaction. The process is only much slower. And you are using ... are you ready ... social cues!

Tada.

Wow. It almost looks like I build up to this post.

Hmmmm.

With online dating, first impressions are basic. All the cues you have are a picture and descriptions. Weight, height, hair color, income, educational level, age and ethnicity are important. And yes, we mostly prefer traits similar to our own. Similar age, ethnicity, educational level have our preferences.

Let's say you have finally found a profile you like and you are ready for your first email. Maybe you'll get a reply. Although: "An average looking man has a 40% chance of hearing back from an average looking women while an average woman has a 70% chance of getting a response back from an email sent to an average guy."

Now let's assume you are average.

A nice email exchange takes place. During this exchange of information you get feedback on the image you have of the other person. Some cues are filled in. New cues arrive.

Normally, feedback is a good thing. Your mental model is refined and tuned. It will become more accurate. But with online communication you might fall into a trap called "hyperpersonal communication", again created by Joseph Walther.

Within the notion of hyperpersonal communication people that use online cues to communicate create a hyperbolic and idealized conceptualization of each other. Based upon the limited information available we create an idealized image of our conversation partner. The sender filters his cues, so he only sends socially desired information.

Because the communication is a-synchronous, we can edit or correct any mistakes we made, thus making the communication stream near perfect. This process gets reinforced by feedback. Hyperpersonal communication explains why people can create very deep and personal discussions with others online, without ever meeting.

But an initial meeting has to take place. Feedback is one thing. We also need validation.

What happens if you communicate with a person on an online dating site for a while, and you go on a first date?
Was an old-school first date about getting to know each other, the new, modern first-date 2.0 is all about validation. Are my assumptions of him valid? Did he tell the truth? “The initial meeting tends to be a screening out process instead of a romantic occasion“.

With pure online communication validation is the key problem. Yes, we can build real relationships through digital media. Yes, without direct validation we can create a hyperbolic and idealized conceptualization of each other.

So we need first dates. We need to see if the other is trustworthy. Do we interpret the social cues correctly?

But of course, that is only if you want to date your developer.

Bas de Baar is a writer who draws about people in transition. He loves to make visual maps and travel guides for the collaborators of our brave new world.

I am looking at my LinkedIn profile. LinkedIn is the social network were a lot of professionals hang out. I don't like LinkedIn really. It's too … well … boring? Professional? I don't know. I just prefer Facebook.

Anyway. I am staring at my profile. It says that I am a "Project Shrink". What was I thinking?

Well.

At that time I was thinking that if people would read it, they at least would wonder, have a laugh or  would think they read something new. So they would remember.

Ok. Fair enough.

Of course I placed a thoughtful, almost pondering, profile picture next to it. And a list of past work and education. You know, just to reassure.

"He's a WHAT? Project Stink?"

"A "shrink". You know. Well, actually you don't know and I don't know. But he has been a Project Leader and he doesn't look too weird, so it should be ok."

And then the profile description. Oof.

Short descriptions of Self. Don't. Like. It.

Same as 10 second elevator pitches. I hate them. There. I said it. How can I summarize the awesomeness that is me in 20 words? I can’t.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think it’s a good exercise to become more self-aware, it’s good to know yourself. But I know the entire context that goes with the summary. And that’s the trouble, others don’t.

For a while I had the word “social media” in my description. Now some people think that’s the only thing I know or do. Or worse, they already have made up their mind about what that label means and build their own context around my story.

Basically, I have an entire book of summaries. I have tons of elevator pitches.

So. Whatever I write in my profile summary, I'll never be happy with it.

Luckily I don't care about my LinkedIn profile.

Well. Ok. I do.

Remember the Thanksgiving Turkey? How signs, cues, language and rituals are used to associate you with social groups? And how our associations of someone determines our perception of that person? If we like them or not. Or how successful we communicate.

Remember?

Well. That stuff works online too. Same thing.

Online, the situation is not very different. Our LinkedIn profile has a picture, keywords describing what we do, associations with companies and professional organizations and badges of the LinkedIn groups you are a member of.

• Do you wear a suit on your picture? Or do you have an image of you going through the jungle?
• Is your name followed by a enormous string of credentials (MSc, PMP, LIVR)?
• Do you have a normal function description, like “Accountant”, or do you have one that sounds more deviant, like “Master Of My Universe”?

Expressing your identity like that is awesome for self-awareness. You have to have some clue when you write something down.

Or you can write that you don't have a clue. In which case, you actually have one. A clue.

And this expression of identity is a selection mechanism. A boundary.

People that dig your information will stay longer, while people that go "yuk" when reading "Project Shrink" are gone within 60 msecs.

Your LinkedIn profile is expressing what you are about, what you are thinking, it is almost like a publication of your own mental model. It makes it easier for the other party to understand you. It makes it easier to synchronize mental models.

A public declaration of your context, if you will. A highly limited, at times even disfunctional, declaration. That's for sure.

Now let's goof off at Facebook.

