Wow! Two years since the Panama portion of my life started. Lots of water under the bridge since then. I am back here in Panama this week as I was a key organizer of the 1st Annual PMI Panama Project Management Symposium. CH2M HILL supported me financial partly to do this and it has been a great experience! The local PMI Panama Chapter President, Luis Fasano, has done a marvelous job at recruiting sponsors and getting people to come. We have a one-day, 3 track symposium and we expect anywhere from 150 or more to attend.

The day before the symposium, Wednesday, March 18, I am debuting my new workshop OPPORTUNITY unstuck! which is patterned after my newly completed book called OPPORTUNITY unstuck!. I also am debuting a speaker presentation entitled OPPORTUNITY unstuck! Thursday, the day of the symposoium (Lots of stuff getting unstuck down here on). In addition to these two days, the College of Performance Management with PMI (Project Management Institute) is conducting a workshop on Friday to the general public on earned value and on Saturday just to a selected group of ACP (Panama Canal Authority) employees.

Today, I attended Crossroads Bible Church. It was a neat experience to be back at a great Church with so many really great people on staff and in the church. I also attended the church at Curundu at 3:00 p.m. today. This is a mission project of the Crossroads church and they are doing a really amazing job. They have rennovated a building and we worshipped today in this new building. David Nunoz did a really great job of preaching, in Spanish of course. I told him afterwards that I only understood about 10% of what he said, but that I knew the other 90% was really full of the Gospel truth! He is going to be a really great preacher and pastor…and is already!

Not sure now to help Curundu.. they need 1) More money to finsh their project 2) advertising to help spread the word and get the help they need and 3) Really skilled electricians and masonry people to help them complete the building. I am going to take this back to the states to work on.

Ideas welcome!

Team Obama versus Team McCain

Before the campaign began, the name of John McCain was a household word. He was known as war hero, veteran advocate, defender of human rights abuses, and maverick senator who “crossed the aisles” of Congress to achieve his goals. He was seen as decisive, action-oriented. The name of Barack Obama sounded strange in the mouths of pundits. He had emerged on the national stage at the 2004 Democratic convention as a powerful speaker, but little was known about him as a person, as a candidate, or as a senator. All of that would soon change.

By the end of the campaign, the name of John McCain was readily associated with old ideas, flip-flopping platforms, and listeners were unsure what the term “maverick” truly meant in terms of action. A previously comfortable relationship of the candidate with the media sunk towards an antipathy between McCain and the media. In contrast, the name of Barack Obama now rolled off the tongues of pundits and the media who adored him. His efforts in community organization in Chicago were now touted as national leadership. He was the candidate of “change we can believe in”. In short, he developed the persona of a rock star with millions of adoring fans worldwide.

The outcome of the national election is well known. What is not so well known is what we can learn a lot about successful and struggling teams by examining Campaign Team Obama and Campaign Team McCain. Analysts by and large recognize Team Obama as arguably the most successful campaign team ever. They refer to Team McCain as the team of mavericks that never really got it together.

Dysfunctions in teams are as widespread in campaigns as well as in businesses. Using Lencioni’s model as presented in his highly recognized book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, dysfunctions of the campaign team are apparent. The lessons learned can benefit your teams in business and can impact your team’s ultimate success.

The base of Lencioni’s model of team dysfunction is Lack of Trust. It is the starting and foundational point and one that plagues teams in all settings. The issue of trust showed wide variance between Team McCain and Team Obama.

Trust was in place when the McCain campaign team began their work. Team members were all doggedly loyal to John McCain’s point of view and methods. All members were aligned behind a single vision. However, as the campaign progressed, team dysfunction grew. McCain’s legendary temper and impulsivity caused some team members to be caught in the crosshairs of his temper while simultaneously struggling to patch up his extemporaneous “off-message” remarks. Team members were hesitant to admit their mistakes to one another and to acknowledge their weaknesses. Team trust was rapidly dissolving in Team McCain. Silent disagreement and lack of unity was growing.

One example of eroding trust occurred at the top end of the campaign team. Mark Salter, serving as McCain’s speechwriter and closest advisor, had a strong history of trust with McCain, having coauthored his bestselling books, including Faith of My Fathers and Why Courage Matters. Steve Schmidt, veteran campaign strategist, was brought in to serve alongside Slater as a high level advisor. Claiming to “write the way McCain thinks”, Slater generated a sound message of stump speeches, portraying McCain as the war hero turned statesman with a message of dependability. However, McCain’s stilted speaking style evoked no pathos in his listeners and to make matters worse, he regularly went “off message” and would damage his own speech so carefully prepared by Mark Salter.

