Bargain Basement Project Managers

Every once in a while, I run into potential clients who just don't get it.

They assume a project manager is a commodity that they can take off the shelf, spray, wipe, and put away, thereby fixing their organizational messes on an ad hoc basis.

Let me give you some examples:

• The head of a financial services firm hired me to manage the launch of a new product for him. I had to drag him kicking-and-screaming through the project plan to create something feasible and usable. Once he had a project plan documented, he let me go stating he could "manage it from here."
• A strategic consulting firm kept stringing me along that they were going to engage me but "now is just not the right time" because "we're just not quite sure how you'll fit into our plans" yet they kept pinging me with various questions to help them market to their clients.
• On a rather large and involved software project, a major client kept delaying until their next major milestone, stating they wanted to wait to bring me in so they could save money by doing as much of the up-front work themselves.

Let's just say that all three wound up in various levels of failure. Project management is a full life-cycle engagement. A solid project manager will understand the business needs creating the project up front, will be able to merge tasks and resources into a usable plan, and will be knowledgeable enough to execute against the plan they've created. Take away any one of those three, and it's like removing a leg from a 3-legged stool.

As project managers, sometimes (even in a rough economy) it's in our best interest just to walk away. Sometimes politely by saying, "I don't think this project is a good fit for me at this point in my career." Sometimes it takes harsher language. It's always OK to fire a client (even a potential client) who doesn't get it. Sometimes I'll let the client think that firing was their idea. Regardless of how it's done, I'm not going to waste skills and talents on a client who won't appreciate them and maximize them. (To my current client, don't worry, you're safe.)

As professionals, we all owe it to ourselves and our respective industries to protect our craft, our accomplishments, and our skills.

Is it time to fire your client?

You First

Another aspect of finishing up my mother's business was the estate sale (translated: overglorified garage sale). My sister and I took it as an opportunity to also rid our respective homes of unwanted stuff, so it was quite the sale. The first day of the two-day event got some great traffic, and we pared down the belongings significantly.

On the second day, we decided to try an experiment: we removed all the price tags and allowed people to make offers. What surprised us was how many customers declined that to place an offer. They wanted us to throw out a number... THEN they were comfortable countering it with something else. A couple of times we had people surprise us and offer more than what the prior day's price tag listed. But that was a rarity.

As a project manager and a consultant, I see that quite often. People don't want to define; they want to edit. Throwing out the first offer takes leadership and audacity. Throwing out a counter-offer is easier. There's a target at which to shoot. Negotiation isn't always about contracts and dollars; it may be about resources and requirements.

Of course, going first has its demands as well. It means one has to at least entertain counter-offers tactfully. I once worked on a project where the lead BA was comfortable with defining the requirements (i.e., offer) but would never entertain counter-offers ("my way or the highway"). The IT lead was uncomfortable with both offers and counter-offers; the only request was "I need more" without telling the rest of us what "more" looked like or why it was needed. It made for difficult scope and schedule discussions.

My friend, Lisa Gates, specializes in negotiation. She coaches women everywhere how to negotiate more effectively. Her commentary about negotiation itself is very telling:

Just look at the word negotiation. It hangs in the air like a dirigible, just a bunch of hot air and bloated promises. It’s enough to make your stomach turn.

Why is that? Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever in their ground-breaking books Women Don’t Askand Ask For It, have unpacked the answer to that question withexhaustive research and numbing statistics. Like my business partner and I, they’ve developed courses and training opportunities for women to begin turning those numbers around.

But because just the word itself carries such a heavy negative load, women don’t perceive negotiation to be transformative. And even if they do learn the strategies and tactics of interest-based negotiation, they don't believe they'll use what they learn. Yet in our experience teaching women, once the fundamental skills of interest-based negotiation are learned, everything changes.

Regardless of your gender, if you're going to learn to "seize the accomplishment," you need to be comfortable with both aspects of negotiation: offering AND counter-offering. Knowing how to define the value of what's being negotiated is key. If you know what "it" is worth (whether "it" is a software contract, a resource, or project requirements), then you are better prepared to negotiate for what you want.

Me? Well, let's just say I'm cured of my desire to hold another garage sale ANYTIME in the foreseeable future.

Environmentalist vs. Economist

I've purposely avoided most of the election topics in my blog over the past several weeks.  This has taken considerable restraint on my part, as there has been SO MUCH fodder, but I didn't want to cloud the messages of accomplishment with others' perceptual filters on candidates and issues... there are a lot of strong feelings out there from both sides.

I am, however, going to tackle one issue that's on the Iowa ballot.  On the surface, the creation of a Water and Land Legacy fund is a brilliant idea.  I've become more more engaged and interested in environmental issues, and I believe we're all called to be good stewards of our planet's resources, whether or not we believe in global warming.

But beyond the surface of this idea, things fall apart.  First, I'm not sure why this measure is a constitutional amendment.  This seems like overkill, and it makes it appear as though our governor and legislature can't do their job well enough to make this a reality through their own responsibilities.  The purpose of a constitution is to define/limit/expand rights... mostly for the individual.  When it comes to organizations, the legislature should be defining the parameters by which they operate.

