The Management Genius Of Abraham Lincoln
| In her excellent book Team of Rivals, The Political Genius Of Abraham Lincoln (Simon & Schuster, 2005) Doris Goodwin chronicles how Lincoln defeated Senator and former New York Governor William Seward, Ohio Governor Samual P. Chase, and former Missouri Attorney General Edward Bates to secure the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1860 before she explores how Lincoln would add these very men to his cabinet once he was elected President. The three would serve as Secretary of State, Treasury, and Attorney General, respectively, even though they still held considerable animosity against Lincoln. While Seward would ultimately come to like and respect Lincoln during the American Civil War, Chase was not inclined to do so. Chase would, in fact, conspire against Lincoln to replace him as the Republican nominee in the election of 1864. Nevertheless, Lincoln kept Chase in the cabinet, believing him to be the best man for the job. I can only imagine how difficult it was for Lincoln to sacrifice his political future’s security and personal comfort in keeping a known adversary in his government, simply because of Chase’s capabilities. Goodwin actually quotes Lincoln as saying We need the strongest men of the party in the Cabinet. We needed to hold our own people together. I had looked the party over and concluded that these were the very strongest men. Then I had no right to deprive the country of their services.[i] Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World… I remain convinced that one of the most toxic and far-reaching causes of a whole variety of organizational behavior and performance pathologies has to be the neglect (or even abandonment) of the organization pursuing, to the best of its ability, a meritocracy. If your team or group isn’t interested in attracting the most talented people that they can afford, irrespective of their immutable characteristics, then the odds of your team attaining a high-performing level of performance has already taken a hit. The abandonment of sustaining a meritocracy within the macro-organization can take many forms, but I’ll focus on the three that I’ve seen most often, and hold to be the most reliable red flags that this is the case. Nepotism. This particular path for diverting from a meritocracy is, perhaps, the most understandable of all, given the extent that parents are nominally inclined to sacrifice for their children. An entrepreneur starts a business, sees some level of success, and wishes to share that success with their family members by offering them jobs. But this deviation is plain from the start. If those same children were already employed in appropriately-paying jobs, they should not need additional help well into adulthood. Of course, there are exceptions, and I don’t envy those exceptions. One very capable fellow I worked with happened to be the son of a senior executive, and worked himself very hard indeed, knowing full well that the appearances would point to his not having earned his position on his merits. However, at the same company I also worked with two of the owner’s kids, and they were very poor performers. They knew they could not be fired, or even corrected, and it showed in their work habits. This company, coincidentally (?), had a serious morale problem. Cronyism. Cliques and clans within the macro-organization are common to the point of being ubiquitous, but that doesn’t make them any less toxic. People who advance within the organization due to their connections instead of actual contributions very much set the stage for Maccoby archetypes[ii] Jungle Fighters and Company Men to advance at the expense of the types that would actually contribute to that organization’s success, Craftsmen and Gamesmen. Once the technical direction gets set by the popular over the talented, the bad decisions accumulate, and the macro-organizational death spiral is likely to follow. Kiss Up, Punch Down. If you happen to observe this behavior in any of your colleagues or superiors, it’s a sure sign that a deviation from the meritocracy is underway. If one or two people in your organization are given to subtly (or dramatically) acting differently towards others based on whether or not they perceive that this other is in a position to help them professionally, then it might just be an annoyance. But if this type of behavior becomes more common, it means that somewhere, sometimes, this behavior works, otherwise it would have been eliminated through sheer Skinneresque behavioristic no-reward cycles. To be clear, I am absolutely not recommending that a PMO Director willingly tolerate clear opponents within their management circle. What I am saying is that differences in opinion on matters of determining the optimal technical approach or implementation strategy in advancing PM maturity is NOT a sign of disloyalty. And it doesn’t take the intellectual discipline of an Abraham Lincoln to recognize that. [i] Goodwin, Doris Kearns, Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Simon & Schuster, 2005. [ii] Maccoby, Michael, The Gamesman, The New Corporate Leaders, Simon & Schuster, 1976. |
Posted on: September 29, 2026 09:53 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (1)
“You’ve Got To Ask Yourself One Question … ‘Do I Feel Lucky?’”
