(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/TNS)

You may have noticed that Adele dominated at the recent GRAMMY Awards. Sure, there’s some controversy over whether Beyoncé should have won more, but here’s why I even bring this up: Adele and Beyoncé were just two of many thousands of artists and producers who wanted to be on stage that night, lifting high their award for their big hit.

Yet few make it that far.

What makes a hit? And why should that even matter to project managers?

I recently sat down with Derek Thompson, Senior Editor at The Atlantic magazine. Thompson is the author of a new book entitled Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in an Age of Distraction. Thompson chased down this idea of what makes hits and has put together an engaging read on the science of what makes something popular.

I’ll take a wild guess and suggest that you’re not necessarily trying to write the next GRAMMY-winning song. But if you lead teams and projects, you need to sell your ideas. Whether it’s for your project or your career, there are approaches or ideas that you’d like to see get some traction. Thompson’s book outlines some intriguing ideas for your consideration.

You can hear Thompson talk about the book in his own words at http://PeopleAndProjectsPodcast.com/166

Here’s an appetizer of ideas that project managers and leaders at all levels can sample from Thompson's book.

Remember the MAYA Rule

First, when it comes to trying to sell an idea, Thompson suggests you follow the MAYA Rule. MAYA stands for Most Advanced Yet Acceptable. You may not recognize the name Raymond Loewy, but you’ve been influenced by him more than you know. He’s the father of modern industrial design, and Cosmopolitan magazine wrote back in 1950 that Loewy “has probably affected the daily life of more Americans than any man of his time.”

Loewy’s philosophy? Stretch the boundaries of something to make it new, yet keep it just familiar enough to be acceptable. Too much innovation before its time and it won’t be accepted. Too familiar and it won’t get noticed or catch on.

MAYA was his answer. What’s the lesson for us? If the idea you’re trying to get approved is rather radical—perhaps edging towards Most Advanced and Barely Acceptable—try to anchor your message with the familiar. Seek to show how this new idea is similar to something they already know. If you’re trying to get approval for something more on the familiar side, do the opposite. Seek to highlight what’s new.

Sometimes we try to ask for too much, or strive to change too much, too quickly—it’s beyond the Yet Acceptable threshold. Keep MAYA and Thompson’s related advice in mind as you try to influence in the days ahead.

Fluency and Disfluency

When an idea is easy to assimilate, it’s fluent. Thompson finds “fluent ideas and products are processed faster and they make us feel better, not just about ideas and products we confront, but also about ourselves. Most people generally prefer ideas that we already agree with, images that are easy to discern, stories that are easy to relate to, and puzzles that are easy to solve.”

Disfluency is the opposite. It requires hard thinking. It’s dissonant. And it may keep our ideas from catching on.

There are countless applications for us as leaders of teams and projects. Take an email to our stakeholders, for example. How can we make it as fluent as possible, which is to say, how can we make it as easy as possible for them to understand what we’re trying to communicate?

I teach an MBA class on project management and one of the assignments is a 2-page paper. One of my students submitted a paper where the initial paragraph was a page and a half! One paragraph! Opening that document was like opening a door to find a brick wall instead of a doorway! It screamed “Don’t read me!” “I don’t know what I’m talking about!” It dripped with disfluency!

We can cause disfluency by using jargon or not appreciating cultural influences. In a rush to send a message, we leave out critical aspects of our idea that leave the receiver without the necessary context.

Before you send that next message, remember to seek fluency instead of disfluency.

Beware Homophily

Whether you recognize the term or not, you’ll recognize the effect. Homophily is our tendency to sort ourselves into tribes (or, as Thompson prefers, “mini cults”). Homophily is impacting how we get our news, with whom we go to lunch most days, and how we build our networks of relationships.

Especially in this time of increasing polarization, I encourage you to intentionally fight back by seeking out people who think differently from you, who have different perspectives or even worldviews than you. Homophily will try to get in your way. Push through.

