Game Theory in Management

Regular GTIM Nation readers are probably familiar with Hatfield’s Incontrovertible Rules of Management #3, which reads

The 80^th percentile best managers who have access to only 20% of the information needed to obviate a given decision will be consistently out-performed by the 20^th percentile worst managers who have access to 80% of the information so needed.

So, what happens when managers experience a decline in the amount of the information they need to consistently make optimal, or even appropriate, decisions? Sure, they make poorer and poorer choices, but the results that come from a management environment where the information systems are falling short, in my experience, follow a very predictable path: management becomes increasingly reactionary.

And by reactionary, I mean that these actions become more dramatic, intense, and far-reaching, because the problems they address have been allowed to become more dramatic, intense, and far-reaching than they would have been if they had been discovered earlier. For example, the problems behind the Control Account that’s about to significantly overrun next reporting period call for more extreme remedies than when that same CA experienced a mild out-of-threshold negative Cost Variance six months ago. Make no mistake – over-correcting is often just as damaging to the situation than no correction at all. A pilot once told me that they even have an axiom for this phenomenon, I think it’s along the lines of “if you get behind on your controls, you’re lost.” I interpreted this to mean that if the pilot is surprised by the reaction of the aircraft to the changes to the controls, he’s likely in trouble.

So, how does the PM or PMO Director prevent an erosion in the Project Management Information Systems (PMISs) needed to keep the decision-makers informed? Let’s pull out the Game Theorists’ favorite analytical tool, the Payoff Grid, shall we?

Note that, unlike many other Payoff Grids, this one has only one acceptable scenario, (B). In the other scenarios, even if the PM is savvy enough to know the value of Earned Value or Critical Path Methodologies-based systems, if such systems are unavailable, chances are that, sooner or later, they will enter into the downward spiral of purely reactionary management. But here’s the kicker – I have personally witnessed (and I’m sure many other PMs have, as well), time and again, the PMs themselves will interfere with or even defeat attempts to set up the very PMISs that not only should they seek, but the other, more enlightened PMs will need to attain Scenario (B).

It follows, then, that this battle must be fought on two fronts: (1) Any PM who eschews the basic MISs needed to measure the Project’s cost and schedule performance should be given only the most basic, least-technically challenging scope to work, and (2) a valid PMIS must be available to all of the PMs, wanted or not. I’ll admit right now that front #1 is easier to work, because front #2 raises the question “what counts as a valid Project Management Information System?” For this we turn to Hatfield’s Incontrovertible Rule of Management #22, which reads:

All useful management information has the following three characteristics:

• • It is accurate,
  • It is timely,
  • And it is relevant.

If I could add a corollary, it would be that the General Ledger is incapable of providing all of the information needed to assess a Project’s cost performance. That crucial piece of information only comes from a working Earned Value Management System, even if that system is very basic. Indeed, the practice of using only the budget and actual cost data elements, typically from the general ledger, to determine the Project’s cost performance is nicknamed the “watching the actual costs go by” method, and is a clear indicator that the PM doing so is doomed to enter the reactionary scenarios above. Also noteworthy is the fact that comparing budgets to actual costs remains a useless analytic technique even when the level of granularity is increased. Whether performed at the total Cost Account level, or at the Basis of Estimate (BoE) line-item level, it still has nothing to do with cost performance. As far as deriving Project cost performance is concerned, comparing budgets to actuals is not only inaccurate, it has a 50% chance of being flat-out wrong, meaning that decisions based on it have an even chance of also being wrong.

PMs struggling to bring in their projects on-time, on-budget while facing an institutional lack of information are tragic figures. PMs who choose to be misinformed are just irksome. In my opinion.

I think I will add a new entry to Hatfield’s Incontrovertible Rules of Management that reads:

A plurality, if not a majority, of business model pathologies have their roots in deficiencies of character.

