I need to hear from others, what you may think about this topic. I recently got into a dicsussion about how the PM.s are evaluated at a company and in this case, the only feedback on performance came from the steering group of the project.
My personal opinion is that there is never one side to a joint result, i.e. is it not also very important to retrieve the evaluation from at least project members and also the customer/receiver of the project? Saving Changes...
Hans RobbersSenior Director| SalesforceVlissingen, Netherlands
Maria
I do think you are absolutely right. The result of the project is not the result of the project manager but the result of a team. In case the relationship between the pm and the team is not optimal this will influence the success of the project which might go unnoticed to the steering group.
Besides the receiver of the project I would also like to have an opinion of the end-users of the project which is not necessarily the receiver.
Finally there are other stakeholders who are related to the proejct, e.g. procurement, finance and other departments who might have a say
I would say a full 360 would help to understand the performance of the project manager completely
Interesting topic, thank you for posting. I am interested to know what the views of my fellow pm's are.
Hopes this helps you in ypur thinking
Hans Saving Changes...
Thanks for your post. And yes, I agree that to get a full understanding on the PM performance a full 360 is what is needed. I would suppose that an organization that finds it good enough to have some sort of "top-down" evaluation only, as I described earlier, will be missing plenty of useful information about the PM and his/her performance.
I also find it a bit short term oriented only to focus on what the PM is delivering to the steering group. I may assume that the project members will end up feeling their opinions are not important and eventually impacting the overall project climate in the organization. I also think that this strategy will only enforce the distance between the PM and the project members. As you say, the project result is depending on all participants in the project and everyone should have the same right to give feedback.
I spoke to a collegue in the business who claimed that it does not matter what the members of a project say or think about him as a PM, it is whether or not he can deliver that is important. Of course this is true, but I think that it is justified to ask HOW he managed to deliver and to what price. Am i wrong? Saving Changes...
Hans RobbersSenior Director| SalesforceVlissingen, Netherlands
Maria
A leader is recognised by its followers. If a leader does not have any followers you can ask yourself if he is a leader. In my thinking a project manager should aim to be a leader.
So a pm without followers must force people to deliver to his terms. This means he needs to overcome resistance internal in the team and manage the team either based on authority or on superieur knowledge of the content. In the latter case most likely the pm will be micro managing and do most of the work himself, resulting in a team that does not trust him nor the pm them with lead to a further distance between pm and his team
In the first case people will performa activities because they must and not because they believe in the pm. This will reduce most likely the quality and therefore increase the required effort.
Both cases will affect his ability to deliver. So when you know what his team thinks you know his ability
Absolutely right: a 360 evaluation is necessary. The process needs to be upfront and clearly acknowledged by all: the PM and the team should know before starting the project that they will be evaluated and evaluate each other for the work on the project and that these evaluations will be included in their reviews.
The PM will get a weighted mark based on: sponsor feedback, team feedback as well as a quality control review (in our organization done by the PMO) of their project. Sure, this mark is not the final evaluation for the PM as there are other components (participation to the continuous improvement process, knowledge of the organization, professional development, etc.)
The thing I want to caution is that the “leader without followers” might need to “force” people into following. I do not agree. In most organizations the PM has to work with part time members of the team, people that report to other resource managers. The PM should have the negotiation skills needed to work with the team and with their managers (the ones that would control their bonuses, salary increases, etc.)
Saving Changes...
Hans,
I fully agree with you! I have seen many PM/leaders not able to make members of his/her team to be followers (which in this case in my thinking means that they understand and have a will to enable the PM/leader to succeed - they feel engaged, committed, taken seriously and seen) but instead forced them by different means. I think this migh work to a certain extent, but will probably never be a success factor in the long run. And Sorin, I think we speak about the same thing - of course you must be good in negotiating to get people "on-board" but the result of your work as a leader will make the members act as your followers basically.
When I talked to my collegue, I used these arguments on him but got the remark back that "well, if I force the members, I dont care if they dont like me, you see I deliver anyways and how can you prove that I would have had another result if I did not make them do their work?".