The dirty little secret of business is that everything comes down to relationships. Thompson provides insights and examples of how the success of your ideas, your career, and your projects could depend far more than you realize on who’s in your Top 5 relationships.

Go deeper into the organization, beyond your particular domain or area—even outside your industry. If you’re a project manager, take advantage of joining your local PMI chapter and take the time to get to know people who are leaders there.

Building a strong Top 5 is not brown-nosing or simply self-seeking. It’s just a great way to build your ability to make a difference, for you, your team, your organization and your career.

Quality is Not Destiny

We have this bias sometimes that the best idea wins. The smartest person gets promoted. The best approach gets approved. Our work should stand on its merits.

The best song or most talented artist should be on the GRAMMY stage, right?

No offense to Adele or Beyoncé: that’s not what the research finds. But if you’d like to learn more about how ideas take off, including some scenarios specifically relevant to project managers and other leaders, check out this discussion with Derek Thompson about his book Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in an Age of Distraction.

http://PeopleAndProjectsPodcast.com/166

P.S. If you listen closely, you’ll even hear my duet with Beyoncé.

So what’s your take? What questions or concerns do you have? Share your thoughts and questions in the comments below. I look forward to discussing this with you!

Andy Kaufman is a keynote speaker who helps organizations around the world improve their ability to deliver projects and lead teams. He is the host of the People and Projects Podcast which provides interviews and insights to help you lead and deliver.

Hate is a strong word. But when you manage projects and lead teams, it’s easy to hate constraints. “If only we had more time. Or money. Or people. Or __________. Then we could deliver.”

Constraints limit our options, and by limiting us, they hold us back from getting better results.

Or do they?

Scott Sonenshein is the author of Stretch: Unlock the Power of Less—and Achieve More Than You Ever Imagined. His book just hit the shelves this month and it’s filled with lessons that challenge us all to reframe how we look at constraints. Sonenshein provides a compelling case for why constraints—having less—may actually be a good thing, or at least provide benefits that are not offered when we have excess.

In this post, I share three ideas from Stretch that you can apply to your day-to-day leading of people and projects.

Constraints Are… Good?

I can accept that constraints are capable of fostering new ways of thinking. That’s not a new thought and seems reasonable, in theory. Yet it can cause headaches, in practice. I’m more apt to whine about the limits of constraints than I am to see them as catalysts for creativity.

But here’s a practical application of the idea that I use with my executive coaching clients. Too often, when faced with a constraint, we can easily become the No person. Here’s what I mean….

A CEO of a mid-sized company was walking me through her facility, introducing me to people along the way. When we eventually got back to her office, she asked if I remembered one of her project managers. I did.

She confided, “He’s the No guy.”

“What do you mean?”

Shaking her head, the CEO shared, “It doesn’t seem to matter what the question is, his answer is ‘No’. If I ask him if we’re going to hit the project due date, he’s likely to respond ‘No, we have issues.’ If I ask if we can add functionality to a project, his response? ‘Nope. Not in scope.’ Can he make it to a meeting? ‘Sorry—I’m busy.’ He’s the No guy!”

I decided to ask the Dr. Phil question: “How’s that working for him?” Without hesitation, the CEO said, “He’s about to get fired.”

I want to be clear: sometimes the best answer is ‘No’. If it’s an ethical, safety, or quality issue at stake, the best response is likely a direct, emphatic ‘No’. But that’s not what was going on here. This guy, when faced with constraints, only saw reasons why something wasn’t doable, so that’s what he communicated. I’m guessing he isn’t lazy or unwilling. He just tended to see why things weren’t possible.

Being the ‘No’ person is not generally good for your career. Yet being the ‘Yes’ person can set you up for failure as well. So what’s a constrained project manager to do?

When faced with a constraint—let’s say a time constraint—instead of being the ‘No' person, try to reframe the problem. Instead of “No, it can’t be done!”, or “Sure! No problem, Chief!”, how about this…. Consider what can be done in that timeframe.

