Email: Blessing and Curse

          Email is one of the most burdensome marvels we’ve ever had in the workplace.

          It’s hard to remember what business communication was like before email swept our world 10 or 15 years ago. It’s so easy now, and because it’s so easy it has choked the channels.

          The downside comes because “easy” does not mean “better.” In fact it almost always means “worse.” Easy means less demanding for the originator . . . and a transfer of demand to the receiver. Not a good idea, when the whole transaction was not the receiver’s idea to start with.

          Studies of email volume relegate a large portion to the category of useless, another sizable bunch to the seductive group of interesting but also useless, the lesser number that you’ll save for later today and the small minority that call for immediate action.

          Think about investing a modest amount of attention in managing this.

          Stand back for a moment from your daily flood of email messages. It’s a glut. Look at all those things. How do they contribute to the productivity of your day? Do you have something of a choking feeling when you open your inbox and feel obligated to sort through?

          Don’t.

          Don’t have the feeling, and don’t sort through. You’re better off being something between the grim reaper and the thoughtful scholar.

You act on autopilot because you’ve got a process based on a plan. You deal with email as a tool of your profession, and you don’t confuse idle curiosity with professional time investment.

The first priority is hot items. What needs action . . . now? Do it.

Now you shift to proactive mode. You become the party of the first part. You send the email messages you need to send, initiating various matters of concern. Then you move away from email, on to your next job priority.

Sometime around the middle of your workday, you visit your email again. You repeat the morning’s routine.

Then, as there’s a bit less urgency now, you do some brushcutting. You ride the delete key, killing every item whose author, subject line or first lines show no sign of value. If the writer made no effort to engage your attention, the message deserves the same on your part.

It’s useful to remind yourself that email is so easy to write and send that it too frequently is sloppy, a vehicle of low-value communication. If the sender really meant it, you’ll hear from that person again.

The flip side of this issue is what it tells you about how to behave as an email originator.

When thoughtful people pop online with a few minutes to check in between other demands of the job, what do they look for? It’s not the subject line (although effective emailers learn to tune those precious few words carefully).

No, more than that, you look for the sender. There are people in your worklife who matter to you, a lot. Their names pop out at you from the inbox when their messages are in there. For whatever reason, their messages are automatically top priority in your work.

Why?

The most important senders, normally, are those who never email you unless there’s a reason that both of you consider important. You want to be that high-priority person, in the inboxes of all the people with whom you have email relationships.

So you never send trivial emails. You don’t use email when another communication method is more appropriate. You never include a recipient who does not have a direct, immediate, valuable reason to get this information from you now, in this way. Your email partners know that, and respond accordingly.

          You can do things with this workplace communication vehicle that are amazingly useful. You also can be astonishingly self-destructive. Achieving the one and not the other requires just a little professional thought.

          Take your pick.

Them

          They.

I know who “they” are. So do you. We all do. They did this. They won't let us do that.

          They are “them.” The overpowering, unresponsive blank wall utterly insensitive to our struggle to function, to get redress, to express ourselves. They do brutal things without a second thought, and have no interest at all in recognizing our worth . . . or even our humanity.

But have you ever had the uncomfortable sensation of discovering that YOU are “they?” No one ever calls you that to your face, but sometimes you find out from a third party that some person or persons referred to you that way. Maybe you hear that there were nods of approval among people you thought believed in you.

Something you did or said was seen as the brainless/heartless kind of thing that the system/bureaucracy/dictatorship routinely does. Not a good thing.

Hey, I’m not “they.” These folks know me. They know I’m not like that. It’s a shock to discover that they don’t.

          Being one of “they/them” is part of the job definition for managers. For project managers, it frequently has the additional burden of the conviction on the part of your “team members” that you are ignorant or unskilled in their areas of specialty.

          Why should they take you seriously? What of value could they possibly look for that you could provide? What could convince them that they need you? They’ve seen a lot of people like you, and those people have been more of an obstacle, an annoyance, a butt of jokes – than a person to look up to for guidance, support and leadership.

          In years of talking with people and working with people in project management, I have run into this fundamental stopper all too often.

          Interestingly, both sides, in effect, agree. The working end of the spectrum uses the concept and – routinely – the term “they.” The other end, more often than not, tends to act out the attitude. The senior partners focus their concern on outcomes rather than the real human beings who bring the outcomes about.