For example, consider Chesterton’s Fence. The notion that someone would have to articulate that it’s a bad idea for a new property owner, upon discovery of a fence in the middle of that property that did not fulfill any intuitive function, have that fence torn down has nothing to do with any theory of optimal property sub-division. Rather, it addresses a tendency of human nature to act before having the relevant information associated with those kinds of decisions which, in turn, come from the character deficiencies of impatience and arrogance.

When it comes to creating anew or replacing existing upper management within the Project Management Office, one common business model pathology I have witnessed has the tendency to create barriers to eventual PMO success, and is addressed in Hatfield’s Incontrovertible Rules of Management #12, which reads:

In large-scale re-orgs, particularly one where two (or more) groups are being merged, employees displaying the highest level of loyalty to new management tend to be rewarded more generously than the most talented members.

In other words, loyalty, not talent, is the coin of the realm in new or re-organized Teams in general, and PMOs in particular.  Writing along similar lines, Nicolo Machiavelli stated “The conqueror does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of difficulty…”[i] Of course, Machiavelli was writing about the highly politically-charged and violent nature of 15^th Century Italian city-states, but I’ve found some of his writings to be applicable to the organizational behavior and performance characteristics of corporations.

When we combine this effect with those instances where the new PMO management is seeking to either introduce a new technical approach to advancing the organization’s capability maturity, or significantly altering the existing one, we have the following payoff grid:

Every new PMO Director hopes for Scenario B, and may even believe themselves there even as evidence of one of the other Scenarios mounts. But, if the PMO Director has selected a poor technical approach to the advancing-PM-capability problem, then the last thing he would want to see is a staff who either doesn’t recognize its deficiencies, or is willing to declare loyalty to an approach they know to be flawed (Scenario A), which is why Scenario C is the next-best one.

The problem being illustrated by the above payoff grid is not that of a disloyal staff needing to be marginalized, but that of the new PMO leadership automatically assuming that their new/modified technical approach is the optimal one. For if the PMO leadership does not arrogate to itself the presumption of being right 100% of the time with respect to the selected technical agenda, they would be open to the benefits of arriving in Scenario C, recognizing that it is vastly superior to Scenario A. Scenario C carries with it the implication that the PMO leadership can course-correct in time to attain some demonstrable level of PM capability maturity before the macro-organization’s executives become disappointed, whereas becoming enmired in Scenario A points to a path that eventually delivers a situation where the PMO director is comfortable and confident, all the way up to the point that their prioritization of loyalty over talent precipitates an erosion (if not collapse) of the very organizational support needed to maintain their under-performing PMO.

And, while all of these pressures stem from a fear of the PMO Director finding herself in Scenario D, I must admit that, even though it looms larger than it should, the possibility of the existing PMO staff refusing to support a new, demonstrably superior technical approach cannot be ignored. But if we assume that the Maccoby[ii] archetypes of the Gamesman and the Craftsman would typically recognize a superior technical approach when they see it, and the Company Man will usually accept the trajectory of the organization around him, then that leaves only…

That’s right, the Jungle Fighter. It’s the presence of Jungle Fighters within the Team that dramatically increase the odds of the new PMO Director finding himself in Scenario D. What we have here, essentially, is the worst type of Maccoby archetype driving an artificial inflation of the perceived value of the oleaginous loyal over the truly advanced-in-PM members of the PMO which, in turn, significantly lower the odds of the discovery or successful implementation of the best technical approach to attaining the PMO’s goals. So, new PMO Director, before you replace the existing Team’s more advanced members with those who strike you as being more trustworthy, think twice.

Unless the existing people are risk managers. Feel free to immediately send them to someone else’s Program Office.

[i] Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, retrieved from https://effectiviology.com/strategy-lessons-from-machiavelli-the-prince/ on January 26, 2024, 17:32 MST.

[ii] Maccoby, Michael, The Gamesman, The New Corporate Leaders, Simon & Schuster, 1976.

