THE PROJECT MANAGER AND LEADERSHIP
5.3 SELF-EVALUATION
Thus, if these problems have been related to issues that you have had to struggle with as a PM, you probably would do well to commit yourself to making improvements in these areas. If you do not do so, you may well be on the road to failure as a PM.
In addition to the above personal attributes that a PM might have, the cited study [5.1] also explored organizational factors that had a negative effect upon the effectiveness of the PM. These factors are, with the most negative listed first:
r Lack of the commitment and support of top management r Overall resistance to change
r A reward system that is inconsistent
r Reactive behavior instead of planning in advance r Insufficient resources
The implication of the above listing is that if you, as a PM, find yourself in an organization that exhibits these types of behavior patterns, you have an increased likelihood of getting into trouble. It also may be that efforts you put forward toward solving these types of organizational problems may serve you and others in good stead. However, for a PM to be the force behind the solution of rather large organizational problems is a rather daunting task.
Finally, and in relation to the same study cited above, we can look at reasons why projects may tend to experience problems in terms of completion within budget and schedule. The top five reasons identified, with the most cited at the top of the list, are:
r Tools to manage the project in a systematic manner are not employed.
r The PM is a poor leader.
r The customer/client is slow to respond.
r Decisions and corrective actions are not taken in a timely manner.
r Interorganizational communication is poor.
Here again, the above items provide a “view of the negative” that might be helpful to the project triumvirate in terms of trying to increase the chances of success.
processes of self-evaluation and taking the time to examine one’s behavior in a variety of situations. This yields a keener sense of self-awareness, which is always helpful to a PM. By doing so, it becomes easier and easier to deal with problem people and problem situations, both of which improve the likelihood of success. In this section, we explore a few formal procedures that the PM or the prospective PM (or CSE) can employ in order to carry out a rudimentary self-evaluation.
5.3.1 Scoring Yourself
Given the attributes of a successful PM, as discussed earlier in this chapter, it is a simple matter to do a first-order self-evaluation by scoring oneself against this set of attributes. Table 5.1 places the twenty attributes in a scoring context, and the reader is asked to take a moment to evaluate himself or herself directly on the scoring sheet of the figure. A score of “5” should be given if the reader almost always behaves according to the stated attribute, and so forth as listed in the table. Take some time now to score yourself.
If your aggregate score is in the range 80-100, you are likely to be an excellent project manager. Essentially, no fine-tuning is necessary and you
TABLE 5.1 Evaluation versus Attributes
Attributes Scores∗
1. Communicates/shares information [ ]
2. Delegates appropriately [ ]
3. Well-organized [ ]
4. Supports and motivates people [ ]
5. Good Listener [ ]
6. Open-minded and flexible [ ]
7. Gives constructive criticism [ ]
8. Positive attitude [ ]
9. Technically competent [ ]
10. Disciplined [ ]
11. Team builder and player [ ]
12. Able to evaluate and select people [ ]
13. Dedicated to accomplishing goals [ ]
14. Courage and skill to resolve conflicts [ ]
15. Balanced [ ]
16. Problem solver [ ]
17. Takes initiative [ ]
18. Creative [ ]
19. Integrator [ ]
20. Makes decisions [ ]
Total:
∗Scoring: 5: almost always; 4: most of the time; 3: often; 2: sometimes; 1: rarely; and 0: never.
should be pleased that you have all the necessary skills to be successful in just about any management role. If you scored between 60 and 79, you are doing well but probably have a few areas that need improvement. Those are likely to be represented by the attributes that you scored yourself as a “2”
or lower. If your score was in the range 40–59, you still may be a good candidate for a PM or manager position but need to work in a disciplined way to improve your skills. This may involve more substantial training to develop these skills as well as a deeper sense of self-awareness of your own behavior and the way that it might be affecting others. If your score was between 20 and 40, some type of continuous training program is recommended, depending on whether the score was closer to 40 or in the 20 range. If your score was less than 20, you have a long way to go to become an effective PM or manager. This does not mean that you cannot get to a PM or manager position, but it is likely to take a lot of hard work over an extended period of time.