          The bosses too often have their own “they.” That “they” is the faceless mass of opposing working staff people who don’t understand the important needs of the organization, cannot be trusted to do their work faithfully and are basically incompetent – often laughably so. 

          And don’t you believe that both “theys” don’t know how they are caricatured by the other side. They know very well. For sure, it doesn’t make for vigorous teamwork in the workplace.

          So here you are, a project manager. Instantly, upon your designation to lead this challenging effort, you are draped in the mantle. You are “they.”

          What do you do?

          You manage. The true believers of the cliché have rarely seen a real manager in the astounding process of good management. They have been conditioned to see overstressed, underempowered bureaucrats desperately flailing to survive.

          Show ‘em. Manage. Do your homework. Get the information. Create the fundamentals, Build the relationships. Challenge power to do its share. Identify the problems. Emplace the solutions. Most of all, build the relationships.

          Invite people into an exciting adventure in which their investment of commitment will be rewarded with honor and attention. Open opportunity for their knowledge and hard work to produce meaningful results.

          Do your job.

          Then, in a remarkably satisfying way, there is no “they.”

          No more “theys.” Just “US.” 

  

         

It's the Politics, Stupid

          All the best project managers I have known are superb politicians.

          Politicians? Politics? Yuck! We hate politics!

          No, we don’t. We don’t hate politics. We hate sleazy politics, and because of that we avoid politics, and because of that we’ll never be very good at project management.

We don’t understand that ALL human relationships are run by politics, and the best relationships are managed by topflight politicians.

Great marriages, for instance, succeed so well because the couple has mastered, not only continuing true love, but the negotiated matters of effective partnership in managing children, solving finances and taking out the garbage.

          Marriage is a project, the most profoundly important project most of us ever get to star in. It has all the elements – complexity, dependencies, uncertainty, risk, diverse participants, resource management, disruptive variances and limitations on individual freedom of action. Etc.

          The people who find themselves in these grand experiments never understand all that until they’re committed, responsible . . . and stuck. Not in a bad way, you understand, but very openly stuck.

          Our current public politics, narrowly defined, are at first look an example of disgracefully bad project management. The major matters at the national and state levels are neglected, distorted or subverted in favor of what appear to be narrow and destructive ends.

          This public politics business actually is a side issue in the context of our discussion, but two quick observations could be useful.

One is that some mayors and other local leaders are doing yeoman work in finding ways to do the best possible in their grim realities while the more-insulated big players hurl their thunder, mess with vital resources and screw the end user. The hometown heroes are managing their projects, not bewailing their situations.

The other point for thought is that the bitter collisions in the public arenas of Washington and state capitals actually are political projects in process. Like sausage in mid-manufacture, the making of public-policy outcomes is nothing for the faint of heart to witness close up.

Each of the parties in contention has its eye on a goal, and has chosen a set of actions to achieve that goal. Elections are the close of project phases, as are the terms of administrations, but the final outcome of those collected projects won’t be achieved (or known) in our lifetimes.

In short, what goes on in politics as customarily defined does indeed illuminate aspects of our projects, but does not define our management of them.

The truth is that project management requires its practitioners to practice politics to succeed. Gather your information, organize your people, plan your process, prepare for your unpleasant surprises, convince your stakeholders, persuade your end users and go for it.

Project management. It’s the politics. OK, you’re not stupid. You knew that.

Project Management, the Attitude

          What is “project management?” What is a “project manager?”

          Well, project management is managing projects, and project managers are the people who do it, right? What’s so complicated about that?

          Everything, that’s what.

          Start with “project.” Research reveals that many activities called by that name are not projects – they are repeatable, repeated processes that reward adherence to standardized actions. They are processes. The more rigidly you, the manager, enforce predetermined details, the better the result. You’re after maximum predictability and minimum variance.

          That’s not project management.

          Well, wait a minute. Many project management functions are processes. Within every project there are requirements, often covering substantial parts of the effort, that are true processes. They are precise, predetermined sequences of actions to reach known outcomes.

          That formula is comforting to many people, and  they simplify their lives by making project management itself into a process, which it isn’t. This is why there are so many arcane formulations in the field that keep people busy while utterly missing the real project management issues.

          An organized activity is a true project only when there also are complex parts you’ve never done before, some human and some procedural. Even the known sections can be severely impacted by the risks and uncertainties that accompany them.

