Glory? Good or Bad?

There are a lot of things that bother me when I approach an organization in an engagement ; first and foremost is an organizations understanding of "glory" or what it should be doing.

I think there are 2 kinds of "Glory"…. Good and Bad.

As I have often being accused of being negative let's start off with the BAD…

In the pursuit of glory, individuals often begin to think of it as their own and this is not an optimum situation . People tend to tunnel vision their careers to their own narrative. It is this "Their Own" concept that makes the pursuit of glory negative.

How so? When we are hired by an organization we are hired to perform for them not for ourselves. Their goals as dictated by management, their direction, If we are lucky we get to influence that direction but ultimately it is still theirs. This "Own" concept some individuals build up in their minds works in contradiction to the we are here to make real the organizations wishes dichotomy. It is this break in perspectives that causes inter-organizational strife. Groups of individuals begin to push their own agendas over the needs and concerns of the overall business organization. In the end this kind of glory seeking attention yields chaos and frustration.

Well it sounds as though glory in any sense of the word is bad? How can it be a good thing?

It’s a matter of perspective. What is "Glory" ? If "Glory" is simply self gratification of individual aspirations then that is small and petty and frankly pathetic. If the concept of "Glory" centers around the betterment and sustainability of the greater good in this case an organization's well being and not any one individuals' then it’s a concept that should be lauded and encouraged. The concept of the well being of the whole vs. the needs of the one and achieving excellence and thereby attaining "Glory" should be what everyone working for an organization that we don't own or control should aspire to. Do not take me for someone who doesn't seek the adulation of his peers, because I do, but I am not one to sacrifice the well-being of an organization for a personal win.

Entrepreneurs, business owners, they get the lions share of glory because they put up the risk. The peons (us employee, contractor types) we get to help and if we are good at it they recognize us for our efforts. The act of posturing and grabbing for power is unprofessional and counter productive to the "Long Game". It's not about you its about what you bring to the table and how it keeps food there, not how "shiny" you can make yourself with shadow games and political ploys.

The clip is from the movie 300. Its important to remember that the Spartans (at least theatrically) were striving to be an example to the rest of Greece to stop their petty squabbles and individual bids for power and unite for a greater good. To stand for freedom blah blah blah... I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

- Optimal Optimus

"The Long Game" vs. "The Short Game" ... "Striker" vs. "Grappler"

So here's the second post… the Long Game vs. the Short Game in Project Management. Its been my experience that many organizations suffer from myopia. The reality is that as a professional in Project Management and Management in general the role we must play requires us being able to clearly see "The Road Ahead" for good or ill and travel the road efficiently and effectively.

Its not an easy issue to tackle. Individuals who suffer from "management myopia" typically speaking, lack the ability to discern that it is a problem. When someone brings it up an issue that requires forethought or foresight they dismiss the issue as "nebulous" or "chasing ghosts". So what to do?

I really don’t have much of an answer for this but here it goes…

… I try and explain the problem in analogies.

"The Long Game"… problem here is I don’t play golf so I will put in a MMA terms. The long game is the "strikers" game. You engage with your opponent a distance. You read his movement, look for weaknesses, opportunities to strike your foe for maximum effect all at a distance. The skill sets used rely heavily on seeing everything with little or no contact while remaining maneuverable so as to predict or by your efforts lead your adversary into a situation where you can win the exchange. Mistakes can be costly, catastrophic mistakes lead to an early KO, but small mistakes say misjudging a punch but keeping your guard up allow you to take a little more and may allow you to reposition for a solid counter, because of distance you have a greater margin of error.

"The Short Game" or "Grapplers" is similar in that it’s a struggle/contest in MMA, but fundamentally different. Instead of reading at a distance you are intimately entwined with your opponent. The reading is done in subtle shifts in weight as the both of you jockey for position and in the brief instances between knees, fists, and elbows fly at your noggin. There is little time to try and predict movement and the stakes are higher when you try to apply your energy to win the engagement. In the "Short Game" the margins are smaller and against a skilled opponent its one mistake and that’s game. In less than it takes to blink your eyes you find yourself in a short arm bar or a triangle choke and all the pain, torture, and agony you faced as you trained and prepared for this fight get flushed down the tubes and all that is left is to go home broken and defeated and possibly crying.