Steve Schmidt, a veteran of the Bush-Cheney campaign and a student of Karl Rove, was top advisor to McCain. He was relentlessly on message in his directives and publicity. His common sense tough-guy style appealed to McCain. However, he did not fit well with Rick Davis, the campaign manager. As time went on, deep mistrust developed and resentment between the two grew. Davis felt like Schmidt and Salter were out on the road getting all the glory, enjoying all the camaraderie and fun while he did the hard work back at headquarters. All three leaders began moving in their own direction in the campaign, not trusting the other to align with their point of view and method. As it turned out, by early summer, 2008, Steve Schmidt took over the daily operations and Salter and Davis were pushed to the side. Trust among top leaders in Team McCain was no longer in place.

Within the campaign team of Obama, trust was established early and maintained throughout the influential levels of the team throughout the campaign. From the onset of the campaign, Team Obama was closely aligned to a single vision with the cool head of Barack Obama setting the even tone. Obama and his top aides were relentlessly on target in their message. A solid trust was so strong between David Axelrod, campaign manager, and Barack Obama that it was observed that the two men barely needed to speak; their minds were as if they were one. In fact, strong emotional trust was apparent throughout the highest levels of Team Obama. The result was an unswerving unity of message and purpose based on unswerving trust.

Fear of Conflict is the second tier in Lencioni’s dysfunctional team model. John McCain’s impulsive style and fiery temper caught campaign leaders off guard at various times. They were hesitant to bring up McCain’s tendency to go off message in stump speeches or their strong desire for McCain to take on Obama rather than playing the part of the hero gentleman. In contrast, top aids of Obama met regularly, discussing difficult issues openly. Obama’s cool head led them to be able to speak openly. The result was a fine fusion of flowing ideas. Even when Team Obama had run through $20 million in a losing battle to win Texas, Obama reassured his aides, “I am not yelling at you…” although he was deeply frustrated. Obama regularly welcomed honest advice from his lieutenants in the campaign. He waited to state his own opinion in order to gain honest feedback from his team.

In Lencioni’s third tier, the issue of Commitment as a team includes the team sticking to decisions around common objectives. The contrast between the two campaign teams is particularly strong in this area. McCain’s team zigzagged between varying strategies so often that the middle management team was often in conflict and confusion. The modus operandi was completely opposite in the Obama team. Alignment of objectives and direction was in place down through the lowest levels of workers. Cascading communication occurred clearly and frequently using every means of communication, including text messages and strong use of the internet.

Accountability is the next tier in Lencioni’s model. Top aides in the McCain team were hesitant to point out one another’s unproductive behaviors. Rather than questioning one another about problems in their respective approaches and methods, they worked in isolated silos, undermining unity. Meanwhile, Team Obama displayed a pattern of peers holding one another accountable to the highest standards. The discrepancy between levels of trust and use of healthy conflict in the two teams created highly contrasting team cultures….and results in the end game.

Lencioni rounds out the dysfunctional team model with Inattention to Results. The McCain team did not use polling information effectively largely due to the fact that McCain himself quickly tired of boring data. This omission was clearly inattention to results. His maverick style led the team to shoot from the hip rather than modifying direction and strategy based on hard data. Team Obama really shone in this area. Even minute details were planned and carried through. One example of attention to results in the Obama team occurred during early voting and on Election Day. The team had carefully amassed hard data on which precincts and which states were borderline for victory. They put in place a system whereby trained volunteers polled voters as they exited the polling places. They didn’t ask which candidate they voted for, but instead they asked for the voter’s name, assuring the voter that giving their name would mean there would that the voter would be removed from the mass telephone campaign. Voters readily gave the information and the volunteers immediately sent text messages of names back to the calling center. By doing this, they gained good will from those who had already voted and eliminated wasted phones calls for the calling center volunteers, allowing them to focus on those who had not yet cast their vote. This kind of attention to results was reflected in the victory achieved by Team Obama.

No matter how you feel personally about the heroic record of John McCain or the eloquent earnestness of Barack Obama, in the end the matter came down to team performance. Leadership from the top guy down through the principal aides made all the difference. The Obama team functioned masterfully and the result is an inauguration scheduled in January, 2009.

