Game Theory in Management

When discussing attracting and managing talent (ProjectManagement.com’s theme for June), the obvious take would be that (a) talent is a good thing to have on a Project Team, and (b) we should be doing all we can do to attract it. Of course, me being me, I’ve got to take exception to these assertions, and I wish to do so by using the example of the character Harry Potter. In the series of books by J.K. Rowling, Harry, of course, is extremely talented in the magical world, but is generally not recognized as such by his muggle family, the Dursleys, nor (at first) by the other students in his class.

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World…

First off, what definition should we use for “talent?” Truly advanced Project Managers deliver their projects on-time, on-budget. Non-talented PMs have excuses, or blame deflection strategies. If this isn’t the litmus test being employed, then what’s being attracted or retained may not be very talented at all.

Next, the introduction of highly talented personnel into the Project Team carries with it the possibility of disrupting the team’s cohesion, and therefore its ability to perform. How can you know if the desperately attracted “talent” will add to, rather than detract from, the Team’s performance? I actually address this question at length in my third book, The Unavoidable Hierarchy, (Routledge, 2016) but a (much) shorter answer relates to the archetype to which the “talent” belongs. GTIM Nation regulars know of my tendency to use Michael Maccoby’s archetypes from The Gamesman (Simon and Schuster, 1976), but for this analysis I’m going to use a few of my own. My idea is that, when evaluating talent, what’s also important is to get a sense of what other aspects of the persona can make the evaluate-ee a real contributor, or potential poison, and simply outing the Jungle Fighter types (from Maccoby) isn’t sufficient. Consider one definition of the term “talent,” that of the genuine value added to the team by the individual, separate from what others think of her, or even what she thinks of herself. Whether it’s intelligence, an ability to connect with customers, familiarity with mathematical concepts, or raw speed in a sprint (if you happen to own a sports franchise), this contribution to the teams’ objectives offers a usable definition of the term “talent.” Now, what about those other things, like what others think of her, or what she thinks of herself? These aspects of the persona are huge, and I can tell you why.

Let’s use as an example the individual who can effectively and quickly advance the team’s ability to accomplish their goals, but thinks very highly of themselves, and knows that others hold them in high esteem as well. Such an individual is an Alpha, a leader, more used to giving direction than receiving it. When Dumbledore meets a young Tom Riddle for the first time, he realizes that young Tom is gifted, but fails to appreciate the danger inherent in a powerful wizard who also thinks a great deal of himself. Bring this type of person on to your Project Team, and you may very well get to the finish line more expediently – but you may also see your technical agenda hijacked right out from beneath you, along with Team loyalty.

The Alpha’s near cousin, the Beta, may not be much better (in the common vernacular, “Beta” refers to a passive, effete member of the pack. This is incorrect. The passive, effete member is the “Omega.” The Beta is next in line to the leadership position, ready to assume it the moment the Alpha falters.). The Beta is talented – he brings a lot to the team – and those around think highly of him as well. He doesn’t think of himself as highly as the Alpha, but, again, he doesn’t think little of himself. He’s ready to take the lead role the moment the current PM falters. Bring this person on, but be aware that your actions may be receiving a level of scrutiny that you haven’t experienced previously.

In fact, the only highly talented archetype that’s completely safe to bring on board is the one whom others don’t recognize for their contributions, and are themselves at least somewhat humble about their role(s). Think Harry Potter himself, or Luke Skywalker. The term I appropriated for these types is “Cinderella,” but you get the idea. The ones who are actually very magical filled / imbued with the Force talented and capable of advancing the Project Team’s agenda, and yet, for whatever reasons, go unnoticed are rare, and, being rare, extremely valuable. Further complicating the issue is that they won’t have a distinguishing characteristic for quick identification, such as a lightning-shaped scar on their forehead.

So, of course, seek out talent, and try to add those possessing it to your team. But, if they don’t have a funky scar on their forehead, be aware of some of the baggage they tend to carry with them.

