What causes a great performer to go sour?

A lot – maybe most – of my work for companies has to do with “remedial” coaching. In HR-speak, this translates to something like, ” He/she was really good for a while; but now they just aren’t performing at the level we need. If they can’t get back in the game, we probably won’t be able to keep them. We want you to help them to get re-engaged.”

Occasionally, I am also asked to work with stellar performers to help them move up the ladder more quickly. But those situations are few and far between. I think this simple fact says a lot about most organizations and their management styles. And what it says is important…..

See if this next sound bite sounds familiar – you may have had it said to you; or you may have said it to a member of your own team:

” (Insert name here), you’re doing a great job! We’re very impressed with the way you get things done; and to show you that we think you’ve got real potential, we’re going to let you take over a bigger responsibility. You’ve shown us you have the skill, talent and dedication to move forward in this organization and we like that. So, here you go – more people working under you (or more job scope, or more dollars in a bigger budget, or more whatever). We’re going to keep an eye on you (insert name again) and if you perform like we think you’re gonna; we’ll keep giving you more responsibility. Everyone will see that you are a key player.”

In most cases, the person who was given this new extra responsibility is very happy with the verbal pat on the head and moves into her or his new role with great enthusiasm.

Often, they continue to excel and the boss sees this. And then to show appreciation, the boss gives the high performing person another level of responsibility or a promotion. And both sides feel good again. But this is where things may get a little sour.

Some people refer to what happens next as The Peter Principle in action. If you’re not familiar with the term it’s from Dr. Laurence Peter, who said back in 1968 that “..every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” Peter intended it to explain the upward, downward, and lateral movement of personnel within a hierarchically organized system of ranks. You have probably seen this occur – may have had it in your own career. This is when the HR department calls on a success coach to help “fix” the situation.

I don’t think Peter’s concept was exactly sound however because it contends that the team player was responsible for the poor outcome. I believe that the manager is the one responsible for the situation when the team member started to fail.

Many managers do this when they should do precisely the opposite. They take their great players and burden them, little by little, until they finally go sour. They use the great ones to offset the weaknesses of other team members, picking up more work while the slackers or incompetents get away with doing less. Often what occurs is that the great ones end up working 10 or 12-hour days and the weak links in the chain get to work 8 or 9 hours because they have less to do.

Inadvertently, the stars get penalized for being stars!

What to do?

1. Re-think your use of talent. When you’ve got a great one under you; use them to help you run a better group.
2. Rather than job enlargement – go for job enrichment. Give them juicy-but-challenging special projects that will help develop new skills.
3. Or let them have the luxury of time to help you by studying and examining processes or tasks to determine how they can be improved.
4. Let them see that you value them by treating them special. They’ll perform with continually renewed enthusiasm which helps make you shine at the same time.
5. And when they need some help that you or others can’t provide, bring in others from the organization or even outsiders to mentor and coach them to help them grow even more quickly.

Your organization will gain a reputation as a place where people want to work. You will attract and retain the best available.

fetched from blog4aurobindo(blogspot)

Some thoughts on passing as an extrovert

A lot of professional project management consultants choose to pass rather than reveal their true colors. We choose to pretend to welcome people to our cubes, to speak up during the unending roll of meetings, and to actually leave our space in order to find out what is going on. In other words, we choose to pass as extroverts rather than the introverts we truly are. In some cases this transformation is so extreme that our friends and family would not recognize us inside the business environment.

It gets worse. Almost all of the business advice is written by extroverts for extroverts. The structure of business emphasizes the skills of extroverts (e.g. willingness to communicate trivial details, ability to endure the company of a number of people for hours on end) rather than the talents introverts bring to the table. So, where is the reference for the rest of us?

So, what is a dedicated project manager who also happens to be an introvert to do? I don’t mean in terms of passing. I mean what do we do in terms of genuinely aligning our personal preferences with the needs of our project teams? How do we stop pretending and start really getting involved?

First, we have to accept that an introvert who leads does not do so in the same way that an extrovert does. An extrovert leads by using his charisma and ability to connect to draw others into his circle. It’s kind of like encountering a jamming field inside of which the target’s mind doesn’t work quite right. An introvert leads by understanding and assisting others in understanding what needs to be done.

Second, we have to toss the PMBOK in the circular file. Yes, I know it’s popular with project management wonks and introverts of all descriptions. It gives us a handy reference and the ability to create hundreds of useless documents to hide behind. At it’s worst, we can use the thing as a “cookbook”, a step-by-step guide to miserable failure.

