by Lech Ambrzykowski on February 7, 2010
We often argue that quality is what we aim for and what we expect from others. As providers or vendors we feel responsible for the quality of the services we provide and products we vend, because we think others have similar expectations towards us. And yet, the road to mastery cannot be covered within a fortnight. It takes time, trial and error, and lots of tolerance towards ourselves and those we work with.
It takes quantity to create quality.
If we aim for perfection from the start, we are likely to fail before we even started.
by Lech Ambrzykowski on December 27, 2009
The employee was first
In the beginning there was an initiator-enthusiast — the creator and employee in one person. The starting point. He or she crafted an idea into reality. Eventually, clients came.
One of the illnesses which affect big organizations is a lack of an “initiatior’s spark” — the courage to make mistakes, the ease in experimenting and improving.
‘I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.’ — Thomas Edison.
We “play safe” by managing all types of risk humanity was able to invent. Sooner or later employees become a synonym for operational cost rather than potential.
Remember, the employee made it happen first.
The employee is the ambassador of your brand
Is your employee an ambassador of your product or service? Does he or she buy it, recommend it? Did you ask?
In social media days, every good word about our brand is priceless. It always has been, but 1) we started noticing it and 2) information is transferred and stored much more efficiently/effectively than ever before. A negative opinion can be blocked from spreading, if a conscious employee takes preventive measures. Since it’s physically impossible to take part in all of the online discussions that might concern us — if we have committed employees, let them speak on our behalf. Obviously, we need passionate employees to make that happen in the first place.
Some inspiring cases were described in a recent Social Media Today article by Augie Ray — Passion: The Defining Success Factor in the 21st Century?
“Frank Eliason is a passionate guy. Eighteen months ago he had some free time during a weekend, and rather than watching football he instead checked his email and monitored Twitter for what was being said about his employer, Comcast. Eliason famously intercepted tweets from tech blogger Michael Arrington, and rather than wait until Monday or pass along the problem to someone working, Eliason instead picked up the phone, called Arrington, and resolved both an individual’s technical problem and a potentially damaging PR problem for Comcast.”
Employees and clients communicate freely
The border between the inside of the organization and its environment is thin. Relations thrive in spite of artificial restrictions. In a world of change, a former client frequently becomes an employee. On the other hand, any employee may use social media tools to spread his or her dissatisfaction with the employer. Transparency is thus no longer an option. It’s a must. We are free to write policies, introduce additional security measures or… leverage what Web 2.0 has provided us with.
Ultimately it’s about respect
I believe a traditional employee-client dichotomy hasn’t got much practical sense in modern economy. Where information flows freely (a fact), signs of consistency and respect towards the organization’s employees have even more impact on its clients. Respect, like kindness, is contagious.
Further reading
by Lech Ambrzykowski on December 4, 2009
“Holding a cup and overfilling it
Cannot be as good as stopping short
Pounding a blade and sharpening it
Cannot be kept for long”
and
“Therefore the sage:
Eliminates extremes
Eliminates excess…”
Source: Tao Te Ching (translation by Derek Lin) , chapter 9 and 29
It’s funny how much extremes don’t work for us. We cannot bend to any side with impunity — whether it’s an activity, a behavior or a standpoint. At some point there is a price to pay — either we “break” or “become blunt”.
For example, diving into an activity, a “passion” without consideration for all life’s crucial aspects usually brings pain. We have roles to play which require balanced attention — health, family, friends, professional life — private life. We have values which have to work in unison for us to be whole. We have to rest.
To behave in a measured way is a sign of experience and wisdom — if one doesn’t need to express himself loudly, obtrusively, aggressively or by contrast — passively, that person seems complete to us, seems consistent.
by Lech Ambrzykowski on November 30, 2009
A man’s capacity to add meaning to any virtual concept is potentially limitless. I wrote about this in an earlier entry — we love to create worlds. Corporations are often flooded by committees, sounding boards, functions and matrices. In one case, I encountered more than 40 (sic) committees in one such entity. Decision-making? Try making decisions in such an environment. Or perhaps… try putting words into actions: developing products, creating value, improving processes, reducing waste (well, at least there’s plenty of material to work on).