As tribal societies that used planned and organized agriculture to help ensure a steady supply of foodstuffs moved farther and farther into Northern Europe, the ability to precisely time specific farming tasks became more relevant as the available growing season shortened. Plant too soon, and the young seedlings might be killed off by a late frost; plant too late, and the almost-ready-to-harvest crops would suffer the same fate. To help maximize the odds of timing these activities optimally, early farmers observed calendars, the phases of the moon, and…

…animal behavior. It was widely believed in ancient times that animals, being “closer” to nature and all, had an instinctive way of knowing when the last frost had happened, or when the first one of the season was about to begin. The modern practice of dressing up in formal attire and yanking a Pennsylvania groundhog out of his burrow on February 2nd each year to see if we will have six more weeks of winter is a derivative of this belief.

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World…

GTIM Nation veterans are aware of my respect for the Michael Maccoby book The Gamesman: The New Corporate Leaders (Simon and Schuster, 1976), and its description of four types of workers:

• The Craftsman doesn’t really care about the organization, but cares deeply about his output.
• The Company Man tends to take on the persona of the organization around him.
• The Jungle Fighter gets ahead through deceit and calumny, deflecting blame for failure and attempting to glom on to successful endeavors.
• The Gamesman doesn’t see success as analogous to food on the table and a roof over the head. Rather, he sees these artifacts of success as tokens in some grand game he’s playing. For this reason The Gamesman tends to both master the techniques and particulars of his business interests and take more risks.

I would like to propose that we combine Maccoby’s insights with those of animal instincts (nevermind that Punxsutawney Phil’s accuracy rate is only between 35 and 40%), and arrange to have a male bighorn sheep, otherwise known as a ram, help rid our organizations of the Jungle Fighters that infest our Project Teams. Of course, these Jungle Fighters aren’t going to self-identify, so there must be a more direct way of finding them out. My recommendation is that we pick a Project Team at random, one that has a minimum of 20 people in it so that it probably includes at least one Jungle Fighter. We should then take a male bighorn sheep, and introduce him into a corral where various feeding troughs filled with grasses and clover are located. Each of these troughs has the name of a Project Team member attached. Based on his intuitive sense of potential in-herd adversaries, whichever trough the ram instinctively eats from (or even strikes with his horns!) may bear the name of the Jungle Fighter, and this person should receive higher scrutiny, if not reassigned altogether. Does this sound ridiculous? More so than – I swear I am not making this up – having a marmota monax speak in “goundhogese” to the President of the “Inner Circle,” who can understand this language due to his possession of an ancient wood cane? In comparison, the ram-picking-a-trough exercise is positively reasonable.

Just kidding. That’s not how rams can help you get a better percentage of high performers in your team.

Meanwhile, Back In The Real Project Management World…

The real way it can work is through the other type of ram, the Responsibility Accountability Matrix. Projects with even a rudimentary Earned Value Management System can easily differentiate projects that are doing well from those that aren’t, and, by drilling down through the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) a more precise level of granularity can be attained. The standard model for this is Projects made of up Control Accounts (CAs), and Control Accounts made up of Work Packages (WPs). Theoretically, Work Packages should be assigned to specific groups or teams documented in the Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS), which has a similar hierarchy, only with the Org Chart as its map. All that’s needed is to identify those Work Packages that consistently perform worse than others, and then find out which Organizational Breakdown Elements (read: lower-level organizations, such as team or groups, usually based on a common function or purpose) these low-performing WPs have in common. Those are the teams that will tend to be home to a higher percentage of Jungle Fighters than the others. Remember, Jungle Fighters usually do not directly contribute to the attainment of the Project Teams’ scope, on-time and on-budget. They are participating in your project in order to advance their own agendas, and will usually do so by deflecting blame and intercepting credit, in-between engaging in extensive gossip and treachery. They may (and often do) use such tactics to their advantage, but this tactic can’t keep their Work Packages from poor execution forever. Sooner or later such strategies will have an effect on performance, and, when it does, even the most basic EVMS can be cross-connected via the RAM to the OBS, and thence to the drivers of the poor functioning.

At which point a male big horn sheep may very well come up and eat from their trough.