I have been thinking about this a little and think of course it will be difficult to say that working WITH the project team would have had a different resutlt (it would require a detailed analysis on different levels to find that out), as you never get to re-do the project again.
Anyhow, It is my strong believe that you allways will achieve the goals more efficiently and to the best quality if you as a PM work as an enabler for the rest of the team, involving each and everyone making them contribute to their absolute best.
So, why would a company like to stick to the rule to appraise the PM effort by only one party? What is achieved and what questions are beeing answered doing that?
I am grateful for your comments here and it will be helpful for me! Saving Changes...
Hans RobbersSenior Director| SalesforceVlissingen, Netherlands
If you are a leader and you look back and see no followers there are three options:
1. you outpace them
Think of being the hare for a world record runnign on the 10 km. The trick is to stick close to the pack otherwise they don't benefit from you
2. you have no followers
This is the tricky one. You can force them to follow you which might work for a couple of weeks but not for many months. So there are two options:
a. evaluate your style and way of working and adjust where necessary. FInd a friend in the project and ask him to be honest with you
b. find another profession This sound harsh but I do think being happy in your job is one of the most importants things. Forcing is taking a lot of negative energy and will cost too much effort. It might be you are just not ready so accept another role and learn in that role to become a pm in the future
3. Your followers are in front of you
You use another style and being more a sheppard. This might work as well you are nursing the team and making sure everything is ready for them to out perform. Make sure you have somebody to set directions, the leading sheep ;-)
Hans,
(how do I do to get the post to indicate I replyed to a specific post?) Thanks - and yes, now I think I have received plenty of very good thoughts on the topic, useful in my coming discussions.
It feels good that there are more people out there sharing the same ideas/values.
We´ll meet in some other discussion probably! :-) Saving Changes...
PM performance and competencies are objectively evaluated for each project from project initiation right through to closure. Projects as we know are delivered within a controlled methodology environments. The PM is doing a fantastic job, the business is delighted with the results the project delivered on time and within budget. Is everyone happy? Not always. The PM performance will also be measured on behaviour and management style including the approach, integrity, reputation, respect, courtesy, mutual understanding - being on the same wave length [intelligence].
PM's need to manage their performance and seek informal and formal feedback during the project - never to assume that things are ticking OK, individual perceptions can vary - eliminate surprises later on.
The 360 degree evaluation is usually undertaken once or twice a year where Managers at all levels are asked to select peers and staff in providing performance [behaviour] feedback; the reporting results are anonymous. PM evaluations for project delivery are necessary to be undertaken at the end of each project, therefore the feedback is specific to the project[s] and the PM in question; the feedback results are known and published. Saving Changes...
Thanks for posting. Vasoula, you are writing about what should be happening in theory and I agree on you here. But, the reality where we all work in, is mostly not very compliant with the theory. My original question was not so much about how a PM should secure that he/she is doing a good job, but more about organizations that actively choose NOT to value any other measures but the steering group´s perspective when measuring the performance of a PM.
I think that if you are a good PM, you will do as you say, ie. seek feedback in all forms and make sure the team members are "onboard" all the time. Saving Changes...
Just to put matters into perspective what I described is not theory at all it is actually being practised by many large organisations and it is a mandatory evaluation process based on PM competencies and agreed objectives. The results are fed into a mechanism that enables the organization to determine shortage of skill-sets, training needs, coaching for performance and payrise that is directly related to individual performances.
To answer your original question your organization or any other organization for that matter if they are not seeking to value any other measure apart from the project steering group's input the question I would ask can it be changed to include other stakeholders such as the senior business owner of the project and other team members? Is the Steering group's evaluations based on objectives and are their findings being formally documented with reasoning or is it based on subjective thinking and perception. I don't have the answers to the questions, however, I would see it as an opportunity to propose new evaluation methods for change and the benefits to be derived by its implementation subject to agreement.
