Project Management Central

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

Topics: Leadership
Mindset of an Effective Project Leader – looking for a pattern
Network:20



Dear PM Community, together with Mindsonar and with the support of PMI ?ód? Branch, we are looking for a model set of thinking styles - Mindset of an Effective Project Leader (regardless of the project methodology). So I will ask for your opinions on this topic, based on 13 Mindsonar thinking style sets. Let’s start with the first one: "Achieving vs. Avoiding":
Using "Achieving" [ie. motivation "towards"] thinking style means focusing on what to achieve, where to go, what to create, what’s the goal. On the other hand using "Avoiding" [ie. motivaton "Away from”] style means focusing on what may go wrong, what to avoid, what problems to prevent.
So if you bear in mind that each Project has its own Goal, but also carries Project Risks, and then you imagine a highly effective and absolutely successful project, how do you think to what extent [on a scale of 0-100] The leader of this Project was using style
a. Achieving
b. Avoiding
I will be grateful for your opinions in the comment by assigning 100 points to the position a. or b., e.g. “a = 10, b = 90”. Other comments are also welcome.
Your answers will be an important input for the research entitled "The Mindset of an Effective Project Leader".
If you want to know the full profile of thinking styles – yours or your team’s, and how it can support you – do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sort By:
Page: 1 2 next>
Network:1568



Michal -

I'd expect it would be about 80/20 (a/b). While we want PMs to be realistic and help their stakeholders avoid being too optimistic, we do need to believe that our projects are achievable and that we can respond to key identified risks otherwise we'll have difficulty convincing our team members to do so.

Kiron
...
1 reply by Michal Galazka
Aug 30, 2019 9:02 AM
Michal Galazka
...
Thank you Kiron!
Network:20



Aug 30, 2019 8:56 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Michal -

I'd expect it would be about 80/20 (a/b). While we want PMs to be realistic and help their stakeholders avoid being too optimistic, we do need to believe that our projects are achievable and that we can respond to key identified risks otherwise we'll have difficulty convincing our team members to do so.

Kiron
Thank you Kiron!
Network:87



Knowing "where to go and what to do" should entail "what to avoid and not what to do". As such, in my opinion they carry equal weight 50/50.
...
1 reply by Michal Galazka
Aug 30, 2019 9:31 AM
Michal Galazka
...
Thank you Steve!
Network:20



Aug 30, 2019 9:23 AM
Replying to Steve Ratkaj
...
Knowing "where to go and what to do" should entail "what to avoid and not what to do". As such, in my opinion they carry equal weight 50/50.
Thank you Steve!
Network:11124



Hi Michal,

From a principled mindset and team dynamic point of view I would agree with Kiron on his a=80/b=20 ratio, however, with this caveat:

That which a PM is attempting to avoid may truly be opportunities (e.g., product and technology risk or opportunity risk) that would contribute to the success of the project. In other words, the avoidance may be rooted in taking the “path of least resistance”. With that said, a=80/b=20 is a good ratio as long as that which is being avoided has been challenged in the light of potential opportunities.
...
1 reply by Michal Galazka
Aug 31, 2019 11:08 AM
Michal Galazka
...
Thank you George!
Network:321



I would go with 80/20 as well, if not higher on the achieving side. That means translating avoidance into achieving the plan around the problem.

Whether it is business, riding a bicycle, driving a car, etc. "where the eyes go, the body follows". Focus on the path around the obstacle, not the obstacle itself or you will plow right into it.
...
2 replies by Michal Galazka
Aug 31, 2019 11:14 AM
Michal Galazka
...
Thank you Keith!
Sep 02, 2019 7:51 AM
Michal Galazka
...
That's true. However my question was quite general. Nevertheless I'm wondering what specific project situations or circumstances could demand using "Avoidance" as crucial thinking style. What are the examples from your practice?
Network:2



80/20 (achieving/avoiding). You have to know where you're going and what the objective is first before you can know what to avoid or prevent.
...
1 reply by Michal Galazka
Aug 31, 2019 11:15 AM
Michal Galazka
...
Thank you Randy!
Network:20



Aug 30, 2019 9:59 AM
Replying to George Freeman
...
Hi Michal,

From a principled mindset and team dynamic point of view I would agree with Kiron on his a=80/b=20 ratio, however, with this caveat:

That which a PM is attempting to avoid may truly be opportunities (e.g., product and technology risk or opportunity risk) that would contribute to the success of the project. In other words, the avoidance may be rooted in taking the “path of least resistance”. With that said, a=80/b=20 is a good ratio as long as that which is being avoided has been challenged in the light of potential opportunities.
Thank you George!
Network:20



Aug 30, 2019 11:51 AM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
I would go with 80/20 as well, if not higher on the achieving side. That means translating avoidance into achieving the plan around the problem.

Whether it is business, riding a bicycle, driving a car, etc. "where the eyes go, the body follows". Focus on the path around the obstacle, not the obstacle itself or you will plow right into it.
Thank you Keith!
Network:20



Aug 30, 2019 12:09 PM
Replying to Randy Hilliard
...
80/20 (achieving/avoiding). You have to know where you're going and what the objective is first before you can know what to avoid or prevent.
Thank you Randy!
Page: 1 2 next>  

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

When someone is lying, is it true that their pants are actually on fire?

- Jerry Seinfeld

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors

Vendor Events

See all Vendor Events