Nature can be brutal. I’m not just talking about all those documentaries where zoomed-in praying mantises are chowing down on some other unfortunate insect, or where the cheetah actually catches the gazelle. Rather, I had in mind the footage of the various animals coming to the crocodile-infested watering hole to get a drink, all of their senses straining to notice the slightest perturbations in the water that would signal an imminent attack. One of the lighter versions of this story involves a mother elephant, essentially stomping a hapless croc into the mud while her baby gets its fill. My city’s municipal water supply may be notorious for pumping hard water, but, when I go to the kitchen faucet to get something to drink, at least I don’t have to worry about huge carnivores essentially unchanged since the Pliocene Epoch popping out of the pipes looking for a quick meal.

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World…

Then again, the other world that I inhabit does have some characteristics with such environs where certain errors can lead to (managerial) extinction, especially when macro-stressors hit the global economy. During such events, what management strategies will lead to greater business model robustness, and which themes or narratives, well, won’t?

Let’s use the example of the famed Hostile Takeover, the management world equivalent of a watering hole croc jumping up and swallowing a small mammal whole. What happens during a Hostile Takeover? The acquiring organization buys up the target company’s stock in an attempt to gain a controlling share, and then forces the target into bankruptcy. On an almost exclusive basis, the target company’s stock prices jump in value to mirror the new demand, meaning that the target’s shareholders are literally seeing their “wealth maximized.” Additionally, it’s also very common for the acquiring organization to fail to recoup the expense of the hostile takeover by selling off the target’s assets, meaning that the acquiring organization is definitely not maximizing their shareholders’ wealth. This being the case, why would any acquiring organization make the attempt in the first place, and why would the targets’ management resist?

It’s all due to market share, the coin of the Strategic Managers’ realm. By eliminating a competitor, those goods and services offered by the target are quickly removed from the marketplace, creating an opportunity for the acquiring organization to expand their percentage. So, what can be reliably inferred from the occurrence of a macro-stressor event in the middle of this market-share fight? Consider the major factor in any organization’s ability to restart after a slowdown (or even shutdown) event: the ability to retain or attract a loyal customer base. The relative wealth of the recovering organizations’ shareholders has very little to do with that organization’s ability to speedily rebound – in fact, it may be detrimental in those cases where retained earnings were distributed to said shareholders instead of paying down debt, creating reserves, or enhancing the customers’ experience. And, while market share is clearly essential, at the end of the day it has to be considered to be a trailing indicator. Market share may be influenced by the existence (or lack thereof) of competitors, but it’s the decisions of customers, both existing and potential, that drive the market share statistics, not the other way around. If the “maximize shareholder wealth” meme of the Asset Managers can’t inform the selection of management strategies to rebound after a slow/shutdown, and neither can the market share brass ring of the Strategic Managers, doesn’t that just leave Project Management?

Why, yes, yes it does.

Recall that the central tenets of PM, the so-called triple constraint of Scope, Cost, and Schedule, are all set by the customer, either directly or indirectly through the Request for Proposal, Bid, and Selection process. The Project Management realm is the only one exclusively focused on the customer – Asset Managers’ information streams deal with the assets internal to the organization, and the Strategic Managers’ focus is on the organization’s performance with respect to the competition. If your organization is really good at PM, either by setting up and maintaining an outstanding training/education system, or attracting (read: paying for) advanced talent in the PM realm, it falls to reason that such an organization will be far better positioned to withstand macroeconomic stressors, once some version of normalcy re-emerges.

In short, if your organization has chosen to pursue a robust PM capability, instead of basing its management strategies on “maximizing shareholder wealth” or elbowing aside competitors for more market share, you are in a position analogous to the baby elephant, approaching the macroeconomic watering hole after a long drought.

And mama elephant PMI® is right over your shoulder.