          One of the failings that bedevil projects is a tendency to focus on the known parts to avoid the anxiety of dealing with the unknown ones. That slows, hampers, damages projects. Kills or substantially cuts back on many.

          So project management is controlling the multiple, continuously shifting pieces of a varied, undependable enterprise. It involves estimating and inventing, tracking and adjusting. It supremely demands the ability to delegate responsibility, inspire confidence and maintain compliance – in the midst of circumstances that can be very uncomfortable.

          Who wants to live that way? Volunteer project gladiators aren’t plentiful in most organizations.

          Those who lead this kind of work, and especially those who do it well, are even more rare.

          You’ve seen a few of them in your life. These are people who can thrive in the bramble patch, handling simultaneous bad moments with decisiveness, tolerance and imagination. They demonstrate unusual skill at planning ahead and anticipating problems, and yet are flexible and persistent when their careful preparations come apart.

          They devote themselves to the tedious gruntwork that underpins all good strategic and tactical planning. They find ways to get the organization to stick by them. They make middling people good and good people better. They take responsibility and solve problems. They themselves are never the problem.

Most of us can’t think that way, nor act that way. But we could. It’s what the good ones do. It doesn’t require unusual talent. It takes determination and it takes a bit of courage and a lot of persistence.

It short, all it takes is an attitude.

Getting People to Do Stuff

          It’s easy to get people to do what they want to do – if they can.

          That really simplifies the definition of the leadership role. You’ve narrowed it down to two objectives:

          First, get people to want to do whatever it is.

          Second, make it possible for them to do it.

          Simplifying the definition does not, of course, make the process easy. But it does make the way somewhat clearer.

          The fundamental challenge here is often expressed in the question: “How do I motivate people?”

          The quick answer is: “You don’t.”

That’s right. You can’t motivate people. You motivate yourself. I motivate myself. Each person moves himself/herself to act.

The leader, including the manager-as-leader, can make it attractive to do something, can clear the way to do that something, can assist those who are to do the something. You’re the catalyst, not the doer.

You manage the process and you sell it to the people. So many managers fail to articulate that role to themselves, don’t understand what it means. They work so hard, with so little to show for it. Well, don’t work like a dog, when you should be sly as a fox.

Back to the oversimplification, starting with the first objective. How do you arouse people’s desire to engage in the task at hand?

One way to do that actually  comes from how you solve the second: clearing away the obstacles to their participation.

Think back for a moment over your own experience in managing group efforts. When you had reluctance, resistance, avoidance on the part of your “team” members, what were their reasons for not getting on board?

          Too much to do already?

Well, help the person arrange a reduction in regular workload.

There’s no one else to do it? The manager is resisting?

Answer: Your manager has a problem. I’ll talk to your manager.

Oh, the manager won’t budge? OK, I’ll talk to the manager’s manager. I’ve already gotten full backing from the very top, so I will get you free to jump right in.

          If, indeed, the designated person cannot be properly cleared to participate in my project, then the organization will get me someone who can. Remember, I have the backing.

          Getting that backing – full, open delegation of real authority (or known access to authority) – is the absolutely essential first thing the project manager must obtain when he/she is appointed to carry out this organizational imperative. If you don’t have that power, hang it up. You’re done. Nothing is going to work.

          With that in place, your top priority is to arrange the environment for success across the entire range of project activity. Establishing a good process is a powerful incentive for good people to want to be part of this project.

          You seize the initiative. You don’t allow problems to invade your project, or grow in it. People of quality are energized when they see that kind of leadership.

          A second strength of the project manager is to build the individual and team spirit of success, the eagerness to engage and resolve difficult challenges in the company of true professionals. It is hard to overestimate how attractive it is for good people to be offered that opportunity.

          The project manager makes sure the right people are on the job, that they receive the right training, tools and processes to get the job done, that the right relationships are set up and nurtured, that the right things happen in meetings, in problem-solving and in celebration.

          Anyone who is not ignited with enthusiasm in such a circumstance doesn’t deserve to be part of it. And the wider organization will be bursting with eager candidates for the job.

Talk about motivation!

SEE ALSO:
How to Save Your Organization
http://jimmillikenproject.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-save-your-organization.html

The Most Obvious Secret

          If you’ve got a job, someone is paying you. A purse-strings decision-maker thinks you provide value that is worth money.

          Duh. So what other thunderclap of wisdom is new?