The second issue with this measure is funding.  They've structured it so that a sales tax increase is necessary to fund it.  For those who have not gone through a couple of semesters of economics in college, sales tax is regressive; in other words, it hits the lower and middle classes worse, because these classes use proportionately more of their income to spend money on taxable items than do the upper class.  Maybe it's the systems thinker in me, but why not increase fines and penalties on environmental infractions to fill the coffers?  That way, the more companies and individuals are caught breaking environmental laws, the more the environment benefits (basic cause and effect).

While you can guess which way I'm voting on this measure, that's not really why I chose to write about it.  I want to challenge all of you to have these kinds of internal arguments before you go out and try to argue with someone from a different party or political mindset.  Based on the commercials and the bad arguments I've witnessed, we seem to have more absent-minded voters than we have absentee voters.  Please try to be informed and to think before you pull the lever tomorrow.

Jest the Facts

I'm a big fan of systems thinking... and I happen to love the "thinking" part every bit as much as the "systems" part.  There's just something about the exchange and use of facts and information that fascinates me.

I've been distressed by the onslaught of poorly constructed rhetoric coming through the media in the past couple of years in the form of political campaigns.  It appears as though both parties have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction, reality from opinion.  And it doesn't matter which side we're talking about.  Both have become so entrenched that neither will consider a view the doesn't coincide with its own.  For example, here in Iowa, it's a FACT that the courts ruled that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional.  It is OPINION that this ruling was part of a politically-fueled left-wing conspiracy.  It's a FACT that the democrats at a national level passed a health care bill.  It's OPINION that it will actually help those it is intended to help in the long run.  It is a FACT that some people are in this country without legal documentation; it is OPINION as to whether or not they should be allowed to stay.  (For the record, I could argue pro and con on either side of these arguments, so don't read anything into the above statements that is not intended.)

Facts and opinions are two of the many inputs our brain uses in its own system of making decisions about issues, news, people, and activity.  It also uses beliefs and values, as well as experiences and relationships to form decisions.  This article by Joe Keohane for the Boston Globe points out some fascinating things about us humans.  Facts don't always win.  If one's belief system is so strong, presenting said individual with facts may only backfire:

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters - the people making decisions about how the country runs - aren't blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the mere misinformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

"The general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong," says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon - known as "backfire" - is a "natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.

I think we've all run into those people who are ALWAYS right... even when they are not.  How do we deal with them?  Well, my preference is to disengage.  If somebody won't operate on logic and integrity, why bother dealing with them?  Whether or not I call them out for their behavior (directly or indirectly) depends on the individual and the culture (environment) in which I'm working.  Your main focus needs to remain on why you wanted to convince them in the first place.  If winning over the other individual is not mission critical to meeting your goals, then quit wasting energy there.  It's as silly as the rhetoric the far left and far right use to convince the other how wrong they are.  However, if you need to win the person over, but their belief systems are too strong to let facts influence them, then find other ways to penetrate through their beliefs. In some cases, you may need to appeal to their belief systems.

The key point is recognizing how the system of influence and exchange works between you and your audience before you engage.  It will save you much headache in the future.

Studying Executives In Their Native Habitat

Teaching a course in Executive Leadership at Drake this semester has been an interesting change of gears from the leadership class I taught last year.  I've served in various executive roles and I've been exposed to the good, bad, and ugly of executives in my employee and consulting careers.  Still, to many, the executive is that elusive "man behind the curtain" whom nobody really understands.  Is he "great and powerful" or just a "humbug"?

The first guest speaker I brought into class was Sue, an executive assistant with a locally large employer in town.  She entertaininly provided my students with many insights about the life and times of an executive's life, but since many of my students are far from being an executive yet, her most valuable advice was how to approach and interact with executives.

In her own words:

Be Bright

Be Quick

Be Gone

This person did not get to where he is by needing you to read him every page of 100 page deck; in fact, do not show up with a 100 page deck! Schedule your meeting for 30-minutes (or as requested by the exec or his assistant); be organized so you can cover the information, answer any questions, note any take aways and leave before your allotted time is spent.  Be pleasant and smile-- remember he’s a human being and usually very approachable.  Leave the brown nosing at your former employer’s---everyone knows when you’re baffling with bull because you aren’t able to dazzle with brilliance.  Also, read the body language; know the clues as when to move on, whether to the next topic or out the door

Sage advice.  My dad used to say that the perfect 3-point sermon was to stand up, speak up, and shut up.  It looks as though the same principles apply in dealing with executives.

rhe-DOH-ric

In my last post, I talked about how our nation is at odds, and we weren't even holding the same arguments, then I related that back to work.  Rather than just leave you hanging, there's a book I've been reading which has been nothing short of phenomenal.

Thank You For Arguing - What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson can teach us about the art of persuasion has been the find of the year for my book-shelf (with special nod to Mike Wagner for the recommendation).  If you've ever felt like you constantly get the short end of the rhetorical stick during conversations, this book is for you.

