September 20, 2019
Introduction:
Over the past six plus years, I’ve been spearheading one of the largest projects of my career. The project was to modernize an aging government property tax system that was based on a 1972 era mainframe to a modern system platform for the 10th largest County government in the nation. The system is responsible for managing approximately 1 million properties with the taxable value of approximately $280b, perform taxation calculations for all local districts in the County, and bill, collect, and distribute over $3.8b in property tax revenues annually. The project budget was $98m, and between the County staff and the vendors, the overall size of the team ranges between 40-150+ people throughout the project life-cycle.
I’ve walked away from this experience with so many observations and lessons learned and I want to share some of them through a series of blogs. My hope is that it will be beneficial to those who embark on similar projects and that some of my techniques will be helpful. The approach here is to inject practicality into project management by using real experiences; by doing so, I can fill in the gaps of the intangibles (people and process elements) in project management discipline during execution.
Just to emphasize what I am doing, my blogs are based on years of observations, trials and errors, learnings, findings, and/or mistake I have made during my experiences. The stories and examples are not meant to portray anyone involved negatively. It is simply a view of reality when managing projects.
The Scenario:
It is another high-stakes meeting where the participants included are of all ranks; from the executive leadership all the way to the operational staff on the project. The purpose of the meeting is to decide if the project should proceed as scheduled even though the latest status report shows the state of the project is riddled with delays, risks, and constraints. The impact of the decision of this meeting is multi-millions of dollars in cost, the future of the organization, political fallout, as well as an impact to 300 users for the next 12 months.
Often Project Manager(s) will err by positioning themselves as the ‘facilitator’ of this type of meeting as opposed to their usual role which requires them to make quick decisions since the context of a normal project life-cycle is to firefight tactical or task level problems. The remaining participants tend to fall into a few different groups as well in this scenario. Below are the groups I categorize from my experiences.
Group 1: Conformers (most members)
Characteristics of this group are usually those that do not formulate opinions and/or participate in the discussions during the meeting. Conformers are engaged and will acknowledge the discussions with few nods and frowns depending on their feelings of where the discussion is leading towards. However, when asked to speak, they will provide their subject matter expertise and keep their feedback at an operational/tactical level, refraining from suggesting any direction on the overarching decision. Conformers will usually agree and comply with any decision made by someone else and avoid the outcomes from this meeting due to the uncertainty of where it might lead to.
Group 2: Defenders (handful of members)
Notable characteristics of this group are that they see flaws in any idea and/or strategy first. In this type of meeting, it is hard to avoid discussions on the root causes of what may have led the project to the current state. When this happens, the Defenders are quick to point to faults that are outside of their control. In addition, with any suggestion of direction and/or decision, one can count on the Defenders to voice their opinion on why it probably won’t work or reasons why it can’t be done. The Defenders naturally see risks in situations, and because of this instinct they usually view this type of meeting akin to a train wreck in slow motion. As a result, they are less likely to offer any solution, and will not be willing to be accountable for any decision with the fear of the unknown (and sometimes pending disaster in their view). Therefore, laying out a barrage of challenges/risks covers them from any accountability with what they believe is inevitable.
Group 3: Puppet Masters (very few members)
Characteristics of this group are the desire to control and want to solve problems/challenges. They have a lot of great ideas and tend to have the ability to see the bigger picture of the situation. However, in meetings like this they will avoid taking the lead on an idea or strategy, but instead they will make many attempts to direct the discussions toward what they would like the conclusion to be. Like the Defenders with barrage of challenges/risks towards a major decision, Puppet Masters usually have many ideas on how to solve problems. The drawback for this group is they contribute in ideas, but lack the discipline and determination to follow through and pursue them. They usually expect others to do the work. The Puppet Masters have the desire to force a plan or direction as long as their names are not ‘directly’ associated to the decision, as they would be held accountable in the event of a bad outcome. However, if the outcome is good because of their idea, they expect full credit for the decision made.
Group 4: Braves (rare)
Characteristics of this group can vary widely. On the one hand, those that are categorized as the Braves have no fear in making high risk and high impact decisions; however, they do so out of necessity more than willingness, they are not driven by sound solutions and concrete data that points to a path of higher probability and success. On the other hand, there are those that become Braves because they believe in the purpose and the value of what needs to be done beyond their personal stakes dependent on the outcome of the decision. Either way, the Braves can usually see the big picture clearly and understand the political environment. They tend to focus on what they have control over and not let what they don’t have control over to instill fear in their actions. They are accustomed to being held accountable and being the “throat to choke” if things go bad because of their ideas/decisions (or their support of one by carrying the flag that no one wants to carry). This responsibility does not bother them as much as it does the other groups.