I’ve been hearing a lot of advertisements of late that incorporate some of the factors and circumstances surrounding operating or restarting business during and immediately after government policy and socially-driven restrictions begin to ease or go away altogether. Something that I’ve noticed about these ads is an irksome consistency, almost as if they were all written by the same advertising agency, employing the same copywriters.  These templates are usually highly consistent with the following:

“Hi, we’re (company name), and we have (been with this community a long, long time; had the honor of serving you over the past few years; just became a member of this city), and know what it means to (struggle through these times; face challenges we never thought we’d face; work to come together to overcome a shared crisis).  In these difficult times (“difficult times” and “new normal” don’t get alternative phrasing – I suspect there’s a law that says these exact terms MUST be used) we’re here to help you (get through these difficult times; serve your needs during these difficult times; help you adjust to the new normal). We’re open for business, and can arrange for (our people to perform their service in your home while maintaining social distancing protocols; us to deliver your order to your door; you to pick up your [product] using curb-side delivery). Please call us at …” Oh, sure, there’s some additional fluff thrown in, but these four sentences seem to make up the bulk of all recently-introduced advertising. There’s even a hilarious YouTube® video, spliced together from some national (or even international) campaigns that use the exact same verbiage, over and over.

This got me to thinking about all of the paper presentations I’ve subjected myself to over the years, at Project Management-centered conferences and seminars, and even a symposium on artificial intelligence, and how a certain consistency in messaging seems to pervade all of these macro-communication events as well. This, in turn, got me to thinking about what my present-day self would tell my thirty-year-old self about how to pick sessions in a PM (or other) conference, based on clues in the short synopsis listed in the conference’s schedule, or program.

The first thing I’d tell my younger self would be is that there are, broadly speaking, three bins in which virtually all conference papers can be placed:

• Yet another reiteration of rather old and well-known management strategies or techniques (usually Earned Value or Critical Path methodologies, but others have used this approach, as well), and how macro organizations really, really need to adapt them on a larger scale. The reasons for this push for broader usage typically come down to:
  • Everyone knows this is the right way of doing things; well, if not everyone, then certainly the people in the know.
  • Organizations that have adapted these practices broadly are more successful than those that don’t. And, if you ask us to back up this a priori assertion, we’ll point to anecdotal evidence only.
  • Anyone who disagrees with this paper presentation is an idiot.

I refer to these as “eat-your-peas-style hectoring” papers, and make every effort to avoid them. Their giveaway phrases in the seminar program are “basic” and “fundamental(s) of…” If you see either of these phrases, do something else with your time.

• The presenter was a bit key player in some gee-whiz project, and their success (rarely defined in terms of coming in on-time, on-budget) was due to some component of the PM codex, and the presentation has to do with the story behind the epiphany that led to this “success.” The giveaway here is the mention of the aforementioned gee-whiz project anywhere in the program’s syllabus.
• This last bin is the rarest, but most valuable: it is composed of those presenters who have actually performed some legitimate academic research, have developed some management insight or supportable hypothesis, and are looking to publish or socialize the results. These are usually identifiable by the absence of the previously-mentioned indicators.

Perhaps the primary reason the third category is so rare has to do with its very nature. Any valid research that paves the way to enhanced PM strategies or techniques that also has the characteristic of being transferrable AND scalable is obviously going to be a thing of value to the organization where it was discovered or derived – hence the reason business methods are patentable, as long as they meet the following criterion:

• It must be novel and non-obvious.
• It must be a process that creates a useful, concrete, and tangible result.
• The business method must involve some kind of technology, hardware, or equipment.[i]

Now ask yourselves, GTIM Nation: If you were to develop a management science technique or insight that met all of these criterion, would you rather (a) find a way to monetize it, in such a way that it brings compensation to you and/or your organization, or (b) pay money out to seminar sponsors for the honor of presenting such an idea to complete strangers, whose only possible avenue for recompense would be a high ranking on the speaker evaluation forms?

This means that the safest venue for third-bin presenters would be … authors of PM-themed books. Their motives are, well, if not pure, then purely understandable – they want to sell more books. They’ve done the research, and have put their usable ideas into a transferrable packet – otherwise no publishing house would bother with them. And, by developing and researching their ideas to a usable end, they end up advancing Project Management science in ways that the eat-your-peas hectorers or “my project was a success because of me” presenters could never approach. So, to my 30-year-old self, I would advise: seek out the columnists, bloggers, writers. That’s where the worthwhile ideas get vetted.