Developing PM and manager skills is rarely achieved by reading a few books on the subject. Reading is only one component of the process. Broadly speaking, there are two other critical elements. One has to do with the afore- mentioned self-awareness of your own behavior as well as the behavior of others. Without this consciousness, one is not absorbing and assessing data in the real world. The other critical component is experiential learning. This may be achieved through workshops in which you are asked to carry out exercises that simulate situations in the real world. By actually experiencingthe pro- cesses that evolve from this type of training, learning occurs relatively quickly and it is possible to improve skills and awareness rather rapidly. Low-scoring readers who aspire to PM or management positions are urged to consider some type of experiential training program over a long period of time. Many such programs also utilize “personality tests,” such as those briefly described in what follows.
5.3.2 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a very well-known personality construct [5.2, 5.3] that is based upon the following four polarities:
Extrovert (E) versus Introvert (I)
Sensing (S) versus Intuitive (N)
Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F)
Judging (J) versus Perceptive (P)
By filling out a questionnaire, the user obtains a scored self-profile in each of the eight dimensions. Scores can be very close to the center of a given polarity or they can show a very distinct preference for one dimension over another. Each of these aspects of the MBTI is briefly discussed in what
follows. The reader is urged to see if he or she can identify with the various types.
Extrovert (E). The extrovert is what you might expect from a simple dic- tionary definition. This person is sociable and enjoys a multiplicity of rela- tionships. He or she is usually gregarious, outgoing, energetic, and conveys a breadth of interests. According to data collected over a long period of time with respect to the MBTI, about 75% of the population falls into this category [5.3].
Introvert (I). This type of person is more closed, turned inward, territorial and conservative of expending energy. It may be difficult to find out what such a person is thinking because there is a tendency toward not speaking, especially in a group situation. Such a person may be concentrated, watchful, and have limited interactions and relationships with only a few good friends or colleagues. About 25% of the population at large exhibit this type of behavior.
Sensing (S). In this category, one finds people who focus on facts, figures and real-world data and experience in order to grasp and relate to what is going on around them. Such a person is very practical, down to earth, sensible, realistic, and prone to adopt the perspective that if it cannot be seen or measured, it is not likely to exist or be true. Past experience is very important and has a strong influence on views of the current or future situations. Some 75% of the population exhibit this tendency.
Intuition (N). The intuitive person likes to speculate about the future and is often imaginative, inspirational, and ingenious. This type of individual may be prone to fantasizing and searching for new ways of doing things.
“Gut” reactions may be much more important than facts and figures, which may be discounted in considering what to do in a project situation. A high
“N,” with respect to this point, may have a serious clash with a high “S”
because the latter will not understand how gut reactions play a role in eval- uation and remediation of problems. About 25% of the population have an
“N” score.
Thinking (T). This type of person takes pride in using analytical skills in puzzling through problems. Some might refer to such a person as “left- brained,” relying on abilities to be objective and impersonal to analyze and resolve situations. Such a person attempts to use standards, policies, and laws to create order and a sense of equity and fairness. Subjective evaluations might make such a person uncomfortable because objective measurements are distinctly preferred. The literature suggests that 50% of the population would tend to qualify as a “T” in the MBTI.
Feeling (F). Representing the opposite polarity from “thinking,” the “feel- ing” person relies on visceral reactions and human connections. Often, the
“F” person looks behind and beyond the words at such things as reactions, facial expressions, and body language to try to understand what is actually happening in a given situation. Such a person is comfortable with subjectivity and emotions in others and himself or herself. As a manager, he or she tends to empathize with the situation of subordinates and shows a great deal of patience and understanding. This type of person likes harmony and spends time to try to persuade other people on a preferred position. About 50% of the population score in this category.
