Communication or Connection?

Communication.  Such a fundamental part of the project management process, and yet such a challenge for many project managers, and a fundamental failure point in many projects.

If asked about communication, PM’s will  focus on the communication plan called for in the main stream methodologies.  It’s purpose is to define the timing, artifacts, and recipients of information about the progress and status of the project.  In other words, it defines the process of project communication, which is to disseminate information to the project stakeholders.  A necessary, and presumably valuable, part of any project.

Questioned further, project managers will talk about the need to be a good communicator; to be a bridge between the business stakeholders and the technical stakeholders.  The ability to translate one groups “vernacular” to the other is an essential skill in promoting a clear understanding among all stakeholder groups of exactly what the product or service being created will deliver.

These rather conventional definitions of project communication carry an air of “talking at” people, especially through electronic venues and the necessary formality of project language.  But the work of delivering the value of a project gets done by people, and people respond to relationship much better than “communication”.

As project managers, we need to move beyond the standard project communication approach and start building a project connection approach.  So how do we do that?  The answer lies in examining how we make connections in our personal lives.

Typically, when we meet someone, we try to find common interests, ask them about their history, find shared experience, and maybe discover shared acquaintances. Why would it be different in a professional context?  It has to be personal (without crossing the line into intrusive).  It is well accepted the project manager has a leadership position.  A significant function of leadership is to influence.  And to influence, a leader needs to  build credibility.  I submit that essential to building credibility is building connection.  Hence, it has to be personal.

So we need to start building connection plans, not just communication plans.  Whether this is formal or informal, overt or covert, as project managers I think we need to spend the time thinking through our connection approach.  Observe your stakeholders, listen closely (a topic for a future post), and spend time building the connections so crucial to successful delivery of all the value of your project.

Communication and connection are immense subjects with almost infinite subtleties that require time and experience to understand and master.  But doesn’t that also describe the one component absolutely vital to project success?  The people.

Process Destruction

Project Management is certainly rife with processes, regardless of the particular methodology to which you, or your organization, adhere.  Something like 44 processes in nine knowledge areas in the PMI Body of Knowledge, and 40 separate activities in seven processes in Prince2.

As organizations look for ways to be more efficient in delivery of products or services to market, every business process can (and should) come under scrutiny, and this includes the project management processes.  Process improvement is the accepted approach to extracting new efficiency from existing process.

I submit what is needed is process destruction.  While one could argue that is part of the improvement process, I believe a destructive approach sets a higher bar.  The improvement process allows retention, or tweaking, of “pet” processes – ones that keep control in place, provide perceived job security for a group or individual, or institutionalize risk and change aversion.

Taking a destructive approach should ask the tougher, more difficult questions regarding the efficacy of a process.  It should require business, financial, or regulatory proof to pass muster.  And when it comes to project management it should also answer the question “how does this increase speed to market?”  While it is understood there are quality considerations with any product or service, and being the first to market with a seriously flawed product is rarely successful, the rigor of the destructive process is no less valid or valuable.

As a function of business improvement, this process should be continual, not something taken of the shelf every fiscal year and given a cursory glance.  With the pace of innovation in today’s global markets, using the same processes from 2 or 5 or 10 years ago, and not putting them through the destructive process, is moving backwards, regardless of the industry or product.

So if you’re using the same project management process and haven’t asked the tough questions, there is only one question your leadership should be asking…

WHY?

The Inconvenient Project Manager

Most things in life that are difficult are in some way personally inconvenient.  It may be a small inconvenience like procrastinating over completing that landscaping project, or a significant life changing one like loss of a job.  These inconveniences force us to stretch ourselves in some way, break or alter an established routine, or view something we’ve long accepted with a new perspective.

So it is with project management.  The inconvenient aspects of project management make us uncomfortable, stressed, and may even put our credibility in jeopardy.  The obvious choices would be giving bad news to project sponsors, addressing team performance issues, and not having complete requirements.  Significant issues all, and inconvenient to be sure.

The good news is there are well established strategies to help us address these inconveniences.  There has been much written, many seminars given, and a plethora of easily accessed coaching and support to help us through.  That’s not to say it’s easy or they don’t offer an opportunity for growth.  Quite the contrary.

But what about the inconveniences that are more subtle, more difficult to identify, and are at least as impactful to our projects as the ones mentioned above.  These are the more personal kind.  Differences in communication ability, personal style, language barriers, and maybe the fact that someone on the team “rubs me the wrong way” come to mind.

Conventional wisdom would dictate that professionalism would address these inconveniences, and that is certainly a legitimate perspective. But it’s no where near the answer, because it implies we leave some of our humanness at the door.

A better answer is to be “purposefully inconvenient”.  Well what the heck does that mean?  If inconvenience, in this context, is accepted to mean things that offer or force growth, then it follows that being purposefully inconvenient would dictate we raise our personal self awareness and seek those opportunities.

In the end, addressing our preconceptions (being inconvenient), no matter the level, will make us better equipped to effectively manage the most significant challenge in any effort…the people.

I invite your perspective.