Without getting into specifics, if one were to place too much of a specific isotope of Uranium in the same place and at the same time, it would initiate a fission reaction, also known as “going critical.” If this were to happen unintentionally, many, many people would have a very, very bad day. This being the case, how on Earth, I can hear GTIM Nation say, is Michael going to draw this analogy, between a nuclear fission event and your run-of-the-mill Project Management Office, or PMO? I’ll explain.

Recall my oft-cited Hatfield’s Rule Of Management #23: Affordability, Availability, Quality, pick any two. When PMOs first start off, they are typically made up of small-to mid-sized teams, even within large macro-organizations. Many will fail, but I’m convinced that its odds of success are significantly enhanced if their overarching strategy takes into account the previously-stated rule, and aligns itself with the owning macro-organization. For example, a contractor that does not deal with new or cutting-edge technology, known for its ability to deliver more basic, usable output on-time and on-budget, would probably not benefit from a PMO that insisted on a rigorous, highly-detailed audit-survivable Cost/Schedule Control System. On the other hand, an organization that did work with high-profile, cutting-edge technology, intended for mission-critical applications is likely to have a customer highly desirous of accurate and timely performance information, and would likely fail without such a Cost/Schedule Control System.

But here’s the rub. Many (if not most) medium-to-large contracting organizations will not be totally one or the other. Their portfolios are likely to be mixed, with a combination of high- and low-risk projects, rendering a one-size-fits-all PMO approach more of a liability than an asset. And yet, it has been my experience that the small/initial PMO, as it moves towards mid-size and maturity, will prioritize the writing and publishing of procedures and guides, standardizing the techniques and outputs for PM in general, essentially mandating just such an approach.

Now consider what is likely to happen when all of the elements of this PMO are brought together in close intellectual proximity, throwing out their ideas on how PM should be advanced within the macro-organization but needing the rest of the PMO to agree with them. Some will, no doubt, stress the need for an enforced solution (basically, writing down everything they believe needs to be done in a procedure, which is then approved by upper management), while others will point to more recent capability maturity theory as the only way to go. Still others, wanting to avoid organizational conflict, will suggest a cafeteria approach, where the technical managers decide the level of baseline and performance measurement system robustness, and there will always be the ones who believe that more PM training will automatically move the macro-organization closer to an advanced PM capability. As the debate continues, temperatures rise, and those who are least prepared to defend their assertions rationally may resort to pointing to their education, including their certifications, or experience in some gee-whiz project, all of which tends to produce more heat than light. It all reminds me of Hatfield’s Rule Of Management #26, that you can put fifty PMs in a room together, and they will not be able to agree on the color of an orange.

As the free neutrons competing ideas slam into other radionuclides self-designated experts, the entire core technical agenda can go critical degrade, with only the introduction of graphite tamp a compromised solution (which nobody really wants, but offends the fewest PMO Team members) preventing a complete meltdown technical agenda collapse. So, how do we avoid even approaching this scenario in the first place?

Let’s start by circling back to a couple of assertions made earlier in this blog, specifically (a) that some parts of the portfolio are going to need only basic PM capabilities in order to increase their chances of successfully bringing in their projects on-time, on-budget, while others will need significantly more robustness in those systems, and (b) a one-size-fits-all approach ignores those needs. This being the case, the savvy PMO director will bifurcate the resources into two Teams: Team 1 will leave the level of cost/schedule performance measurement systems robustness to the Technical PMs, and simply provide the talent to make it happen. This Team will be affordable and available. Team 2 will bring with them the expertise to make advanced PM Information Systems a reality. They will be available and quality-oriented. These two Teams will only play by the same set of rules if those rules are general in nature, as their specific missions will be quite different. By splitting the core PMO’s deployed resources along these lines, you are decreasing the odds that it will go critical arrive at a dysfunctional business model, which would lead to, well, a lot of people having a bad day.

For those members of GTIM Nation who disagree with me, I’m looking forward to seeing y’all nuke my arguments in the comments section.