| I’m confident that the majority of GTIM Nation, and many other readers who have just happened by, will instantly recognize the quote in the title. It is, of course, uttered by none other than Inspector Calahan, from the first Dirty Harry movie, played masterfully by Clint Eastwood. Each time he utters the line, or some variant, Inspector Calahan is pointing a large hand gun at a suspect who has just committed a serious crime, a weapon is within easy reach, and they’re being asked if they want to risk being shot. The reason I’m bringing it up is because it strongly reminds me of a particular organizational behavior and performance pathology, one that affects everybody in the company so afflicted, but PMs specifically, and it is this: does the organization you’re working for believe that you are lucky to be there in the first place? Of course, this unstated question is not being posed at the end of a deadly weapon, unless the organization we’re talking about here is some sort of organized crime unit. Instead, it’s a part of the culture, it permeates throughout, and manifests in several different ways. On at least one other occasion I’ve shared with GTIM Nation the story of the time I was interviewing for a PMO Director job at a mid-sized aerospace engineering firm, but it bears repeating here. The conference room was filled with engineers and engineering managers, and the Human Resources director. The engineers and (real) managers asked challenging and insightful questions about the type of cost and schedule performance measurement systems I would implement in a variety of settings and circumstances, and what would be expected out of them and their staff in order to make it work. I thought I was doing a bang-up job of addressing their concerns, when the discussion turned to HR. It was finally her turn, and she looked at me like she was doing me a favor for even being there, and asked “Why do you want to work for (company name)?” I actually had a really good job at the time, and was participating in this interview only because a friend of mine had asked me to, having recognized just how backward this company was from a PM capability point of view. As good as I had it, if these people could make a better offer, I was completely okay with entertaining it, hence my attending the interview. “I’m not sure that I do.” I began. “What does this company offer that would make it an attractive destination?” You would have thought that I just insulted the appearance of her pets, based on her reaction. The interview abruptly ended, and I never heard back. Which was just as well. What the HR director inadvertently showed was that this particular company thought an awful lot of itself, to the point that they were more than willing to display its arrogance to potential workers. If it was so transparently haughty to interviewees, imagine how it displayed this hubris to its existing employees. Where the “you’re lucky to be working here” narrative gets really interesting is when we use it to analyze how the four different Maccoby architypes[i] would deal with it. Generally speaking, the organizations that have more Gamesmen and Craftsmen will outperform those with a preponderance of Company Men and Jungle Fighters. But the organizations that holds the “lucky-to-be-here” narrative as part of its corporate culture will tend to repel Gamesmen, who are known for needing the decision-making latitude to take risks to bring in more work. Similarly, Craftsmen, who are focused on providing the highest-quality good or service that they can, will easily become frustrated when corporate policies and procedures mandate a technical approach that isn’t necessarily the optimal one, but the lucky-to-be-here zeitgeist strongly dissuades operating outside of those confines. Conversely, the Company Men will tend to swallow this dysfunctional macro-assertion in its entirety, and behave consistent with that belief. The combination of the presence of a significant number of Company Men in the organization, combined with this belief, will almost invariably deliver the phenomena of managers who are willing to fail (in PM space, to bring in their projects on-time, on-budget) rather than operate outside company guidance, even in the smallest degree. And this environment is perfect for the flourishing of Jungle Fighters, who can use their favorite tactic, the ex parte conversation, to point out every single variation from policy/procedure, large or small, real or perceived, to the detriment of their enemies. In short, the presence of the “you’re lucky to be here” narrative in any given organization’s culture will drive away the true performers, and lead to a highly political office environment. So, unless you’re really in to working in highly politicized workspaces, when you are evaluating a potential place to work, well, “you’ve got to ask yourself one question: do I feel lucky (for working here)? Well, do ya, PM?” [i] Maccoby, Michael, The Gamesman; The New Corporate Leaders, Bantam Books, 1978. |