Jay Heinrichs does an outstandingly entertaining job of laying out the need for better argument skills.  He shares how we often argue in the wrong tense (forensic, or past) when we should be pushing our arguments into the deliberative (or future) tense, where we can actually change things moving forward.  He shares numerous little tricks about reading your audience and relating to them.  Quite frankly, this should be nationally required reading in an election year.  As I listen to the candidates speak about themselves and each other, I've been better equipped to dissect their logic (or lack thereof) and the little ploys.  Heinrichs gives many examples and tips to use with coworkers, bosses, friends, family, and strangers.

It's a Dogma-Eat-Dogma World Out There

One more night left and then we are DONE with national political conventions for another four years.  Still, it has been fun to discuss and debate the candidates and the issues with friends and family.  With most people, I find I'm able to have wonderful talks.  We don't agree on everything, but we remain logical and respectful of each others' views.  Those whom I tend to avoid are the myopically dogmatic types who think that any diagreement is a personal attack on them, their party, their beliefs, their gender, their race, their age, their entire family, and anybody they may have looked at or talked with in the past 20 years.

To them I say, "CRIKEYS!  Get over yourself already.  LIfe is too short."

This kind of behavior is at the core of many office politics battles.  We assume since there is a conflict brewing, the other person has some personal vendetta against us personally since they don't agree with our views.  We also err in thinking if somebody agrees with us, they must be our friend.  Actually, there's a 2-axis grid which must be assessed when looking at office politics and conflict

Your strategy will depend on which square the other person falls.  The biggest mistake most people make is spending too much time and energy in the upper right hand corner (they already are on your side, you don't have to win them over any more) and the lower left hand corner (nothing short of a nuclear holocaust is going to bring them over to your side, so let it go).

The real trick to being good at influencing people and winning them over in an office politics conflict is paying moderate attention to the lower right (just don't do anything so stupid that they vote against you out of spite) and a little more attention to the upper left (they already like you, so have a logical, rational discussion about your differences to attempt to find a win-win solution or a compromise).  But the area where more effort should be spent is in the neutral camp.  At a minimum, we do not want them siding with the Against camp.  We may be able to win them over to our side, but that takes relationship building and a whole lot of persuasion and influence (for which you may or may not have time).  So build your strategy accordingly with the people who are in this middle ground.  You may have to create multiple strategies, depending on the people populating this center region and their demographics/beliefs/hot buttons.  Don't assume one size fits all.

So... where does your office politics battle fall in this grid?  What are YOU going to do about it?

Contract Miley-age

"Assumptions not documented now become excuses later."  It was a favorite line of a former mentor of mine.  I've used it plenty of times during project communication presentations.  I even made reference to it in my first book.  And what I didn't realize is that my eight-year-old was paying more attention to me than I ever credited her for.

My wife and I have been "persuading" her all summer to clean her room so we could paint it.  We purchased a new quilt and agreed on a paint color.  The only critical path was the tidying up archaelogical dig it would take to plow through a world of eight-year-old treasures clutter.  Last night, I decided to provide a teachable moment to my daughter.  We drew up a contract.  We discussed what the final deliverable looked like (because for some kids, "clean room" is an ambiguous concept).  We covered timeframes.  We documented consequences for failing to deliver.  And to be fair, I asked her to document assumptions... what did she need from me to ensure successful delivery of the project?

Her requests?

• Hourly check-ups to provide feedback
• Move objects too heavy for her to carry
• Keep her little sister out of her room during the project
• Allow appropriately productivity-inducing music of her choice.

All seemed reasonable.  Everybody signed on the dotted line before bedtime.  We were ready to roll the next morning... until... where's my Miley Cyrus CD?  Miley who?  You know, Dad, Hannah Montana.  Oh, that Miley Cyrus.  Billy Ray's kid.  The one who actually can sing.  Then the news hit me:  her mother had taken away the CD and hid it as punishment for an earlier (and now expired) infraction.  Worse yet, her mother had forgotten where she hid it.

I tried negotiating.  "Can't you listen to the soundtrack to Wicked again?  You've only heard it 15,000 times.  What's one more?"  Nope.  "Isn't there at least one Princess song you haven't memorized?"  Princess songs are uncool past the age of seven.  She resolutely pointed out the terms of the contract as she sweetly and innocently asked me, "What's the balance on your iTunes account?"

I blanched.  The same iPod which housed the likes of Billy Joel, Alabama, Bon Jovi, Dave Koz, Johnny Cash, Marc Cohn, Blackhawk, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Harry Connick Jr, Christine Kane, and Norah Jones was going to share giga-space with (gulp) Disney Bubble Gum Demon Spawn Miley Cyrus?  But a deal's a deal, and a contract's a contract.  After listening to the same six songs repeat in a three hour continuous loop (who says you can't tell time in Hell?), the room was cleaned.

I'll probably leave the songs on my iPod as a reminder.  And next time I negotiate a contract with my 8-year-old (or anyone else, for that matter), I'll do a quick refresher course of Rush Nigut's tips for contract negotiating... while I'm re-reading #3, I'll listen to the most recent iPod additions.  That should cement the lesson for a long, long time.  As Miley croons in her nasally adolescent voice, "Everybody makes mistakes."  Just don't tell my achy-breaky heart about it.