Archive for the ‘People Management’ Category
Motivation rehashed
Ah, motivation! All project managers want to find that magic button that will, when punched, fire up their teams to ever-higher levels of achievement. I’m no different. So when a paper entitled, Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance, appeared in a recent issue of the Project Management Journal, I was motivated enough to give it a read. Unfortunately, I was a little disappointed on reading it. Although well written, and perhaps even useful to practising project managers, the paper does not belong in a professional, peer-reviewed academic/research journal. Read on for my reasons why.
To begin with, a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic/research journal ought to contain one or more of the following:
-
Original research.
-
A new or different perspective on existing knowledge.
-
A comprehensive critical review of an existing area of knowledge.
This paper contains none of the above – a claim which I substantiate below. Ergo, it doesn’t belong in an academic or research journal.
And so, on to the content.
The paper begins with a review of existing theories of motivation. The usual suspects are all present and accounted for: McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y; Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory; McClelland’s Theory of Needs and motivation based on individual Myers-Briggs personality types. The applicability of each of the above – which the author lists under “roles and responsibilities”, “advantages” and “disadvantages” – are well known, and the paper adds nothing new.
The next section discusses the impact and resolution (or correction) of so-called “motivational mistakes” that are outlined in the book Essential People Skills For Project Managers by Flannes and Levin (see pages 80-81 of the book). These “mistakes” – which are essentially ineffective techniques often used to motivate people – include approaches such as: “whatever motivates me will motivate others” or “they are are professionals and don’t need motivating” etc. (see the paper for a complete list). These “mistakes” are well known, as is their impact and resolution (see the book listed above, for example)
The author then delves into the use P-CMM framework in the context of project teams. Regardless of the utility of the framework in improving processes for managing and developing workforces (and opinions on this vary), the paper does not state anything new on the topic. Advice such as laying out well defined expectations, having well defined project processes, involving the project team in planning etc. etc. are offered. However, these have long been a part of project management lore.
In the penultimate section, the author offers some “directives” (which I prefer to interpret as advice) to assist in the development of a “team culture”. Most of the advice offered is, again, well known. The fourth item in the list, for example, states, “Reward the team and the team members.” So tell us something we don’t know…
The paper concludes with the observation that, “...Taking the time to to work with each team member to understand personal work drivers will allow the project manager to uncover basic human needs and individual motivators.” No contesting this point, for sure. But again, what’s new?
Having reviewed the paper, I should reiterate that it is well written and worth a read for practising project managers – if only as a reminder of what they already know. My main quibble, as you’ve undoubtedly gathered, is that the material presented isn’t new or comprehensive, and as such does not fulfil the criteria for a paper in an academic or research journal.
Reference:
Peterson T. M., Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance, Project Management Journal, 38 (4), 60-69 (2007).
What is management?
Most textbook definitions of the art of management (or science, depending on one’s leanings) aren’t particularly edifying. They all somehow seem to miss the essence of what it means to be a manager. Judge for yourself – here are some definitions of management gleaned from online resources:
-
Directing and controlling a group of one or more people or entities for the purpose of coordinating and harmonizing them towards accomplishing a goal. (Source: Wikipedia)
-
The process of getting work done through people (Source: UNR College of Business Administration, attributed to the American Management Association).
Additionally, this article provides an annotated compilation of definitions.
My problem with each of the above definitions – including those in the article – is that they emphasise a superior-subordinate relationship between the manager and the managed. Now, the good managers (that I know) go to great lengths to downplay the “I’m the boss” aspect of the relationship. Yet, the definitions – through their use of words like direct, control, supervise, manipulate, get done etc. – continue to propagate a distorted notion of what it really means to be a manager.
To date, the best definition I’ve seen is tucked away in half a line on page 19 of Scott Berkun’s book, The Art of Project Management. Here it is; a simple and succinct definition that captures the essence of what it means to be a manager:
Managers (are hired to) amplify the value of everyone around them. (Source: Scott Berkun, The Art of Project Managment, O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol, 2005 – Page 19)
“That’s it!”, I thought, when I first read it.
What I like about this definition is that it downplays the superior-subordinate aspect of management, which is not that important anyway. Instead it highlights the fact that everyone has something to offer (special skills, talents, whatever), and that a manager’s job is simply to amplify that “something” to best effect. As an aside I should add that, in my opinion, the tired debates on management versus leadership are misplaced, as (good) management encompasses many elements of leadership as well.
I’m interested in your opinion. What do you think – does Scott Berkun’s definition capture the essence of what it means to be a manager? Let me know through your comments.
Good results aren’t enough
Australia went to the polls on November 24th. The final standings in the lower house are yet to be declared (as of December 3rd), some seats being too close to call. But it was clear, by as early as 8:00 pm on election day, that the Australian Labor Party had won in a landslide, thereby ending the long tenure of the Liberal-National Coalition government headed by John Howard. This isn’t a political blog, so I’m not going to wade into potentially contentious debates on election issues. However, I’d like to draw your attention to one item which figured prominently in the lead up to the election: the strength of the economy . Now, conventional political wisdom deems that an incumbent government is never turfed out in good economic times. Yet, in this election, the ruling party was voted out (and emphatically so) despite having presided over a period of sustained economic growth.
Analysts and politicians, flummoxed by the electorate’s seeming obliviousness to economic issues, have attributed the loss to a host of reasons ranging from unpopularity of workplace reforms legislated by the erstwhile government to bad timing (yes, one pollie did offer that as an explanation). These and many other factors have played a part but an important reason, in my opinion, is that there was – and still is – a disconnect between the good economic news at the macro level (GDP, unemployment figures etc.) and the not-so-good news at the micro level (prices, household debt etc.). The results of the undoubtedly excellent “big-picture” performance of the economy, as nice as it looks on paper, hasn’t made people feel better off at a personal level.
This, in my usual circumlocutory fashion, brings me to my point: in any effort, good results mean nothing if people don’t get to share in them.
Managers of all shades and stripes are measured by the results they achieve – sales managers may be judged by their ability to meet and exceed sales targets, and project managers by the successes or failures of their projects. Regardless of what the goals may be, they’re rarely achieved by the managers’ own efforts. More likely, they’re a consequence of the coordinated work of a group – the sales or project team, as the case may be. It is important to remember this while the work is in progress, and also when it is done and the credits start to roll out. Acknowledge your team publicly, make them feel they’ve been a part of the effort and reward them adequately, else it may all come to nought.
Eight to Late 