Posted on: September 21, 2026 10:09 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (0)
“No Good Deed Goes…”
| In the runup to the decisive World War II battle of Midway, there was sharp disagreement between the Hawaii-based U.S. Naval cryptologists, headed by Joseph Rochefort, and the Washington D.C.-based intelligence office about the next target of the Imperial Japanese Fleet. Rochefort was convinced that it would be Midway Island, while Washington was equally certain that it would be elsewhere in the Pacific, including Papua New Guinea. A member of Rochefort’s team came up with an idea: the coded name of the IJN’s next objective was “AF,” but nobody seemed to be able to agree on what “AF” was. Rochefort arranged to have secure message sent to Midway, instructing them to broadcast an uncoded message indicating that their fresh water plant was malfunctioning. Soon afterwards, the Americans intercepted a Japanese transmission indicating that “AF” was short of drinking water. Rochefort was right. As a result, the commander of the U.S. Fleet sent to intercept the Japanese was provided with what was essentially the entire IJN order of battle, including dates and times. Skillfully positioning his fleet northeast of Midway, Admiral Spruance was able to inflict a massive defeat on the Japanese Navy, even though he was outmanned, out-gunned, with fewer, inferior aircraft and less experienced pilots. Indeed, the only tangible advantage the United States had going into the Battle of Midway was its superior intelligence, and that was a direct result of Joseph Rochefort’s expertise and tenaciousness. So, was Rochefort recognized and rewarded for his invaluable insight that led to the saving of hundreds of American lives and shortening the war? Well, no. Admiral Ernest King, head of the Navy at the time, personally disliked Rochefort, and refused to consider the attempts by Admiral Chester Nimitz to recognize him.[i] The fact that King was co-located with the very same naval intelligence organization that should have arrived at the correct conclusion well before the Hawaii-based team did, and was embarrassed because of having been out-performed by Rochefort’s team, had something to do with King’s ill-placed animosity[ii]. Rochefort was eventually reassigned to a Floating Dry Dock in San Francisco, and never served at sea again.[iii] Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World… If you completed the question in this blog’s title with the word “unpunished,” go to the head of the class at GTIM Nation University. It’s been my personal experience that, of what I consider my major career accomplishments, every single one brought with it new enemies, entrenched, vindictive, and permanent. I think that this particular organizational behavior and performance pathology goes well beyond failure to recognize achievement where and when it’s due. I believe it points to a profound departure on the part of the owning organization from a meritocracy, and its arrival into a politically-driven swamp, almost certainly significantly populated by Maccoby archetype Jungle Fighters. Are you currently in such an organization? This particular pathology has several symptoms, and the one I’ve noticed that turns up in its early stages has to do with the blurring of the lines of distinction when it comes to recognizing success and failure. In one particular instance, I was given a task that was considered extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish, by an overtly hostile upper manager. He also “assigned” one of his favorites, a fellow I’ll call “Bob.” At the start, Bob was a no-show. If things were to get done, I would have to do them. As the deadline loomed, and it started to look like I would actually cover the scope on-time, Bob started hanging around my office more often. Not that he would actually do any of the work – he just wanted to be seen and associated with me at that stage. The day that I was transmitting the deliverable Bob wouldn’t leave my office. I came to realize later that his owning organization had perfected the art of glomming onto success stories that they really hadn’t contributed to, and fleeing failures for which they were, in fact, directly responsible. Sure enough, when the recognition came for having successfully performed the scope on-time, on-budget, the credit went to … Bob. Other signs include the persistence of ex-parte discussions on contested technical scope, the isolation of any Craftsmen or Gamesmen Maccoby archetypes by the Jungle Fighters, and, of course, the aforementioned misplacement of attribution for success, accompanied by failure to hold poor performers responsible. I believe that this is one of the motives for those who push back against the implementation of the PMO: Earned Value and Critical Path Methodology-based Management Information Systems are brutally effective in reliably identifying the winners and losers of the PM game within the macro-organization, so the poorer managers naturally hate being exposed as such. So, for all those over-achievers within GTIM Nation (almost certainly a plurality, if not a majority), keep accomplishing, by all means. Just be aware of the dark side of it: the word “unpunished” pops to the mind when reading this blog’s title for a reason. [i] Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rochefort on September 5, 2026, 21:02 MDT. [ii] Retrieved from https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history/2026/june/justice-joe-rochefort on September 5, 2026, 21:52 MDT. [iii] Ibid. |