A safe assumption — every new layer is fat. Be it horizontally (silos, communication nodes) or vertically (e.g. organizational structure). Reduce, rather than add. Embrace, confront, rather than evade. Do not water down your decision-making ability by meddling with the two key organizational components:
- communication
- responsibility
It should be army-simple to be transparent and trustworthy. There’s no time to make it otherwise.
In a 1975 classic, The Mythical Man-Month, Fred Brooks discusses communication channels. Instead of using a thousand words, let me show you a picture:
Every new node increases the number of communication channels exponentially. When we reach ‘C’, problems are about to begin…
by Lech Ambrzykowski on October 25, 2009
I believe we are all explorers deep down inside. For some, this characteristic is more dormant than for the others. Obviously, we had it while we were young — the need to test limits, to go beyond, to break rules, not — to comply to them.
As parents, we know that all too well. Most of our parenting days we hear ourselves uttering sentences like:
“Don’t do that!”
“Stop it!”
“I told you already, you mustn’t…!”
Growing up, we become more and more accustomed to the world of rules…
- Work from 9 to 5
- Weeks from Monday till Friday
- Clothes you mustn’t wear
- …
I believe people are not inherently meant to live structured lives. We sign “agreements” where we trade some of our freedom for basic needs of food, safety etc. At the same time we lose more and more of this freedom. Sometimes, we seem to get used to it.
by Lech Ambrzykowski on October 11, 2009
My friend asked me once:
“A thousand lawyers* chained down on the bottom of a sea — do you know what’s the meaning of such a scene?”
“No,” I replied.
“A good start.”
*) Where I come from, lawyers are the symbol of finding problems to any potential solution. It shouldn’t sound negative — they have an important role to play.
Learned helplessness seems to be a common illness in big organizations. I call it “problem thinking” (I know that — theoretically speaking — the term applies to something different). The “problem” is in the center of the process, as if the goal was to generate as many possible issues & risks related to an idea or initiative. A perpetual “yes, but…” game.
“Yes, but… we haven’t got mandays.”
“Yes, but… there aren’t enough resources.”
“Yes, but… this hasn’t been coded yet.”
“Yes, but… this might be illegal.”
“Yes, but… the procedure says that…”
“Yes, but… we haven’t tried it yet.”
“Yes, but… what if?”
“Yes, but…”
I see daily examples of such behavior. Worse! Occasionally, I catch myself making this mistake — I immediately “rap myself over the knuckles” when I realize it.
We are told that studies should teach us “problem solving.” But then, in order to solve any problem, you have to find one first, right? So… during those long years of lecture halls & cramming we learn to search for problems and then — possibly — we solve them. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater — I believe teaching such a skill must be justified. But starting off with problems every single time seems to be the best prescription for induced helplessness.
Let’s take our kids for example. We often say children are the best teachers on learning. They are driven by their need to explore, to understand everything that interests them. This is how they play. They have an innate thirst for knowledge. “They” are “we.” Thing is, we lose it on the way, somehow. Perhaps problem-centered thinking makes us focus on loose ends too much, perhaps we need to be perfect (ready) from the start, perhaps fear of failure is more likely to kick in this way (failure shows we weren’t prepared enough).
“The perfect is the enemy of the good” not because we do not want to improve. It’s because we don’t need to be prepared for everything from the start. We shouldn’t be. First — plunge, shoot! Don’t “be prepared” for everything, don’t get ready for too long.
Imperfection is in the nature of things. The whole idea. Things, actions have to be imperfect before they improve. That’s the space for us to grow and develop. That’s the exact reason why we can improve in the first place. This is also where our right to make mistakes lies. That’s were the word “must” becomes replaced by the word “can.”
Bounce, don’t break. And cut them lawyers some slack.
by Lech Ambrzykowski on August 15, 2009
One of the topics in my project management trainings discusses PM personality traits & skills. During such trainings participants frequently voice qualities like:
- communication
- leadership (team building, delegating)
- problem solving
- enthusiasm
- empathy
- self-confidence
- composure
- etc.
… but one particular feature isn’t mentioned at all, though I feel that in the long run, it’s probably the most important of all — …
persistence.
In our world of a myriad choices, we do not instill a sense of discipline in our children any more. And how can they reach integrity without discipline? How can we do? How can they aim for mastery, learn (with the long term in mind), if they haven’t got the discipline to support their efforts? How can they commit to great causes which do not feel sweet all the time? How can they focus and grow?