Bas de Baar is a writer who draws about people in transition. He loves to make visual maps and travel guides for the collaborators of our brave new world.

I am sitting in front of my inbox wondering why none of my US friends responds to email. I open up my RSS reader to read some blog posts, and there it is… a gazillion posts with "Thanksgiving" in the title or references to turkey in the text.

Ah. That's why.

I don't celebrate Thanksgiving. But I do know pictures of turkey, or movies with families celebrating, sitting together around a dinner table. It's the cooked bird that stands out for me.

I know. Stupid.

But it's a sign, a visible thing, a cue that triggers the entire Thanksgiving-association for me. An association I get from movies, pictures and stories.

The turkey is not Thanksgiving. But it's a signal.

If you don't like Thanksgiving for what ever reason, the bird functions as a barrier. If you looooove this holiday, it works like an attractor.

Havi Brooks has duck, called Selma. She also has a terrific blog called Fluent Self.

She explains about the duck:

“I have a duck. I am a biggified blah blah expert whose business partner is a duck.?People who get it and think it’s cool are totally in.?People who think it’s stupid, or suspect that she’s — ewwwwwwwwwww — some kind of marketing ploy, are out. But not because I have to ask them to leave or anything. They just self-select out. They don’t stick.?Having red-velvet-rope Selma around (and let’s be honest, I don’t do anything without her) turns out to be a great way to help people find their way in or out.”

The turkey and the duck (wow, they're all birds man!) are cues that are associated with a cultural context. Social cues.
All groups have culture. So all groups have these cues, or tokens. So in principle, your team has them.

A group culture can create a healthy boundary with the host organization. Something that emphasizes a commonality between the team members. It’s not a judgment about the larger organizations and its employees. A culture provides a common understanding, shared beliefs and having a culture ensures the group stays together in rough times and communicates effectively.

So. A project turkey.

It will keep the team together. And it will keep the larger organization out. At least, those that you don't want in.

Remember last time when I stated that Project Managers are also a social group? Do we also have our own birds?

Gantt charts? Excel? Forms? Templates? Uhm. Language?

These social cues emerge. They are most of the times not designed. But, you could.

What would happen if your project raised the Pirate Flag?

What would happen if you let the external auditor “walk the plank”?

What would happen if every night you raid the cafeteria and stole all the snacks?

You would certainly differentiate yourself from the larger organization!

Arr. Matey.

Or you could include in every post a certain word or phrase.

Shabba?
 

Bas de Baar is a writer who draws about people in transition. He loves to make visual maps and travel guides for the collaborators of our brave new world.

Project Managers have so many ways of saying "no". "Out of scope", "Works as designed", "Request for change", "Not in spec". It's polite. It sounds official and professional.

But, it's still simply "no".

Remember last week when I talked about setting boundaries to your project? (How can you forget. Shabba!) Saying "no", in whatever weird or twisted lingo, is setting a boundary. It creates tranquility. The relaxing silence that benefits your team. It keeps some stuff out and lets other stuff enter.

But by using professional phrases, the PM lingo, you create other boundaries. By using objective sounding phrases you create a distance with your conversation partners.

Boundary!

Some PMs radiate to the outside world icons like Gantt Charts, two-digits precise risk assessments, large documents that seems to cover every little aspect imaginable. If you are a member of this group, you ooze control. You ooze control by using visible cues that some might associate with professionalism.

Boundary!

I once told my wife that I was unable to comply to her request. She smacked me on the head telling me that she was not my customer. So, I assume that we  have a specific language that sets us apart from other mortals.

Jonathan Whitty from University of Southern Queensland creates fascinating articles and lectures around this theme: looking at the project management community as a social group. I have been an admirer of his work for 3 years now.

For example, in his mindshifting article, “The PM BOK Code“, he writes:

"... in order to socially survive in the organizational environment, individuals are driven to put on the performance of project manager as an actor would perform project scenes in the theatre of organizations."

This performance is a form of setting boundaries. You let people that are looking for some kind of reassuring behavior in, but you exclude the people that see through the performance and are put off by it.

Mind you, I am not suggesting that Project Management is not a profession. I am saying that Project Managers are a social group and have all the aspects of being one, like rituals, icons and language.

So, the way you say "no" matters.

By adapting your language you can improve your communication. By using simple words, a child will understand you better. By using the vocabulary of the industry, the client will connect easier.

By changing your language you can also improve the relation with a person. By talking 'the same' you appear more similar, and the more similar you are perceived, the more attracted you are to your conversation partner.

"Speech convergence includes reducing the linguistic differences between oneself and one’s interlocutor in terms of accent, dialect, paralinguistic features, or the language of choice. Convergence is a tool among many that individuals use as a means "to become more similar to another."" (Wikipedia)

It doesn’t matter if you have a job interview, talking to a project sponsor or trying to get a date. Like attract likes and language is a huge influencer in that process.

In the end, if you talk like a Project Manager, you are a Project Manager. At least to the outside world.

Shabba!