The Analysis & Techniques:
The purpose for this blog is not to decipher the psychology of why people are the way they are in the project team, but to shed light on what makes up the team we (as project managers) are usually working with. As I mentioned earlier, the characteristics outlined within the groups are not meant to be a negative reflection of the people on the projects, but it illustrates how their natural instincts translate to behaviors during the described scenario. My goal is to provide readers some clarity on the types of people involved in such a high-stakes meeting scenario, as well as offer my observations and recommended techniques to leverage the situation into a better outcome for the project. In the table below, I offer my thoughts and some techniques on how to manage this type of meeting in anticipation of all the personalities involved.
Conformers
Thoughts: Although they shy away from high-stake decisions and being accountable for project level decisions, this group tends to have a lot of knowledge on the subject matter and are very comfortable with performing tasks. As task masters, they are best positioned to provide quantifiable data relating to time, effort, and work dependencies. So, this is usually the go-to group to validate and quantify any ideas/strategies that someone else come up with in the meeting. I will avoid putting them on the spot during high-stake meetings since they will drive the discussions into the weeds immediately.
Recommendations: During high-stake meetings, I will go to this group at the beginning to give a quick snapshot on how much are we delayed, and what may be the root cause of the delay from the work/task perspective. I will monitor this group’s reaction as the meeting progresses and we discuss possible strategies to recover the situation. As needed, I will ask them to validate certain ideas tossed out by others. As an idea/strategy takes shape, I will rely on this group to validate the execution and feasibility and to quantify the duration and efforts of the idea before committing.
Defenders
Thoughts: Since in their view a disaster is inevitable, being accountable for any decision coming out of the meeting is highly unlikely for this group. They will not put their name on any failing project. The nature of this group seeing the glass half-empty actually positions them to be one of the best sources to seek out for execution risks. Because they see things in the opposite light, they invest more brain power and energy to find faults than others who are more optimistic. As a result, they balance the team and situations for the project managers.
Recommendations: During high-stake meetings, I will go to this group to pinpoint root causes that may have led to the project situation. However, I will be cautious of their estimates and/or quantifiable information to support the problems they identify as they may sometimes exaggerate to prove their points. Instead, when this group brings up a negative point in the discussion, I will use the Conformers to validate/quantify their point.
I will leverage this group to help identify risks associated to any idea/strategy being formulated. Again, this group tends to see the flaws first, which I treat as a Quality Assurance team for PMs on execution strategies. I recommend putting up a risk parking lot on the white board during this type of meeting just to have a way for them to feel they can get their ideas out in the open, and PM can assess each risk identified by the group in regards to probability and impact (again with the help of the Conformers). The parking lot approach also allows for the PMs to move the meeting forward and avoid the meeting being hijacked by the Defenders’ points and instill fear to others in the meeting.
A caution with this group is after the meeting this group usually will fan their view of why the decision made won’t work throughout the project team. So, informing the rest of the team who were not in the high-stake meeting is important.
Puppet Masters
Thoughts: Although this group is usually more politically savvy and have a great sense of the situation, they are sometimes overly optimistic in their ideas on how to deal with high-stake decisions. Just like the Conformers and Defenders, Puppet Masters usually would not want to risk their own political capital and/or put their own career on the line during situations like this. However, they are opportunists when they understand that this type of situation can propel their contribution/value on the team. In this situation, this group will likely engage in the discussion actively, and constantly try to solve problems that are thrown out by Conformers and Defenders. They will also push the discussion to the edge, short of advising the group their firm recommendation with the fear that if it goes wrong, they may be held accountable for the recommendation.
Recommendations: PMs can rely on this group to insert some positivity into this type of meeting. They are the go-to group to start throwing some potential solutions on the board for discussion just to get some positive thinking and creative juice started early in the meeting.
This group will come from the glass-half-full perspective, so sometimes this group will go back-and-forth with the Defenders. A way to keep the debate under control is also to use the whiteboard to parking lot solutions for this group.
I will recommend utilizing both the Conformers and Defenders to help validate and quantify the ideas from the Puppet Masters. Sometimes overly optimistic ideas tend to gain traction faster for the Executives/Sponsors as they usually gravitate to things they want to hear as opposed to what they need to hear in dealing with high-stake decisions.