As the year 2008 comes to an end, take a look at your own team, your management team and see if there are lessons to be learned from the failure of Team McCain and the success of Team Obama. Will 2009 be an inaugural year for functional team performance for you at your workplace?

March 3, 2008, Wall Street Journal article, “Board of Advisers Can Help Steer Small Firms to Right Tack” by Phred Dvorak - Berkley, California - Last year, after 28 years of running what is now one of the largest sailing schools in the U.S., Richard Jespen and Anthony Sandberg decided they needed help. Their company, O.C. Sailing Club Inc., had grown to about $3 million in annual revenue and a staff of 75. But profits had always been weak, and the pair had run out of ideas for fixing the problem themselves.

The above is an example of a company that was successful in increasing profits by 30% the first year by using a Board of Advisors. While this is common in the world of business owners and companies, it is not so common in project management. Do you have a project that you are working on that is a several million dollar project? Think of the advantage you would have by having a board of advisors. Don’t go it alone! Get a small group of objective stakeholders to serve as your board of advisors now! They might be internal from other groups…use your Mentor!

Find a way…

“Let us watch well our beginnings, and results will manage themselves.”
- Alexander Clark

This sounds like a pretty good statement to apply to a project manager. I am currently working through the University of Texas at Dallas with the Panama Canal Authority (officially Autoridad del Canal de Panama) to help train 150 executives in project management. The Authority is watching well their beginnings on the Expansion Program that will take about 7 years at a cost of at least $5.2 billion dollars.

Watching well our beginnings — what does that mean? In simple terms it means a real understanding of the requirements, planning out the delivery of the requirements and then following with a strong alignment of the organization. The requirements are those specifications and needs that are voiced by the customer and that are sometimes hidden within the cavity occupying the space between our customer’s or users ears. We call them “hidden treasures” - sometimes later in the project called scope creep! Flushing out these hidden treasures is important.

Invariably, our users or customers are making assumptions about what is to be delivered. In a recent workshop with a Fortune 100 company on a reorganization plan, we began a problem solving exercise to address the “optimal” organization structure. However, before we began, I asked the 20 or so people present to list any assumptions that they held prior to the meeting. Anything that they assumed to be true, but that it might not really be true. One of the key points mentioned was that it didn’t really matter what we came up with in our meeting, because they assumed the V.P. of the organization had already determined the outcome so why bother?

This assumption was brought out and discussed. Once discussed and shared with the V.P., he assured everyone that he could have decided without this meeting but that he wanted the input from the group before he decided. Pretty good method to bring out the unstated assumptions and to give the stakeholders present new interest in the solution.

This is true in our project work. If we have not had a great dialogue and discovery activity with our customers, we will likely find those hidden treasures trying later to show up. Get the assumptions on paper! Make sure they can describe what success looks like to them. Have them describe how they will use the project results.

Watch well your beginnings!

Remember where we left off? We completed Dysfunction 4 in the last issue, having established the four cornerstones of a successful team. Team members must 1) trust each other, 2) encourage unfiltered, robust debate i.e. conflict, 3) commit to decisions, and 4) hold each other accountable for their own actions. If these four cornerstones are held then there is a high probability the team is going to not only survive but accomplish the extraordinary.  However, there is one last dysfunction that must be overcome - it is the inattention to results. Stated otherwise - inattention to outcomes, deliverables, and objectives being accomplished. 

So what can cause us to get distracted and not be focused on results? How about “Me, Myself, and I”. Self focused, career focused, me focused, and individual focused - not results or team focused. Promotions and politics have been used by many to get in the way of top-notch team performance. Mindsets of “Team Status” and “Individual Status” are akin to a disabling technical virus. When members of the team focus on themselves and their own agenda it will destroy the trust within the team. Conflict will escalate, commitment will decline and accountability is shattered. I have seen this time after time in teams - families, church staff, technology teams, and service teams with individuals or leaders with “super-sized” egos who consistently drive teams to under-perform.  