The seductive allure of process, any process, needs to be discarded in favor of honest self-reflection and analysis. Most processes serve to record information for extroverts, who have memories like mayflies anyway. What we need is to focus our attention on understanding what is happening, why it is occurring, and how we can get our teams to act in a way that will restore blessed silence as quickly as possible.

To do this we need data. Lots of data. Fortunately most modern introverts are class-A infovores, and we have access to wellsprings of information exceeding our ancestors’ fondest dreams. While the extroverts go out and glad-hand, we have the ability to figure out what’s really going on. Don’t let your lack of knowledge regarding “accounting” or “technology” or “fruit-juice” stop you either; it’s all data and it all obeys structured rules regarding its analysis. Learn the rules, sort the data into models, and work it out.

Finally, get out of the front lines. We are introverts, not extroverts. It’s not necessary for us to speak with everyone, all the time, everyday. Find an extrovert on the team, appoint him “team leader” or some such nonsense, and let him speak up and field questions. This kind of front-office/back-office approach to project management (whether done with a team leader or two project managers) can produce impressive results.

Good luck, my fellow introverts, and remember: it is no longer considered ok to growl at the person who comes into your cube for the fifteenth time that day to discuss his potted plants.

fetched from blog4aurobindo(blogspot)

Why are managers afraid to manage

John McKee discusses the reasons many IT managers are reluctant to deal with personnel issues. Having been a personnel manager for a number of years, I wanted to stand up and applaud his words.

And I have to tell you, now being just another employee in the crowd, I want to stand up and applaud them even more. Here’s why.

Nothing demoralizes employees more than working with a co-worker who is a problem that no one will deal with, either because doing so would be “uncomfortable” or the happiness of the team is just not a big priority. Basically, it ends up with the crappy employee holding everyone emotionally hostage.

I learned a long time ago that, although it’s never pleasant to deliver criticism, the burden should never outweigh the need. If someone is a personnel problem, he or she has to be responsible for the consequences. I’m not suggesting the criticism should be blunt and loud, by any means. It can be finessed. But a manager should never be apologetic for having to criticism the work performance of a team member. If Employee A exhibits behaviors that negatively impact the rest of the staff, then Employee A needs to be made aware that it won’t be tolerated.

If not, what’s the message to the rest of the team? I can show up late, push my work off on others, be intimidating, be toxic, and watch YouTube videos all day at work. Who’s going to say anything? And the other message is that I am not important enough to straighten things out for.

Much of the time, a manager will turn a blind eye to a bad employee even though all the signs are there. Then they’ll wait until a co-worker comes in to complain. At that point, the manager gives the “You should talk to her and explain how that makes you feel” speech. First of all, and I know I’m going to get creamed with feedback on this, we can try to be all kum-ba-ya about it, but nine times out of ten, such a “talk” will result in one employee being directly in the “hate radar” of another. Most unbearably unpleasant people also happen to be defensive about their unpleasantness.

Second, isn’t that what the manager gets the extra bucks for…managing?

source @TechRepublic

fetched from blog4aurobindo(blogspot)

Project management: Pin down how your client defines quality

A good definition of quality management is “to first understand the expectations of your customer in terms of quality and then put a proactive plan in place to meet that level of quality.” The first part of this definition can be the toughest – understanding what quality means to your customer.

Your customer may only tell you that you should build a “good quality solution” or you should build a solution with an “acceptable level of quality.” Your response to that should be “Great. But what the heck does that mean?”

The customer needs to state that the project solution needs to be:

* Reliable
* Easy to use
* Easy to maintain when completed
* Available when needed
* Flexible for future needs
* Intuitive / easy to understand
* Secure
* Minimally defective (Doesn’t have to be perfect)

Once you’ve gotten that far, you need to help the customer drill down further. Let’s say that the customer thinks that a good quality solution needs to be “secure.” Further probing might reveal that for the customer, this means

* The solution should be place in a secure room with password access
* Only authorized people can login
* The password must change every thirty days
* There will be role-based security so people can only see data that is consistent with their roles.

People sometimes ask where this information gets documented. It’s easy – these end up being detailed quality requirements and they’re captured along with all of the other project requirements.

Most project teams don’t make it a point to capture all of their quality requirements. Most project teams focus requirements on understanding features and functions. If you focus on features and functions, many of the quality requirements may come out as well – usually by accident. But if your team is trying to practice formal quality management, you should have a discussion with your clients that focuses on the broader and more specific set of quality requirements.

courtesy @TechRepublic

fetched from blog4aurobindo(blogspot)