          Well, there’s nothing new with thinking about the economics of personal employment. But it’s time to introduce some better thinking about it, in this tough and uncertain era. In fact, some of the oldest truths about the meaning of employment are among the least examined, and definitely the least accounted for.

          Here’s a recent illustration of what this is about:

          Supply Chain Management Review published a new study last month on which skills and competencies hiring managers are currently emphasizing in their job openings. The study focused on university preparation and was limited to the inventory management industry, but its results are thought-provoking in a much more general way.

          The survey asked hiring managers to evaluate applicants’ preparation in a number of appropriate skills. Are the candidates sufficiently prepared, or do they need to be better prepared?

          Glaringly high on the negative side are management skills and customer relationships. For management, the ratio was 44 percent in need of better preparation, 16 percent adequately prepared. For customer relationships, the numbers are 40 percent and 15 percent.

          So, by 3 to 1, the young people looking for employment in that sector are deficient in leadership and people skills.

          A lifetime of direct involvement in those areas tells me that picture is accurate across the entire working world.

          This is not to devalue subject-matter knowledge and technical skill. Those attributes must be present and productively engaged in any workforce. But this is not an either-or game. It’s a “both of ‘em” proposition.

          We all have experienced the frustration of working with, under or over people who had superb hard skills, but couldn’t listen, organize, decide, explain, etc. The job skills are present, but not productively engaged.

Shortfalls are just as damaging in the soft skills areas, but evaluating them is quite a bit more difficult. So is overcoming them. That’s why, in very many organizations, their absence is basically taken for granted.

You’ll notice, though, that people who make it their business to acquire and display excellence in management and people skills head the pack in getting hired and promoted. Organizations may not be good at equipping people with the full set of competencies, but most will pay for them when they’re available.

So it’s encouraging that the hiring managers in the Supply Chain Management report were even asked about management and relationships.

It’s discouraging to see how the results turned out, but there’s a real bright side. This is a major heads-up for career builders who are looking for that key advantage over the employment competition, either in the hiring line or on the job.

          Just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean everybody will jump on it. They sure haven’t so far.

          

Authority, Responsibility, Management

           “I can’t do anything about that agency,” the government official said. “I don’t have authority over it.”

          The statement reflects a primitive, fundamentally flawed management philosophy, for a number of reasons.

          For one thing, it implies that one-way exercise of power is the only way government can function.

          For another, it denies the speaker’s responsibility for outcomes he/she can’t control.

          You can find the same kind of thinking in nongovernmental organizations.

          In the real world, though, it is delusional for anyone in a position of authority to believe you make things happen as a continuing practice by ordering them done.

Organizations headed by such people tend to be circuses of hypocrisy and just-pretend. They become progressively less functional as they lose good people and gain a culture of fictional behaviors.

No one has all the answers, and smart leaders know how to spread authority around in the right places, and how to empower people to use it with pride to multiply quality results.

Conversely, people willing to be treated as lackeys pretend respect and compliance while they play hidden games that hollow out the operation.

You don’t dare question a dictatorial boss, but you don’t waste time and energy actually trying to carry out all of his/her stupid directives, either. Such bosses often see what they want to see, while they punish and humiliate those who don’t stay in line.

          Bad bosses have bad bosses. When a power-obsessed incompetent is allowed to continue in place, it’s because someone agrees with the behavior, isn’t paying attention or is practicing avoidance or denial. The boss’s boss isn’t doing the job.

          That is as true in the private sector as it is in public service. If you are elected or appointed to a position of power, it is because you are expected to get certain things done. That’s the responsibility part.

          If you take your responsibility seriously, you equip yourself with the skills and practices you need to get the desired results or as close to those results as possible. So you build relationships, and you learn and respond to the motivations of other people in the environment.

You respect and understand how others see their authority and responsibility. You work creatively and persistently in the realm of the possible. You negotiate, giving and taking in at atmosphere of mutual dependency and respect.

          That sounds a lot like project management. While “government as business” is in many ways a failed concept, there is significant value in seeing project management as politics.

          The typical functional manager in business, industry or the nonprofit world generally has more formal authority than the typical political leader – and far more than the typical project manager.

          What is common to all management roles, though, is the responsibility to achieve results through obtaining the constructive involvement and contributions of other people. What you can’t order into place, you must nurture into being.

          Power needs responsibility.

          Responsibility demands collaboration.

          Collaboration must be earned.

          Authority is dependent upon competence.