Now, before GTIM Nation emails Cameron McGaughy en masse demanding that I report to Occupational Medicine for drug screening and/or psych evaluation, let me explain this blog’s title. I’m a firm believer in Matrix Management, the organizational structure that acknowledges the inherent conflict of interest between Project Management and Organizational, or “Line” Management, and sets up the business model to avoid errors that would be expected to happen without such an acknowledgement. To engage in a bit of hyperbole, Project Managers don’t really care if the PMO’s printer is rented or purchased, or the increase in the rate of vacation accumulation between employees with less than ten years on the job and those with more. They do care very much about delivering their Projects’ scope on-time, on-budget, and orient their decisions towards that end. Again exaggerating, the Asset Managers don’t pay much attention to the success rate of the PMO’s portfolio – they’re more interested in the most efficient use of the office equipment budget, or the renumeration structure that both attracts and retains talent for the organization. Different goals, different Management Information Systems informing their decisions. It’s only natural, then, that different people be named managers in pursuing these often-competing goals, otherwise the inherent conflict of interest will skew many decisions and aspects of the business model towards error.

Here's where Matrix Management can get complex, and interesting. Many, if not most of the Project Team will be dedicated to your Project full-time. The rest of the Team may be working multiple projects, depending on their specialty. That being the case, the latter category of Team members will inevitably prefer some project work (and managers) to others, which is where making your Project the most attractive comes in to play. In this game, your Project has three images to maintain:

• Those in the Project Team will have a front-row view to how you handle them, as well as the technical challenges of the Project itself.
• Others within the organization who are not part of your Team will also form an opinion about how you are doing (based on your Cost/Schedule performance data presented in the Project Review Meetings), and also what it’s like to work on your Team (based on what they hear from your Team members).
• People outside the organization who are aware of your Project, including your customer, will also form an opinion of your management skills. Sometimes to find fault, other times to create an assessment of their competition, or even to poach your undervalued talent into their organization.

It’s this three-faced dynamic that led me to the analogy of the Dating App. The dating game isn’t that far removed from the PM-as-image-setter game: in both cases, we’re trying to put the best light on a given set of facts, knowing that, should we deviate from reality, downstream negative consequences inevitably await.

To really spice things up, let’s bring in the Maccoby Archetypes.[i] I find the most insufferable of these to be the Jungle Fighters, relying as they do on tactics that have nothing at all to do with actually contributing to the Project Team in order to get ahead within the organization. As I mentioned in last week’s blog, this type is also particularly adept at glomming on to Projects they perceive as winners (“swipe right”), and distancing themselves from the losers (“swipe left” or “ghost”), regardless of their actual level of contribution. These people are real – I once was given an extremely difficult task with a hard deadline from a new PMO team that had been grafted onto my organization. The person it should have gone to, an organizational superior (naturally), avoided me almost the entire period of performance … until it started to become apparent that not only would I pull it off, I would do so rather well. Once that happened, he started hovering over me, right up until I hit the “send” button on transmitting the deliverable. Afterwards he went back to leaving me alone.

My advice if you find your project on a dating app is attracting a lot of scope-adjacent people, looking to associate themselves with your soon-to-be-realized success? Don’t reject, or “out” them. It’s unlikely that would do any good, and might make you look bad. Simply let them bask in your Project Team’s reflected glory, and be confident that those truly in the know are fully aware of what’s happening.

Then ghost them.

[i] [i] In The Gamesman, The New Corporate Leaders (Simon and Schuster, 1976), the brilliant Michael Maccoby posits four corporate personnel archetypes: The Craftsman cares deeply about his output, but not so much about the organization around him; The Company Man tends to assume the persona of the organization around him; The Jungle Fighter gets ahead through calumny and other cloak-and-dagger tactics; and The Gamesman sees his renumeration not as food on the table or a roof over his head, but as tokens in some grand game being played.