Surely you’ve learned to not bring problems but solutions, right? Think of solutions in this context as options. What options can you bring to your sponsor or stakeholders that acknowledge the constraints yet strive to best meet the needs of the business?

Bringing options shows you’re trying to help—you're trying to be part of the solution. It can depend on context, but I've found offering three choices is better than just one and certainly better than twenty. Bring options to your sponsor and work with them to see which one best serves the organization. This approach is far more beneficial than just saying No or Yes.

Tapping Into the Wisdom of Outsiders

In Stretch, Sonenshein shares that one way to think differently about our constraints is to get beyond ourselves by tapping into people with fresh eyes who are perhaps not as emotionally invested in our project. There are remarkable examples of how the further a problem is from a person's expertise, the more likely he or she is to solve it. Sonenshein tells of biologists who solved more chemistry problems compared to chemists. Scientists outside a specific field had different, and ultimately better, ways of approaching problems than the experts.

The lesson for us? If you have a problem to solve or constraint to deal with, consider bringing some outsiders into the discussion. Maybe it’s someone new to the company or group. Maybe it’s someone who has solved a similar problem in a different domain. Perhaps it's asking a millennial for their thoughts despite their limited experience.

The point is that expertise has its benefits, but sometimes it’s a curse. Outsiders can connect dots or bring ideas to the discussion that would not otherwise have been considered. Give that a try in the coming weeks and let me know how it goes!

You Get What You Expect

Sonenshein suggests You get what you expect. He’s speaking to the biases we have when faced with constraints. If we’re convinced there’s no way to do something, we’ll find the data to support that bias.

As I’ve studied cognitive biases and talked with experts on the topic, the biggest lesson I’ve learned is not just that these biases exist. That's indisputable. The greater threat is we’re more blind to them than we realize.

When you are soon faced with another constraint, try to intentionally start with your expectations. Even if it's suspending disbelief, try to force yourself to say, “Hey, there’s a way around this! We can solve this!” Changing the mindset to expect a solution is a great place to start.

A Fresh Look at Constraints

Constraints can drive us crazy when we’re faced with delivering projects. The easy answer seems to be that fewer constraints—or more resources—is the answer to our problem. Sonenshein provides compelling evidence that Having More Resources ≠ Getting Better Results.

You can listen to Scott talk about this in his own words at http://PeopleAndProjectsPodcast.com/165. You’ll hear him talk about additional ideas, such as how to increase the psychological ownership of your team members. And Sonenshein will challenge you to take an honest look at whether you’re a Chaser or Stretcher.

So what’s your take? What questions or concerns do you have? How have you seen excess hurt a team or company? Or how have you seen constraints help? Share your thoughts and questions in the comments below. I look forward to discussing this with you!

Andy Kaufman is a keynote speaker who helps organizations around the world improve their ability to deliver projects and lead teams. He is the host of the People and Projects Podcast which provides interviews and insights to help you lead and deliver. Learn how to earn free PDUs at http://PeopleAndProjectsPodcast.com/FreePDUs

It’s being heralded as the worst call in Super Bowl history. Maybe in the history of football.

If you don’t follow American football, this moment of utter disbelief is mostly meaningless. But when you’re inches away from the biggest prize in American sports, with one of the strongest running backs in your arsenal, it seems incomprehensible to call a pass play.

That gets intercepted.

That snatches a repeat Super Bowl victory from your grasp.

It’s like a soccer player being gifted a penalty kick in front of a goal without a keeper. Then the coach telling him to aim for the upper ninety. And the player misses wide.

There’s no shortage of criticism of coach Pete Carroll and his offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell. From players on Twitter to pundits on sports channels to average fans on Facebook, the decision to pass is widely considered not just bad—but perhaps the worst ever.

Leaders and Decision-Making

Coaches call plays. Players make innumerable decisions as they try to execute a game plan. Whether on the field of play or in the office today, leaders face countless decisions.

Thankfully for most of us, we don’t have millions of viewers looking over our shoulder. But let’s be clear. If you lead people or projects, you’re going to make some bad calls. In some cases, you’re going to make some really bad calls. Your bosses will make bad decisions. It’s just part of the game.