Posted on: September 10, 2026 11:08 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (0)
Project Management Saving The World
| GTIM Nation knows of my disdain for the old saw that the point of “all” management is to “maximize shareholder wealth.” Even though this assertion is easily overturned, it’s still commonly taught in business schools around the world. I firmly believe that this tenet of commonly-embraced management science is not only wrong, but its acceptance has led to a whole host of bad business decisions, and that its continued assumed preeminence represents a menace to the advancement of management science and, by extension, the success of all mankind. Okay, that’s a bit much to digest all at once, so let’s break it down into management-sized pieces, kind of like a Work Breakdown Structure. One of the biggest economic issues in the United States right now has to do with the development of data centers. These data centers have generated a great deal of controversy, mostly centering around their need for electricity and water, as well as their projected impact to the economies of the areas where they are located. Those in favor of these centers often point to the anticipated benefits of employment and generated tax revenue for whatever government is in place for that locale. From my perusal of the news/opinion pieces on their development, those opposed appear to have the much louder voices, and those voices are proving to be persuasive indeed. But consider: what’s the point of these data centers? It’s mostly to enhance current internet capabilities, but also to help advance the field of Artificial Intelligence, or AI. Okay, so what happens if AI becomes more advanced? Naturally, doomsday scenarios abound, much as they did when computers first became commonplace in the nominal execution of management duties. Last I checked, the world has not come under the control of a supercomputer threatening to attack multiple metropolitan areas with nuclear weapons, as in The Forbin Project. My best guess as to the impact of AI on management in general and Project Management in particular is that its use will reduce the number of dumb decisions made in business settings. As Milton Freeman famously said, “So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free-enterprise system.”[i] Consider the folly of all of the businesses, large and small, that pursued unproductive to straight-up silly goals, and the economic resources that they ultimately wasted. Now consider what would happen if such business decisions were to be culled from the arena of workable ideas before they even sought funding, even by as much as 5%. If the businesses in the United States alone did this, the increase in GDP would be $1.514 Trillion (USD). Just for the record, besides the US, there are only 10 countries world-wide with a GDP above that increase. Of course, advances in AI are absolutely not confined to the US, and an improvement in better decision-making of only 5% might prove conservative. In short, advances in AI can have a profound positive effect on people’s lives across the globe. What’s standing in its way? The aforementioned opposition to data centers, for one. I do not have access to the board rooms and inner dealings of the executives who are seeking to construct these data centers, but it’s easy for me to speculate that at least some of them are being advised by their Note that I am absolutely not talking about stakeholders here. PMI defines stakeholders as “an individual, group, or organization that may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of a project, program, or portfolio.” I’m talking about customers, both current and potential. Customers are different. Those pursuing data centers need to interact with them in such a way that they not only cease opposing these Projects, but will actually help make it happen. How to do that? Show them the product or service being provided, how it will make their (business) lives better, and by how much. This PM-orientation has the chance to utterly re-do the conversation with respect to the data centers, and, by extension, an improvement of the management sciences at a scale previously held to be unattainable. But that’s not going to happen under the “maximize shareholder wealth” paradigm. No, if the business world is to be saved, it simply has to be by Project Management. [i] Retrieved from https://www.azquotes.com/author/5181-Milton_Friedman/tag/capitalism on 26 August 26, 2026, 20:16 MDT. |
Posted on: August 31, 2026 10:34 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (1)
Consultant, Or Auditor?
