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.
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.
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:
“According to Kiyosaki and Lechter, wealth is measured as the number of days the income from your assets will sustain you…”
Source: Wikipedia
“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.
Structured vs. unstructured environments
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…
Imagine a corporate training where all participants are taking part in a warm-up game. They are to behave in a certain way based on a statement from one of the participants.
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?
A couple of days ago a colleague from our Audit Department approached me during a training and asked me a question regarding risk management:
“Is there any weight added to “high”, “medium” or “low” for the “impact” column (or “probability”, for that matter) in the risk log?”
She mentioned that risk was something she was involved in more — in her present occupation, and she wanted to know, if there was anything quantitative below those values. I pointed her to m_o_r for starters — as an example of a more structured approach.
The simple answer to her question, however, was “no.” Without waiting a second thought, I added:
“I wish risk was identified -> estimated -> mitigation planned in the first place. It ends on theory level in many cases, yet any plan & business case without a [regularly reviewed] risk log to support our prognosis is a huge risk itself.”
When discussing the subject of risk, I often mention that our diligence as project managers most probably will depend on what the deliverable is. If this is a high risk project (e.g. an ascent of a high mountain or reaching the depths of the sea in a submarine) we will not treat the subject of risk light-heartedly.
* * *
On a similar note, but not directly related to risk management and risk logs, it really is better to find a way to add more meaning to the standard “low”, “medium” and “high” or “A”, “B” and “C” — either by adding a legend with more tangible information or, say, switching to “must”, “should” or “could” (but perhaps not in the context of risk).
“One of the greatest Polish experts on molecular mechanisms of memory, Prof. Lech Kaczmarek, surprised me once with his original solution: I do not keep notes and I do not have an appointment calendar. Whatever I forget, it could not have been important enough. Indeed, natural forgetting mechanisms may act as a good way to thin out the to-do list; however, this solution probably isn’t suitable for everyone. Its main shortcoming: problems with stress management. Many of you would probably keep worrying than an important appointment, deadline or promise would not be met (with untold consequences).” Source: http://www.supermemo.com/articles/tasklists.htm
Do you believe in planning? Do you have a calendar or a task list? Do you “go digital” or keep it simple with pen and paper? Perhaps the most important question — have you been using any such “system” continuously for more than a year (i.e. does your personal approach actually work)? Plans are nothing more than a prognosis of what can happen. Plans are not straight paths we follow, but they can serve as a baseline to which we compare what’s happening in our lives. Here’s what Scott Berkun wrote on planning in projects:
“Later on, when scheduling became something I was responsible for, I realized the unspoken truth about schedules. They are not gifts from the future. There is no magic formula or science for creating perfect schedules. Despite my youthful perceptions, scheduling is not an isolated task: it always represents and encompasses many different aspects of what the project is now and will be later. Schedules are simply a kind of prediction. No matter how precisely they are drafted or how convincing they appear, they are just a summation of lots of little estimations, each one unavoidably prone to different kinds of unforeseeable oversights and problems.” Source: Making Things Happen by Scott Berkun
Schedules are only predictions, true. But the process of personal planning helps us answer important questions. Questions like the ones below:
- Am I in line with my values? Do I keep the end in mind?
- Do I maintain a balance between all important aspects of my life?
- Am I [only] doing things right or am I doing the right things?
This is why I love to plan.
* * *
The two approaches that seem to be the most popular on the net:
- Getting Things Done (David Allen)
- FranklinCovey (Stephen R. Covey)
I respect the first one, I use the latter. But what’s more important, with each year I become more aware that planning (the approach) is a very individual thing, i.e. can only be customized to suit one’s needs and should never be blindly re-used.
Józef Tischner, a known Polish priest, wrote that in the course of a man’s life three things matter in particular:
- Things.
- Ideas.
- People.