Judging (J). The judging person likes to make decisions and move on to the next problem. This person insists on closure and has an internal sense of urgency about almost all matters. He or she responds very well to deadlines and works very hard to assure that all milestones on a project are met. Such a person likes to plan and then proceed with measuring against the plan. The
“J” person is not very patient and likes to converge to core issues as quickly as possible. About 50% of the population have a “J” profile.
Perceiving (P). As an opposite from the “J,” the perceiving individual is happier with open-ended assignments and situations that allow more flexible responses. Such a person might tend to want to collect more data about a given problem, with little consciousness regarding the time that it takes to do so. The “go with the flow” position of the high “P” often drives a high “J”
to anxiety and anger. Whereas the “P” person may adopt a “wait and see”
attitude, the “J” wants to “get the show on the road” [5.3]. About 50% of the population have this type of characteristic.
One of the conclusions that might be drawn from the MBTI is that people with extreme and opposite scores for a given polarity may have a tendency to clash with one another. For example, if a PM is a high “S” and a project staff member is a high “N,” these two people, with their different views of the world and behavior tendencies, may frustrate each other. Although this is not a hard-and-fast rule, it is a point that may explain certain personal antipathies.
This may be generalized to a main application of the MBTI as well as other such tests, namely, that it may be used to try to understand why people do not get along on a project and what each may do to try to better understand why and what might be done to bridge such a gap of understanding. Further, if any two people have absolutely opposite MBTI profiles, as for example an ENTJ versus an ISFP, the gap may be even broader and deeper. Having an awareness of these natural differences helps to explain various types of conflict. It may also provide a basis for an appreciation of differences, which could serve to strengthen a project team and its overall performance.
Another obvious question regarding the MBTI: Is there a preferred MBTI profile for a project manager? Some investigators of the field of management believe that this is true. For example, J. Davidson Frame [5.4] appears to
select the ESTJ profile as the preferred type for a PM. However, he also points out that, for research projects, “ESTJ project managers who are unaware of the differences in psychological type are likely to be exasperated by their workers,” based on the differences in how they deal with and see the world.
The key word, from this author’s point of view, is “awareness” and that people who have a strong awareness of both similarities and differences can make both a strength in a project situation. Research-oriented people can be doing the research tasks and extroverts can be doing the marketing and project presentations. Facts-and-figures people can be happily devoted to the project control activities and high Js can help to bring focus and closure to interminable meetings. In short, we are all different and we perform best when we are working in areas of strength rather than weakness. The aware Project Manager knows this and spends the time necessary to understand differences and assure that individual strengths and tendencies are fully utilized and that the effects of weaknesses are minimized. Thus, even if a PM is an INFP, in distinction to Frame’s ESTJ, excellent results can be achieved on the project if such a PM has the awareness, skill, and discipline to use a team approach that fully utilizes the complementary capabilities of that team.
5.3.3 Other Personality Considerations
The MBTI is not the only “test” that might be employed to carry out some type of self-evaluation. There are literally dozens of others that will be helpful in a lifelong process of trying to better understand oneself. Another such approach is cited as a Communication Self-Assessment Exercise [5.5] and it is based on numerical scoring for the following “styles”:
r Action r People r Process r Idea
The maximum score for any one style is 20 and the total score for all the styles adds to 40. Thus, a completely balanced score would be 10–10–10–10.
A summary of what the various people with these styles like to talk about as well as how they tend to behave is provided in Table 5.2 [5.5]. We see from these descriptions that there is a great potential for conflict between people who have widely differing scores. For example, the action-oriented person may have little patience with the process-oriented person, who may be perceived to be too slow and interested only in form rather than substance.
Similarly, the latter may regard the people-oriented person as too emotional and subjective and not understand how such attitudes fit into the disciplined world of project management. Potential trouble spots on a project may be predicted from the examination of the interaction of these different styles, which is explored in Section 5.4.