There may well be an unwritten rule that any blog entitled “Game Theory in Management” can only go so long before using the Game Theorists’ favorite analytical tool, the Payoff Grid. Add to that ProjectManagement.com’s theme of career advancement, and a natural fit pops to the surface. It seems to me that, when considering career advancement within Project Management, the two main issues are (A) is the person within the field seeking advancement actually worth said advancement?, and (B) are they actually progressing within the PM realm? Based on these two questions, the Payoff Grid presents so:

Let’s address the way-it-should-be scenarios first. If you’re good at PM, and you’re advancing within the industry satisfactorily (1B), then this analysis won’t apply to you individually, but may have a significant bearing on you as part of an organization, which I’ll cover presently. Similarly, if you are new to PM, or not very good at it (2A), it’s truly appropriate that you are not advancing in the industry until such a time as you improve the quality of your contribution(s) to the nominal Project Team. Which brings us to the two dysfunctional scenarios, 1A and 2B. I think that, when addressing the subject of career advancement within Project Management, the natural implication is that there’s a large population of PMs in Scenario 2B, and there very well may be. But if that is the case, then I believe that a primary driver of that state of affairs is the population in Scenario 1A. Here’s why.

Permit me to state the obvious: those who don’t do PM very well advancing in the organization is a bad thing. Besides bringing with them, ahem, sub-optimal ideas for incorporation into the organizations’ business models (cough, risk management, cough), their inability to significantly (or even noticeably) improve their Project Teams’ capacity to deliver scope on-time, on-budget will place, not only them, but PM writ large square into the cross-hairs of our friends, the Accountants’, favorite Team-defunding analysis method, the Return on Investment. Why waste all that budget on a group of people adhering to the PM discipline when they have little to show for it, or not enough to justify the original PMO expenditure?

Then we have the propensity for poor Project Management to have a delayed effect on the projects’ outcome. A PM who sets up an invalid Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) at the beginning of the work probably won’t experience the skewing effect on that project’s Cost and Schedule performance measurement systems until close to the end of the project, or until after it’s too late to easily remedy. With detection of backward PM skills somewhat detached from the most likely outcome, it becomes a bit easier for inept PMs to escape the consequences of their poor decisions.

Let’s not forget that the two least desirable Maccoby Archetypes[i], The Jungle Fighter and the Company Man, have special skills in distancing themselves from the project-failure consequences of their actions. Jungle Fighters are, by their nature, adept at hovering close to Projects on a trajectory towards success, while subtly distancing themselves from those headed south, their actual level of genuine participation notwithstanding. And Company Men are pre-disposed towards an attitude that completing the Project on-time, on-budget is only a desirable outcome if it can be established that they had followed all of the organization’s rules and policies. Organizational loyalty is often the coin of the realm in newly-formed PMOs, with genuine talent taking a back seat, so that successful Project completion while outside the confines of the rulebook can be twisted into a career-limiting event. It’s both an attitude and naturally-following defense, with the result being the same as the Jungle Fighters’ – it’s rather difficult to hold them accountable for their poor PM choices.

So, yeah, if you are genuinely good at doing PM, but your career trajectory is lagging behind where it could be reasonably placed, you have every right to be frustrated. But I would assert the causal element behind such frustration should not be automatically imparted to PM’s techniques not receiving traction within the business world in general. I think that a not-insignificant factor lies in those PMs who are getting ahead, but shouldn’t.

To paraphrase Pogo (Walt Kelly), we have met the enemy, and some of them are us.

[i] In The Gamesman, The New Corporate Leaders (1977), the brilliant Michael Maccoby posits four corporate personnel archetypes: The Craftsman cares deeply about his output, but not so much about the organization around him; The Company Man tends to assume the persona of the organization around him; The Jungle Fighter gets ahead through calumny and other cloak-and-dagger tactics; and The Gamesman sees his renumeration not as food on the table or a roof over his head, but as tokens in some grand game being played.