History is littered with bad decisions, from the field of play to business. In some cases it’s stupid people making irresponsible decisions. But in their Harvard Business Review article “Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions”, the authors present insights from neurobiology and psychology that consistently show “important decisions made by intelligent, responsible people with the best information and intentions are sometimes hopelessly flawed.”

When Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions

Whether it’s on the sidelines or the boardroom, when you see decisions that leave you scratching your head, try to remember the following:

• “Optimism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.” The next time you find yourself railing on why your government leader or a senior manager in your organization (or the coach of your favorite sports team) made a lousy decision, try to remember this quote from British novelist John Galsworthy. It’s easier to call it stupid the further we are from having to make the decision. I’m as apt as the next guy to complain about a referee’s call (or lack thereof) when I’m on the sidelines watching my child’s soccer game. It wasn’t until I was volunteered to be an assistant referee on the sidelines that I truly appreciated how fast games move and decisions aren’t quite as easy when I’m holding the flag. Social media makes it easy to lob missiles from the cheap seats. Everyone is a pundit. Galsworthy reminds us that calling the plays of a Super Bowl game may not be as straightforward if you’re on the field with the headset on and clock ticking. It’s the same in the workplace. This doesn’t mean a decision is a good one. It just offers some humility in our processing of it.
• Remember the leader attribution error. In my conversation with renowned management expert Henry Mintzberg, we talked about myths related to leaders. The leader attribution error finds that leaders get too much credit when things go right and too much blame when things go awry. When the economy is steaming along, your governmental leaders probably get more credit than they deserve. And when the pass gets intercepted, the coach probably gets more blame than is justified. This often rubs people wrong because it seems to remove some amount of accountability. But what if receiver Ricardo Lockette would have been more aggressive going for the pass? What if quarterback Russell Wilson would have read the defender better and just threw the ball away? What if the pass was caught, scoring a game-winning touchdown? Brilliant call, coach! You can see it on the other side of the field as well. Tom Brady walked away from Super Bowl XLIX as the Most Valuable Player. Yet if his undrafted rookie teammate Malcolm Butler wouldn’t have made his brilliant interception, Brady’s own performance would have been called into question. If I’m Tom Brady, I’m throwing the keys to my new Chevy truck (the award given to the MVP) to Mr. Butler!
• You have to own it. When (not if) we make a bad decision, we have to take responsibility for it. Seattle Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll did just that after the game. He didn’t wait to craft a carefully worded press release. He owned it. “There’s really nobody to blame but me, and I told them (the players) that clearly. And I don’t want them to think anything other than that. They busted their tails and did everything they needed to do to put us in position, and unfortunately it didn’t work out. A very, very hard lesson. I hate to learn the hard way, but there’s no other way to look at it right now.” Contrast that to what you see from too many political and business leaders. You get far more grace when you admit the bad decision instead of seek to find excuses and scapegoats.

My brother-in-law lives in Seattle. About an hour after the game he texted me, “Last year I felt differently at this point in the night.” It’s not fun to lose, whether on a football field or a project team.

But we’re going to make bad decisions. And bad decisions will be made by others. Chances are they won’t be the worst decisions in the history of your company. But they will happen.

May we respond more like Pete Carroll when it’s our call that goes bad. And may we seek some perspective when the call is made by others.

What’s a lesson you’ve learned about dealing with bad decisions? What do you agree with in this assessment of the Seahawk’s loss? Disagree with? Join the discussion with your comments below.

(Photo credit:The Weather Company (http://www.theweathercompany.com/newsroom/2015/01/26/winter-storm-juno-historic-blizzard)

The headlines included words like epic and historic. Worst ever. Crippling. Snowmageddon.

The forecast was dire. States banned travel. Airlines pre-emptively cancelled 7,500 flights, which left countless people stranded or redirected (including my family trying to return from a vacation in Italy).