But if any of these authors starts on about “these difficult times,” then they’ve lost me.

[i] Retrieved from https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-a-business-method-patent-is on May 25, 2020, 19:10 MDT.

A few weeks back I blogged about the appropriate way of calculating the impact of the COVID-19 shutdown on our organizations, and pointed out one method that will probably be pushed as valid, but really isn’t. This week I want to take on perhaps the mother of all wrong methods for calculating the impact of a Black Swan event[i], one rooted in several highly questionable but widely accepted premises of modern management science theories. To be clear, I’m only referring to these notions as “theories” due to their rate of acceptance, not because they have been suitably verified (or tested, really) with empirical data or repeatable experiments.

Let’s work backwards from the actual analytic approach under my microscope, shall we? My sense is that there are going to be hundreds, if not thousands, of executives who will request their cost performance experts to quantify the cost impact of the slow/shutdown by pouring through General Ledger data, line by line, and identify which costs are attributable to the slow/shutdown, and which are not. I hold this to be an invalid approach, for the following reasons:

• In order for such an analysis to be remotely reliable, the ones poring over the data must be fluent in the differences between proximate cause, and material cause. The former is a clear and direct causal factor, from one event to another, similar to domino #1 falling over and forcing domino #2 to also fall. Material cause, on the other hand, must pass the if-not-for test, as in domino #2 would not have fallen from domino #1’s toppling if not for someone standing it up in close proximity to domino #1 in the first place.
• If the case for material cause can be made, the next impossibility would be to quantify how much responsibility, expressed objectively, should be split between the proximate causes and material one(s). Commercial and civil liability cases involving a jury setting the percentages of the culpability of the various defendants usually turn on such an analysis, and even here the findings often defy logic. In the domino example, we know that domino #2 fell. Let’s pretend that this had a serious, negative impact on our organization. What percentage of the total damages should be assigned to the person who knocked over domino #1, and how much should be assigned to the person who placed them upright so close to each other?
• If the previous bullet appears next to impossible to quantify, consider how ridiculously simple that example is compared to the near-chaotic environment of the near-infinite working parts of the local economy, let alone the regional, national, or global variety.
• In the face of such dizzying analysis parameters, how many of the executives ordering just such an analysis do you suppose will do so equipped with a readily-understandable guide, or template, usable as a sort of litmus test for every single line item in the General Ledger?
• And, in those rare instances where such guidance is provided, I can guarantee that none of them can preclude multiple exceptions. Some costs believed to be attributable to the shutdown, but actually had nothing to do with it, will be included in the tally, and vice-versa. Metcalf’s Law, also known as The Butterfly Effect[ii], virtually guarantees it.

Pulling the thread a bit further, it’s easy to see why the poring-through-the-General-Ledger approach is often considered the obvious way of approaching the impact quantification problem: generations of business degree holders have been taught that the General Ledger is the source and residence of all management information that has a currency symbol in front of it. Recall, however, my oft-stated distinctions between the three types of management:

• Asset Management is centered on the organization’s assets, and its main tool is the General Ledger;
• Project Management focusses on customer-generated performance standards of scope, cost, and schedule, with its main information streams based on Earned Value and Critical Path Methodologies;
• Strategic Management is all about relative market share.

Now ask yourself, where in the balance sheet or profit-and-loss statement can we see information about your organization’s market share percentages? Of course, it’s not there. That’s not what those reports convey. Then why should anybody expect them to show the cost or schedule performance impact of a pandemic? Unless COVID-19 destroyed or harmed a company asset, the General Ledger simply cannot convey any meaningful quantification of the impact of the pandemic on the organization, save the singular data point, relative revenue changes.

And that, GTIM Nation, is NOT how one quantifies the impact of a shutdown.

[i] See Nassim Taleb’s outstanding book, The Black Swan; The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Random House, 2007.

[ii] Usually expressed as the question “If a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, does it cause a hurricane in Texas?,” the more formal definition is that relatively small perturbations in far-flung nodes of a large network can have a cascading effect, bringing massive changes to nodes on the other extreme of said network.