We “evolve” from a fascination in things (e.g. toys which we believe will make us better) and become indulged in ideas (e.g. a great job or a concept, or any activity which we believe will make us better). There comes a moment, however, when we realize that neither things nor ideas are able to bring meaning into our lives. Certainly we won’t become wiser, stronger by owning a particular car, phone or rubber ball and we will not improve by devoting a significant share of our life to another ever-changing corporation. People, imperfect and weak as they may be, are one way to build something truly meaningful. Neither things nor ideas (if not involving others) will make us happy in the long run, especially if by focusing on them, we lose sight of relationships that matter. An important reminder to me and to any that listen — after a longer inactivity on this blog.
by lech on March 22, 2009
“Change or die” — we are told. “The only thing that's certain is change itself.” “Learn to accept change,” “embrace change” etc. How much can we influence our ability to cope with change? How much can we change?
I remember one puzzling moment in Werner Herzog’s wonderful movie Encounters at the End of the World… One of the characters, a mid-aged lad, hasn’t got particularly much to say when interviewed by the narrator. We learn, however, that he is always prepared to hit the road. Working here and there, he has his things (stuck in a backpack) ready for an instant takeoff. Is this the ideal of a change-adapted person? While discussing the movie, my father-in-law said, that it was exactly the opposite. “Running away” (as in the case of Herzog’s character) was not a good sign of one’s ability to adapt. But then… how’s change vs. adaptation?
When working on personal change or inducing organizational change, do we hope to make people adapt to the new situation? Or would we rather want them to “become the change,” to change themselves, and not just simply adapt?
With every new year on my back I’m less prone to believe in induced change, esp. organizational initiatives aiming to shift an entity from point A to point B (“culture eats strategy for breakfast,” after all). I believe, however, in an individual’s repeated activities. I believe in routine. Routine makes a craftsman out of a layman and an Olympian out of an average sportsman.
by lech on February 18, 2009
A while ago I came across an information that approx 50% of respondents do not understand the jokes we make in written correspondence (a reference to e-mail in particular). Even if this is too much of a generalization and not particularly accurate, the proportion makes one think. Jokes are just one facet of communication. We might expect that in the entirety of what we communicate on paper or on the screen, a significant part gets lost on its way. This is point 1.
Point 2. During a meeting with a VP of my organization (I work in finance) my interlocutor mentioned that he wanted to convince people to use email only when appropriate, that this channel was overused in our internal environment. He stressed that F2F communication is always key to understanding each other. In any case, phones should be used before reaching out for the computer. If history (a trace) was necessary, writing a short email followed by a call would be advised.
Think it over. If you write an email and you get a response with requests for clarifications, further elaboration, isn’t it a sign you ought to pick up the receiver? Shouldn’t you have done it in the first place?
When it comes to Project Management, they often say that a good PM rarely stays in his office room.
Point 3. I had an interesting conversation with my superior lately. Unfortunately, only after we had concluded I realized we weren’t synchronized. It must have looked pretty funny from a different perspective. Picture this — he was thinking on paper. He took out a clean sheet, a pen and drew in parallel to his words. He underlined his arguments with the drawings in front of him. On the other hand, I was using words — descriptive, long sentences. Since I didn’t feel this “communion of understanding” between us, I tried to explain my arguments in… words, yet again.
Needless to say, both of us felt tired and unsatisfied with the course / result of our conversation.
Our ability to synchronize with others — first by listening, learning (stepping back to do so), and then communicating by using similar means / levels (e.g. sight, hearing, feeling) and channels as the other persons — greatly affects our chances to build relationships and get things done. Lessons learned? I pick up a clean sheet of paper and pen even when talking on a phone. I present my arguments aloud and draw pictures simultaneously. A flip-chart is my friend.
If our chances of success in communication can be increased by using several channels at once, why not give it a try?
by lech on February 7, 2009
After 09:09 Seth Godin says something I find extremely important:
“[…] all of a sudden, I am a wandering generality instead of a meaningful specific.”
This sentence comes in a part where he explains why he doesn’t use Twitter. Take a look:
The wise know what to omit –– when not to speak, when not to look or listen. “The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do” (Michael Porter). Good leaders know how to prioritize. Name it as you will, the answer is in leaving the essential [me] and maintaining focus like crazy. Would you agree?