By now, you know what happened. Winter Storm Juno is being mocked with hashtags, such as #SnowFail and #Snowperbole. It’s the epic storm that wasn’t.

In the days after failures, it becomes a parlor game to assign blame. A CNN report suggests people were trying to out-drama each other. Following Rahm Emmanuel’s point about never letting a crisis go to waste, both sides of the climate change debate leveraged the forecast to champion their viewpoint. Some have suggested The Weather Channel over-hyped the event for ratings.

The Real Problem

However, I refuse to blame the National Weather Service, politicians, or news anchors. They may have over-zealously stirred the pot to make things worse, but here’s the real problem that project managers need to be reminded of: we stink at predicting the future.

A host of cognitive biases works against our ability to see the future. The affect heuristic can cause us to fall in love with an idea or approach. It would be easy for a news channel to get emotionally invested in an impending crisis while struggling to see disconfirming data. The confirmation bias is similar—we choose the data or model that confirms our view of the future. The saliency bias overly weights past memorable events in our predictions. If there’s political punishment for an elected official being under-prepared for a past disaster, you can bet they’ll over-do it next time.

Whether it’s the direction of financial markets, global temperatures in 25 years, or the expected project delivery date, we are notoriously bad at predicting what’s going to happen. Our sight is more impaired than we realize. Yet despite our fails, we love trying to predict what’s going to happen. And since bad predictions often end up not being punished, there’s little incentive to change.

How Can Leaders Respond?

Project managers and leaders face a conundrum. Our organizations aren’t asking for weather forecasts, but they do demand estimates for tasks, delivery dates, budgets, and resource needs. Though it’s tempting to fall in love with the #NoEstimates movement, I find it’s the rare manager who’s ready to embrace that mindset.

So what are we to do? Here are three ideas:

• Anticipate instead of Predict. Rob-Jan de Jong recently published an intriguing book entitled Anticipate: The Art of Leading by Looking Ahead. In my discussion with Rob, he recommends we should focus more on anticipating than predicting. The latter can assume we know more than we do. The former acknowledges uncertainty and causes us to identify multiple futures, allowing us to come up with various plans depending on how the future plays out. Rob developed a process called FuturePriming which, when combined with Scenario Planning, helps us anticipate the future and connect the dots to develop plans for the scenarios.
• Break the Work Into Smaller Pieces. In The Procrastination Equation, author Piers Steel takes a scientific (and entertaining) look at why we delay in taking action. The longer the task, the more we drag our feet (sometimes referred to as Student Syndrome). He recommends breaking the work down into smaller pieces, which provides incremental opportunity for the Student Syndrome to work for you. Classic project management instructs us to break work down into more manageable chunks (also known as a work breakdown structure). When you need to forecast the future, break the work down into smaller units of work (I recommend a week or less). Estimating smaller tasks can be more accurate.
• Set Tripwires. In their excellent book Decisive: How to Make Better Decisions in Life and Work, Chip and Dan Heath’s decision-making process ends with a step entitled, “Prepare to be Wrong.” They suggest setting a tripwire to avoid letting a bad decision become even worse. Let’s say someone on your team is responsible to deliver a critical path task estimated to take 2 weeks. Instead of waiting until the due date to check on progress, set some tripwires along the way for early warnings of problems. When asked to anticipate future events, consider setting some key milestones as tripwires to provide more informed updates.

Here’s to Your Future

Was it better to be safe than sorry? Perhaps the biggest danger of Winter Storm Juno morphing into a joke is that we’ll discount future storm forecasts. If you leave town enough times because of hurricanes that don’t show up, you’re more likely to stay put. In business, if our estimates become a joke we inevitably lose credibility, and credibility is currency.

There’s no foolproof way to predict the future. But a sure-fire way to set ourselves up for failure is to assume our predictions are accurate. That approach might just earn us a mocking hashtag in our honor!

You’re invited to join the conversation! What’s your take on what led to the epic storm that wasn’t? How do you try to account for uncertainty when you need to anticipate the future? Please share your comments below.