TABLE 5.2 Communication Styles [5.4]
Styles/
Features Content Process
Action (A) They talk about:
•Results
•Objectives
•Performance
•Productivity
•Efficiency
•Moving ahead
•Responsibility
•Feedback
•Experience
•Challenges
•Achievements
•Change
•Decisions
They are:
•Pragmatic (down to earth)
•Direct (to the point)
•Impatient
•Decisive
•Quick (jump from one idea to another)
•Energetic
(challenge others) Process
(PR)
They talk about:
•Facts
•Procedures
•Planning
•Organizing
•Controlling
•Testing
•Trying out
•Analysis
•Observations
•Proof
•Details
They are:
•Systematic (step by step)
•Logical (cause and effect)
•Factual
•Verbose
•Unemotional
•Cautious
•Patient People (PE) They talk about:
•People
•Needs
•Motivations
•Teamwork
•Communications
•Feelings
•Team spirit
•Understanding
•Self-development
•Sensitivity
•Awareness
•Cooperation
•Beliefs
•Values
•Expectations
•Relations
They are:
•Spontaneous
•Empathetic
•Warm
•Subjective
•Emotional
•Perceptive
•Sensitive Idea (I) They talk about:
•Concepts
•Innovation
•Creativity
•Opportunities
•Possibilities
•Grand designs
•Issues
•What’s new in the field
•Interdependence
•New ways
•New methods
•Improving
•Problems
•Potential
•Alternatives
They are:
•Imaginative
•Charismatic
•Difficult to understand
•Ego-centered
•Unrealistic
•Creative
•Full of ideas
•Provocative
(Reprinted by permission-Reference 5.4)
5.3.4 Psychological Decision Theory
The personality types represented by the above Myers–Briggs test, as well as the action–people–process–idea notion, indicate that we have different tendencies in the way that we look at the world and the problems with which we are faced. These usually result in different approaches to our jobs, and in the case of this text, different ways of dealing with the many issues that arise in managing a project. However, various researchers have studied human behavior patterns and have found that there are certain tendencies that are more-or-less common to large numbers of us. These can be thought of as fitting within the general category of psychological decision theory, championed by D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky [5.6], among others. These behavior patterns are relevant to our subject because they may affect how we might behave as project managers or as members of a project team. Three aspects of the results provided by these researchers are:
r Regression to the mean
r Representativeness and availability r Loss avoidance
Regression to the meanrefers to a general tendency to let down after a stellar performance and to improve after a poor performance. Its application to the world of project management might suggest that after a high-performing core team of software engineers has been working overtime for months in order to complete a software system, it is likely that for the next assignment they might well “regress to the mean.” So what might be done about this?
Depending upon the situation, one might consider (a) giving the team some time to decompress, and/or (b) starting the next difficult assignment off with a different core team, if possible.
Representativeness and availabilityboth refer to setting up a mental model that is based upon prior experience rather than current facts and likelihoods.
Its relevance to project management has to do with what people might do when trying to solve a particularly knotty problem. A thought pattern, for example, might be expressed as: “When we saw a problem like this before, we cut back the staff and that solved the problem.” The person with this particular thought and suggested solution might be viewed by other members of the team as (a) not seeing how the current problem differs from the previous problem, (b) stubborn in not being receptive to other solutions, and (c) headed down the road of doing some serious damage to the project by removing some people from the team. We all learn valuable lessons from prior experience, but we must also be open to new solutions that are based upon the data and information of the situation we are in today.
Loss avoidanceis the possible tendency for people to avoid virtually sure losses in favor of cases where expected value losses may be much greater.
This might well account for why people are reluctant to sell stock holdings at
a loss, hoping (against hope) that all will be better in the future. In terms of project management, it may be relatable to not being willing to take a poor performer off the job, or moving on to a different product or customer even though you are not being successful with the ones at hand. Losses are hard to accept in many situations, but the project triumvirate needs to be able, at certain times, to take a loss and then move on. Perhaps you can think of project management situations you have been involved with in which such an approach would have been the correct one.