The answer to the question in the title might not be as clear-cut as some in GTIM Nation believe, and to demonstrate this let’s break out the Game Theorists’ favorite tool, the Payoff Grid. Consider that both consultants and auditors seek to review the target organization’s business practices as they manifest in its reviewable outputs, hoping to glean insights into its management techniques and how those techniques are eventually implemented and executed. This being the case, the two axes for the Payoff Grid readily present themselves: (1) Is the organization doing something correctly or incorrectly, right or wrong (as determined by either the named audit standard, or the Consultant’s personal opinion), and (2) Is the person making this determination correct, or incorrect? Here’s the Grid:
As is the case in most of these Payoff Grids, Scenarios B1 and A2 show the ideal, sought-after outcome. The Consultant/Auditor makes the right call, and revisions to the organization, its business model, and practices can be based on reliable information. But it’s in the abnormal Scenarios where the trouble lurks, so let’s get right into them. While both Auditors and Consultants are vulnerable to the abnormal Scenarios, the Auditors are more likely to err in A1, while the Consultants are more likely to err in Scenario B2. Here’s why. An Auditor will usually be hired by an agency outside the target organization, for the purpose of finding fault or errors in the way the target is executing scope, recording transactions, performing proper safety functions, etc., etc. To this end the Auditor would never want to find themselves making a determination that falls within Scenario B2, which would represent a failure on their part to correctly identify a real problem. A B2 error could end the Auditor’s career if that uncaught error ended up causing catastrophic results later. On the other hand, an A1 error has very little downside, at least to the Auditor. The target organization would simply have to spend more time and energy developing either an evidence package that explains why the determination is mistaken, or, in a surprisingly high number of cases, admit to the “error” and provide an evidence package on why it won’t happen again. Same Payoff Grid, but very different payoff scenario for the Consultant. Consultants are almost always hired by the host organization, meaning that somebody within said organization has recognized a vulnerability or shortfall in performance, thinks that they know the approximate area of causality, but lacks either the technical expertise or organizational clout to specifically identify and rectify it. Consultants in areas where the targeted practice or underlying management science is clearly and thoroughly captured in some sort of codex, and where the collection of the evidence package is well-proscribed (like in accounting) have a fairly straight-forward path. Not so outside those confines, as in Project Management, which brings us to our very first barrier to consultant accuracy: what’s the audit standard, or baseline against which the host organization is being evaluated? Typically, this would be the Consultant’s education and experience, augmented by some published standard, such as the PMBOK Guide®. But those three bases vary wildly – the PMBOK® alone has gone through eight revisions. All things fail by irrelevant comparisons goes the saying, and there’s going to be considerable pressure for the Consultant’s findings to be consistent with the things their sponsor suspected in the first place. Then we have the problem of mono-dimensionality. Recall the old saw “affordability, availability, quality: pick any two.” Does the host organization have a business model oriented towards availability and affordability? Then the recommendation that additional resources be used in pursuing a higher level of PM quality would probably not be indicated, but a consultant using just the PMBOK Guide® as the standard might recommend exactly that. Also consider the makeup of the host organization. Is it dominated by the Maccoby architype Jungle Fighters and Company Men, with Craftsmen and Gamesmen in short supply? Then the recommendation of more scrupulous adherence to the aforementioned PMBOK Guide® couldn’t happen, even if it was the right call. And these are just two out of a myriad of factors that should come into play when formulating a workable correction to an existing management strategy, let alone the discovery of the optimal one. What we have here is a situation where two different but related roles of organizational outsiders, tasked to evaluate that organization’s business model or management practices and generate findings/recommendations for the errors they perceive, are working under pressures that push them towards a specific type of bias. Let me be clear: I’m not asserting that most (or even a plurality of) auditors or consultants will succumb to these influences, and allow their findings to stray from an even-handed approach. What I am saying is that, if the results of this outsider’s analysis are influenced by who is paying for them, even in the slightest degree, then we’re no longer in the realm of the management sciences. So, sure, go ahead and hire consultants and work with auditors. Just understand why and in what direction they are may err. |
Posted on: August 21, 2026 03:23 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