That sounds awfully grim right? It is. Getting in the ring is grim business and when you’re the project manager or a manager in charge of projects that will play a heavy party in your organizations financial well being, well that’s grim business too.

SO does that mean I should focus on my "Long Game" and ignore my "Short Game", does one have more value than the other?

The answer is simple no. You need both.

If your "Long Game" is good you can defeat your opponents from afar without them touching you, but typically you face adversaries who are more than up to the challenge. The idea here is you wouldn’t have taken the risk to fight if the guy was a complete tomato can the purse/rewards wouldn't be worth the time.

So that means you have to leverage your "Long Game" to pound on your opponent softening him up so that if and when it comes down to the "Short Game" you can defeat him readily as you increase your margins in the aggregate and improve your probability for victory.

In business speak it means you move "strategically" (Long Game) and get buy in, solve the big problems, position yourself for maximum effectiveness ahead of time. Eventually you are faced with the "tactical" (Short Game) realities of your operational problem space, here because you set up the problem with your "strategy" you have more options "tactically" to finish and reap the rewards of success.

BTW the clip is from UFC 77 Anderson Silva a Muay Thai/BJJ fighter "Striker and a Grappler" highly skillful at both and he happens to be the champion in a very competitive bracket.

- Optimal Optimus

Project Management… Science or Crusade? Red Pill or Blue?

So this is my first post on R-Cubed Project Management and I thought long and hard about what the first rant would be because that’s really what I am doing here, ranting. I decided to go with a Matrix/Transformers motif ergo the little YouTube snippet with the apropos Red Pill "Truth"/Blue Pill "Blind Faith" dialogue; Project Management Methodologies/Tools/Processes...Science "Red Pill" or Crusade "Blue Pill".

Being a project management professional for the last 10 years I have seen my fair share of project management flavors of the month: Agile, PMBOK, LEAN, XP, Scrum, etc. What gets me standing on a soap box is that these PM Tools, (cause that is what they are tools) come complete with pushy evangelists and "over-internalizing" chest thumping adopters.

Instead of looking at the problem space that an individual organization faces and what tools that the scope of the project management profession has developed i.e.: Agile, Scrum, XP, LEAN, PMBOK. These so-called "practitioners" adhere blindly to a methodology or worse a PM Tool Suite thinking that it will miraculously solve all of their operational woes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no magic bullet or cure to project management or management/leadership in general. The only thing I can think of that would come close to a cure for project management/leadership woes is to look at it scientifically as opposed to taking it on like a crusade.

Selling Agile processes is not project management.

Identifying how applicable and how Agile processes can be implemented and thereby prove a value add is project management. The idea that having multiple iterations and weekly meetings is not being "Agile"; its simply having multiple iterations and weekly meetings. Thinking that any one methodology or any particular part of a "methodology" means you are doing it 100% is dangerous ground to stand on and since being in Project Management means you try to find the least dangerous ground to stand on, it would make sense to pause and re-evaluate such decisions.

Science or "Scientia" in the latin means "to Know" which later spawned the Scientific Method meaning "to know" via the practice of observation and experimentation. This concept has a couple implications on this issue:

• It takes away the marketing pull of Methodologies/Canned Workflow Tools as a panacea for Project Management.
• It applies a reason/rational approach to how we make our management decisions this includes what methodologies/processes/tools we adopt.

Applying a scientific approach divests us of the emotional clamor of "crusades" to handle projects in an "Agile" fashion or a "Lean" process. It allows the Project Manager or decision maker to evaluate the methodologies/tools/processes to make decision on what makes best sense to solve the business problem. After all we are in the business of business not thumping the latest management mantra. Just because an expert says that true blue Agile works best at XYZ company doesn’t mean that true blue Agile will work for yours. It may take a hybridization of different methodologies, tools, and processes to get it just right for the decision maker and their organization.

Crusades, generally speaking have rarely ever been a good idea because a crusade takes rationality out of the equation and replaces it with faith. Effectively saying "who ever believes hard enough will win out in the end". It's rings with the tone of "God Wills it". I don’t presume to know the "Will of God" or to speak for him. I will however take my "God-given" brain and apply rational thought to my selection of methodologies, tools , and processes to solve the business problems presented to me, because it makes sense and not because the "Agile" gods will it.

-Optimal Optimus