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.

“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. 

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.

• 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

• Such a Long Way

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?

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:

1. To fight for a given resource or deliverable (winning a fight does not contribute towards the result).
2. 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).

“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:

1. Planning
2. Organizing
3. Motivating
4. 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.

lech: Very nicely put: “Most people do not resist change. They resist the uncertainty associated with change.” http://bit.ly/31YMqi 
wallybock: @lech Or they resist having change done TO them.

Operations

… are about the status quo. In general, it’s a false assumption (see process improvement), but in an individual’s mind that’s exactly how it works. “I am in claims handling, I manage claims from 9 to 5, 5 days a week.” “I am in customer support, I do…” “I am in logistics, I do…”

Regularly, repeatedly.

 “My specialization requires focus on key activities.” Efficiency is the word of the day.

• Repeatable (standardization)
• Not temporary
• Process

Projects

… are about change. Are [often] about imposed change. Are about dealing with the uncertain in [often|mostly] hostile environments. About managing risk, and stakeholders as if change itself was likely to be changed on the way. About fixing what’s “fix-able” — agreements, charters, initiation documents etc.

“Models are here to protect us. But experience shows, you must have your eyes wide open anyway.” Effectiveness is the word of the day.

• Unique
• Temporary
• Product

Different worlds

Operations and projects are different worlds. Efficiency is about doing things right, effectiveness is about doing the right things (via Peter F. Drucker). But what’s more important, for efficiency to be efficient standardization is key (“I must do my job regularly well”), whereas effectiveness puts pressure on the end result (“I must deliver a result no matter what”).

What happens if you put these two together? If you’ve tried projects in mixed operations-project environments, then you probably know it too well. Projects are a blow to the organization. Let’s face it — operational employees do not like projects. They do not like to be “resourced” as it interferes with their “operating” (not to mention that multitasking is evil). Line manager – project manager conflicts are thus inevitable, and so are escalations, weak sponsors and “passing the buck.”

Can it ever work out?

@zpepe reminded me that environments are not always like that.

When we are a subcontractor working together with IT project representatives of an organization (IT departments are oft-times more project-oriented), when we are working with startups (startups are projects) or relatively small organizations. (Anything else comes to your mind?)

* * *

Is it possible to make projects fit seamlessly into “operational environments?” Or perhaps the dichotomy (operations vs. projects) does more harm than good and we should remove the word “project” from out dictionaries altogether and think “process” — no matter what.

Related:

• Will Projects Cease to Exist?

“According to Kiyosaki and Lechter, wealth is measured as the number of days the income from your assets will sustain you…”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Dad,_Poor_Dad

“Wealth is the ability to fully experience life” — Henry David Thoreau

What is wealth to you? How much are you able to give up for it? Or is it exactly on the contrary, i.e. is it a by-product of a purposeful life, a life custom-designed for you, by you? In other words, is it a result of not giving up on anything you find important? On finding what’s important for you in the first place and not blindly following modern myths.

Whether I’m sitting in a dingy country pub, listening to locals complaining about “tough live” — where one has to take up any job to survive; or I’m sitting in conference rooms of modern-day corporations — packed with fear, cynicism and falseness, I can’t help thinking that there isn’t much difference. We naturally believe the other side makes ends meet better than we do.

This way of thinking changes when one can step into the shoes of the other.

Ultimately, it depends on us — our understanding of who we are and what our legacy is to be. Our true values shape our best choices. That’s where wealth is.

I have been recently wondering about the differences between working in structured environments (i.e. working “for someone else”, within an organization) and working on one’s own. I call the first type a “structured environment”, because at a typical workplace the employee is asked to conform to a set of rules –– openly or not. Examples?

• Set working hours or ranges
• Set working days or ranges
• Fixed relations with limited exit barriers
  (you have to resolve conflicts or change your job)
• Assumed superior-inferior relationships
• Set of duties
• …

One could say that the above-mentioned examples are a set of boundaries or an imposed structure. Working on one’s own does not free a person from relations nor does it not [entirely] free from working hours (for example). The difference is, however, that one has more freedom to choose without having to exit the situation altogether.

To give you another example — I remember a person from my family (owner of a small business) saying something like: “I have the right to say ‘no’ to a client.” It struck me when I realized that “no” was very often not an option in intra-organization environments. “No” related to one’s duties, that is, “no” as an internal supplier. And as long as a person didn’t want to leave a company once and for all. Relations in structured environments are given and practically speaking — they cannot be broken. In a structured environment there’s very little freedom to say “no, I won’t do it,” “no, I will not work with that person.” This has moved to such extremities, that we base one’s value as a corporate employee on his/hers “peacefulness” or better — “ability to work/coexist with everyone.”

The Energy Cycle

1) Freedom = truth.
If 1) is true then…
2) Imposed rules = lack of freedom = manipulating / lying.

I know, I am seriously simplifying things here. But where am I heading? It’s been said that maintaining a false image, pretending someone else, manipulating or lying require significant energy levels. To put it plainly — they tire us. When forced to act in a structured environment the best we can often do is compromise. Very often, however, the bigger the organization, and the longer we work (more relations), the more “flexible” we have to become. And there is a price we pay.

I’ve observed a cycle which occurs in many (most? all?) corporate lives — a person starts his or her work in a new setting. Full of energy, open and friendly, he or she starts taking on new projects, responsibilities, building relationships. In a way, he or she starts to build open loops.

“Open Loop
 
Any open commitment, plan, or unfinished business that exists in your life. It is typical today for a busy person to have many hundreds or even thousands of open loops bouncing around throughout their conscious and unconscious thought processes, all vying for attention. Most of the stress people experience (conscious or otherwise) tends to come from inappropriately managed open loops (commitments) they make or accept.”

Source: http://gtdportal.pbworks.com/GTDGlossary

After some time — depending on the person — the smile is no longer there, the attitude is no longer so open. It takes another year or so… A change is desperately needed. This change can happen internally (switching departments, positions) or externally (quitting). That’s when the cycle starts all over again…

What can be done?

Consciousness is the starting point for any improvement… :-)

“Common sense starts with seeing things as they are.”

Source: @tim_hurson

I believe that what can significantly improve an employee’s live is… change. If one cannot risk the switch from a structured to an unstructured environment, if one hasn’t got that luxury, it would be better to break the standard cycle, to promise a change (e.g. soon after the end of a project’s phase, project’s end).

I call it “cleaning a page” or “emptying the cup.” To make someone full with experience and prevent from overflowing, one has to prepare the ground for it.

In a structured environment — that’s when a leader comes in…

At one moment someone says:

“All of you who are fans of your work please switch your seats.”

This is a real-life situation which occurred today. Now, the point is not about the activity itself nor the game as a whole. It’s about what happened when the statement was made. Out of 15 people only 1 person stood up to switch a seat.

Why?

Does this mean that most of us do not like what we do professionally (or in that particular group, for that matter)? Or is it that the grass on our neighbor’s field is usually greener?