I believe that a great manager should withstand all the weaknesses one can find in a team (and build on strengths). A great PM (any manager, for that matter) is a platform to incubate ideas on — and be sure he or she will not choose the exit door whenever things get tough. Persistence is key. As a matter of fact, the belief in a leader’s persistence is necessary to build trust, to talk about leadership at all.
Further reading
by Lech Ambrzykowski on July 19, 2009
We love comfort zones. Change looks great on paper and sounds exciting on pep talks, but if things are going reasonably well for us, we’d rather stick with the as-is. Even more! If we got used to bad conditions, a toxic relationship or… a bad process, we are very likely to defend what we know, what we got used do. Besides, what’s bad? The “traditional” or the new? The known draws a sense of security.
About 10 years ago I started working for a small company in the insurance market. The president of that company was a man of integrity, a true leader and a person I respected a lot. I still do. He wasn’t young, mind you, but still considerably open-minded. Yet, even now I remember a quote he used to repeat quite often:
“The better is the enemy of the good.”
(It’s a rough translation from Voltaire –– “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.”)
Even with this standpoint, he didn’t oppose change. He did however understand its price and took responsibility for its impact on the employees — contrary to many other leaders I met on my way later on.
And so… we suck at implementing things. Do you know why?
by Lech Ambrzykowski on July 7, 2009
Those of us who work in projects are oft-times called “project managers.” Some find it even more appropriate to be called “project leaders.” Grace Hopper once reminded us that we manage things, yet we lead people. For the purpose of this post, let’s assume both of these relate to people. We manage people, we lead people. The question is — do we?
A sure thing about working in projects is that positions we deal with are in fact functions, resources we obtain are in practice temporary and… volatile, and our rights and authority as project managers — informal. Thus, when thrown into a project environment, we put on our heavy armor of project experience, shield ourselves with models and fire an occasional escalation or two to make things happen. After all, that’s what projects are all about, right? To make things happen.
When dealing with internal projects, in mixed operational-project environments, I’ve noticed that to “make things happen” PMs often have two choices:
- To fight for a given resource or deliverable (winning a fight does not contribute towards the result).
- To pitch up and complete the job on their own (completing the job contributes towards the result).
While no. 2 is not a safe bet, and many a time not an option altogether, the most successful project managers I’d come across in such environments were those who were willing to let go and do the job, provided they had the know-how. In a way — “to lead by example” instead of making a fuss. Escalations, worse — conflicts, take time. As project managers we are judged by the end result. Someone’s unwillingness to participate is rarely an explanation.
In a similar manner, we ought to go through obstacles responsibly, avoiding dispersed responsibility, taking this responsibility on our own backs when in doubt (avoid doubts).
by Lech Ambrzykowski on June 28, 2009
“Anything that is not managed will deteriorate” — Bob Parsons.
To manage things you must be in control. That’s the idea. This is what’s expected from a Project Manager. Within a given set of boundaries, a Project Manager is obliged to make things happen (the “why” is important, but I’ll leave it out for now). To make things happen s/he has to put the coordinates in place (as defined by the Sponsor / agreed with the Steering Committee), but general/phase/stage/milestone-to-milestone control is where the rubber hits the road.
In generic management, we distinguish four basic functions:
- Planning
- Organizing
- Motivating
- Controlling
Plans play an important role in project control — any plan is a baseline for controlling a project, in all its aspects, on a regular basis. Plans are a way to communicate future controlling of a project in the first place.
Organizing allows us to create the grounds for controlling. Motivating and controlling should go hand in hand.
Controlling is king. If we start well, it’s this daily, controlled progress that makes a successful ending. Staying awake, predicting [where possible] and reacting soon — these show a good manager, i.e. one who is in control.
Whenever I look at various approaches to project management, I usually see project life cycles, techniques, standard processes (e.g. planning), but there usually is a particular group of “ongoing” activities that could be defined as “project management” — e.g. managing risk, managing stakeholders, managing plans, managing teams, managing scope etc. Feel free to swap managing with controlling — e.g. controlling risk, controlling stakeholders, controlling plans… If you stop being in control, you no longer manage.
It’s funny how close this is to personal matters. In personal time-management, it is often said that the most important tool is a regular review.