Few cautions with the Puppet Master are that if the conclusion of the meeting did not play out the way this group was trying to get to, they may still pursue their approach with the executive stakeholders after the decision outside of the meeting. If this happens, it will usually cause a lot of confusion in execution towards the decision. Also, if things do go as planned with their idea, make sure the PM gives them full credit after the fact; otherwise they may shut down and stop contributing as kudos usually means a lot to them.
Braves
Thoughts: Understandably it is not for the faint of heart to be a Brave in this scenario. Why would anyone want to make a stand and plant a flag into the future and make the confident statement “this is how we will get to where we need to go into the future” when the majority of the facts, information, and metrics are showing a negative trend? There are so many external forces, so many people/personalities involved, so many risks, and the need for many stars to align to even come close to where the flag is planted.
Being a Brave does not mean it is a one-person show, a Brave usually doesn’t have a lot of technical knowledge at the task level, but they are extremely attuned with what is categorized as project internal variables vs external variables that the team can’t control. The combination of not being scared by the task level risks due to lack of comprehension at that level of work, understanding what can be done and controlled, taking in all the points and quantifiable information presented, and tapping into the psyche of the Defenders by playing out what a worst scenario would’ve looked like (and how to deal with it if it comes true), this group tends to step up and are okay with being the throat-to-choke by making the call. Of course, being fearless about losing their job for something they believe to be the right for the project/ organization helps a lot too.
Recommendations: Every project manager would want a few more Braves than we usually see on the team, as they are willing to be held accountable in order to make things happen in most circumstances. Unfortunately, most team members are fearful of having a dent and/or blackmark in the event of failure when they stepped up. This touches upon the subject of team members having a more growth mindset than fixed mindset, but this will be another topic for another blog.
My personal view is that ultimately PMs are accountable for everything that is decided during a project life cycle. Yes, having a few Braves to stand side-by-side with you will be fantastic, but PMs should not bank on finding the Braves to be their own defenders/shield of decisions. PMs cannot shift accountability and outcomes to others on the team, especially to those that are willing to step up and own their work.
If Braves appear in this type of meeting, PMs should embrace them and stand with them so the Braves feel they are not alone in the accountability. If throughout the meeting no Braves appear, then the PM has to be the one.
A caution with the Braves, sometimes their fearless nature will prompt them to take more risk than needed. The term shoot-from-the-hip tends to come to my mind when seeing them in action. So, PMs must make sure to use the other three groups to back the Braves when they take command of the situation.
Conclusion:
You may have probably already picked out the overarching theme portrayed in this scenario and the groups of people that usually are involved. The underlying theme is accountability, which at its root stems from lack of courage at the individual level. In my experience, I see this played out at all levels of the project and organization. Some situations I can understand, while others caught me by surprise. Regardless, as a PM the best way to promote courage from others is to share accountability with anyone who is willing to demonstrate it with you; when things don’t go as planned, take ownership of the accountability and shield them from blame. Yes, it is extremely scary to be a PM that will take most of the accountability when we usually do not know everything or cannot control everything that goes on in a large project like this; however, that is why PMs have a team to complement their decision making. Depending on the team composite and personalities the PM has on the team in general; the PM may need to fill in as a Conformer, Defender, or a Puppet Master to balance the discussion during this type of situation.
Final thought on this is if PMs perform their role of making sure work is measured and quantified, risks are identified and assessed, relationships and open communications are maintained, and analytical abilities are constantly applied in finding optimal path within the competing constraints in PM methodology, the logical direction to most situations should be clear to see. When the direction can be conveyed with clarity to everyone, validated by the Conformers, Defenders, and the Puppet Masters, then the PM should be the champion of it and take command like a Brave. In my view, PMs need to package the strategy, sell it to all levels of the project team, defend it (or improve it) from challenges, plan the execution, and follow through with it to the end. Otherwise, PMs become nothing more than a facilitator to this type of meeting, a note taker, and a conveyor belt of information hoping someone will step up and tell them what to do next.
PMs are needed on projects for a reason, and at the top of that reason in my view is to be the Brave when there aren’t any. If a PM doesn’t feel like their Executive Stakeholders will support them on being a Brave when it comes to high-stake decision making, then more likely than not there is something else that needs to be addressed outside the context of this meeting scenario between the PM and the Executive Stakeholders.