Reading “Leadership Freak” on Monday was reaffirming. Dan Rockwell wrote about leaders who achieve great success by setting a vision, bringing in good people, and getting out of the way. His primary example was Tony Hsieh at Zappos. My ideas about imagining perfect outcomes and defining the perfect journey to get there are in line with this advice.
I use “perfect” on purpose even though people are uncomfortable about it. The audio clip on Dan’s post brings out the importance of this in how Zappos decides how to “wow” their customers. On projects, we have to decide what it will be like to “wow” ourselves (everyone involved) with our results, and then define the project around that. Those who have to get it done and will live with the results are the best ones to do it. This is a way to find what can go right about a project before we focus on what to do and what can go wrong.
Thanks for the reaffirming post, Dan. Readers, be sure to listen to the audio clip on this post; and check out Dan’s preceding post on how to establish a culture that enables “Wow.”
Thanks for reading.
Projects are more successful when all the participants – project managers, builders, and clients – find ways to understand and learn from one another. But, that’s not easy. Why is that? Don’t we want to understand and support one another? We probably do. But, our different perspectives can get in the way.
Most people on a project are looking for different things when they look at the project. The project manager is looking to define and manage objectives, scope, schedule, budget, and risks. The other people on the project are looking at what they will be creating or what they will have when the project is completed. They see what interests them. And, they see what they are directed to look for. Science backs up my assertion.
Listening to NPR earlier in the week, I heard a story about the invisible gorilla. It wasn’t about the 900 pound gorilla that comes to most of our project meetings that we all see but don’t talk about. (Or, maybe it was…). It was about a gorilla in plain sight that we don’t see because we are looking for something else.
A few months ago I did a post on my experiences many years ago at a day camp in West Des Moines, Iowa; and how those experiences shaped my project management philosophy. Lately, I’ve gotten a few notes and comments on that post from former day campers. One (a vice president at a manufacturing company) gave me a call and we reminisced about the pea green pond (and its monster), snipe hunts, the big brown bus, Shady Creek and the woods, and swimming at Camp Dodge pool. What struck me was that our great experiences were still a positive influence on our lives. So, what can we learn from day camp that helps us on our projects?
Dr. Mae Jemison, Principal of the 100 Year Starship project (and former astronaut), was asked by New York Times columnist, Dennis Overbye, if she would go on a lifetime voyage to the stars. She said “Yeah” adding that “It makes a difference who goes with you.” To make the long voyage, she says that “We will bring our culture along with us.”
The 100 Year Starship project (www.100yss.org) was established recently by a group of stellar people to imagine and plan a real trip to the stars. After all, imagining, planning, and completing our trip to the moon triggered research and implementation of television, the Internet, satellite communication, revolutionary medical procedures, and even cultural movements that have changed our lives. Once started, the trip to the moon and back was completed in a matter of days. The 100 Year Starship project is imagining a trip that will take a generation or more. Reading about it, the thing that jumped out at me was not that the project has to find amazing technological breakthroughs; it’s that they have to figure out how people on such a trip can live and work together productively. They have to think about (from www.100yss.org): Continue reading
Dan’s post provides a guiding principle for finding what can go right on your project: you have to ask. Too often projects start off with the scope, schedule, and budget predefined. The charge is “We can do this!” Then we don’t or pretend we did. A project starting this way spends it’s time and energy protecting itself with risk mitigation, change orders, and blame shifting. Starting, as Dan suggests, with “Can we do this?” gets the team to explore the challenge, it’s strengths, and opportunities for needs to be met in a realistic way that improves the organization and its people. Thanks, Dan!
I’m almost three weeks into a new job. This job requires me to build stronger relationships between a complex business environment and its IT providers. No one has had this same job for this business before, so I’m figuring out how to do it. Among many startup considerations, it requires me to consider how much to read vs. how much to act. I’m looking back to old advice and advisors for wisdom.
Early in my career I was lucky enough to participate in a 12 week leadership and management training in the US Air Force called Squadron Officers School. About a thousand junior officers (I was one in 1977) gathered at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama for intensive physical, military, and management training. Among many memories and takeaways I retained was a small foldout card with a few management models we had learned about. One was the read/act model. It illustrated the need to build strengths to both read and act; and to judge and balance the need for reading and action in any new situation. I did a little Google research on Read/Act and found only one website. It gives me the impression that the concept was developed at SOS. Here’s the link. This site is more involved than the core concept I remember. What I remember is that many officers err toward action with bad results, so we needed to build our read skills. If we tend to be readers (like me), then we need to work on balancing reading with acting. It’s situational and intuitive. I’m in a new situation. Continue reading
“The Buck Stops Here” – plaque on President Harry Truman’s desk.
Watching the national championship college football game earlier this month (for my international readers, that’s American football, not soccer), I saw a great example of the need for clear roles and responsibilities among decision makers.
Football, perhaps more than any other, is a sport where complex relationships require clear roles and responsibilities. 11 offensive players line up against 11 defensive players. On each play, several players may call out plays. Key players have responsibilities to read what is going on and then shout instructions. From a fan’s perspective, it seems to go pretty well and it’s fun to watch players adjust based on calls from the quarterback, the center, or the middle linebacker. But, sometimes it doesn’t go well.
Alabama was leading Notre Dame 42 to 14 near the end of the game. You’d think the Alabama players would be relaxed. Alabama had the ball, lined up, and quarterback and the center started calling signals. The quarterback was suddenly very annoyed. He stood up and jumped around behind the line yelling instructions. He was angry. The players looked confused. The result was a delay of game penalty. The center stood up, the quarterback screamed something in his face, and the center gave his quarterback a shove. All this from a team with an insurmountable lead about to win the national championship. The TV commentators, shaking off their surprise, explained that the coach and quarterback were both known for being intense perfectionists. Clearly, it paid off in their performance. Just as clearly, we can note that a team striving for high performance can suffer if the leaders get confused about their roles and responsibilities.