KEEPING INDIVIDUALS ON TASK - Metrics  

Some people cringe at the word metrics because they have worked in companies that spend weeks defining metrics and months ignoring metrics. Establishing a few goal oriented metrics such as a scoreboard goes a long way to keeping individuals on task.  Here’s an idea! Why don’t we all go watch a football game this next Friday night but we all agree that we don’t want to keep score? We just want the teams to play for a few hours and then go home. Better, yet, let’s plan on going to the next Olympic games, but let’s not time the runners or measure the vaulters. Wouldn’t work, would it?  Same thing with a team. Let’s have some simple scoring measurements that track performance – could be time based, quality based, of cost based indicators of performance. Many times these performance indicators (or dashboards) are linked to the business requirements of the team goals - such as improved customer satisfaction (measured), improved efficiencies, etc.  Another idea for focusing on results is to attach a reward to achieving a specific goal, especially a compensatory reward. This will assure the team members that their individual needs are important to their organization, thus re-enforcing the most important element of trust. On successful, high performing teams, as Lencioni points out, no one is happy unless everyone is succeeding.  This about does it for the 5 Dysfunctions of a team. Check out your own team. If you have indications that your team is underperforming, get some help. Call a doctor - the Doc can prescribe some really good rehab that will help you and your teams accomplish things you never thought were possible

I am sure we have all attended meetings, probably too many meetings, where we left the meeting somewhat unclear as to what the decision or results were. Why is this the case? Ran out of time, too much discussion, personal agendas, or lack of vision? yadda, yadda, yadda.  We are now on the third “rung” of the “dysfunctional pyramid” discussed in Patrick Lencioni’s insightful book titled The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Committed teams, as you recall from the graphic below, must be built on a team establishing a foundation of Trust and embracing Conflict. Once these are established as discussed in the previous newsletters, the team can now begin to work on Commitment.  

According to Lencioni, Commitment requires clarity and buy-in. Clarity is the absence of ambiguity. Buy-in is moving forward even for those not in agreement with the decision.  

Clarity - I am reminded of our recent Christmas season when some of you either gave or received a piece of diamond jewelry from someone special. As you shopped for the diamond of your choice (within your budget, I know), you probably looked at the diamond and inquired about the property called “clarity”. Clarity (in the diamond world) is a term used to describe the absence or presence of flaws within a diamond or other gemstone. A perfect stone with perfect clarity (clearness) is rare. A term used to describe clarity is “Inclusions”, described as imperfections, or flaws, inside a diamond, or tiny spots of white, black, or other color, or cracks. Some cause no problems at all. Others could cause the stone to split.   Hum, could we be on to something here? Could it be that if we are not clear in our decisions, clear in our priorities, clear in our objectives, that we might have something that would cause our team to “split” or be lower performing than desired? The perfect team might be rare, but holding on to ambiguity will only keep our flawed, imperfect team from accomplishing all that it can.  Role of the leader – Clarity   1) End every meeting with a recap of clear decisions made or assignments given, 2) Use deadlines, 3) Be willing to risk a wrong decision rather than stay in the “floating ether” mode.  Buy-in – Buy-in is not consensus. Buy-in is letting the team voice their thoughts and ideas and then making a “clear” decision. It has been shown repeatedly that although not everybody must have their own way, they must be heard. This goes not only to just hearing the alternate views but also really acknowledging the team members for their views and beliefs. Great teams who “TRUST” and “EMBRACE CONFLICT” can go through this level of performance building easily by agreeing to disagree and then moving on to successful team performance.  

Role of the leader – Buy-in –   1) Create clarity, 2) Push for closure around issues, 3) Adhere to schedules and deadlines, 4) Allow team members to voice opinions and disagree, 5) Embrace conflict to arrive at the best decision. 6) Communicate key decisions personally to team members 7) Create and communicate unifying goals to team members  As you return from this newsletter to your work environment, ask yourself if you believe your team is committed. Then address if there is “clarity” with your team and gauge from your teams behavior if you are getting “buy-in”. !

I will just sit here - it won’t make any difference anyway. Our manager has made up his mind! Why say anything at this point? Oh no! My hand is going up. What is making it do that? Down! Keep my hand down!! It’s still going up. “Sorry, I was just scratching my head”. Man, was that ever close!  Ever had this happen to you in a meeting? For some of you, possibly not. For most of us, it happens more than we would like. Why?  

Last newsletter we talked about the absence of trust being the fundamental building block of a dysfunctional or highly underperforming team. We discussed how imperative TRUST is for teams and that the beginning of TRUST starts with vulnerable leadership, as pointed out in Patrick Lencioni’s insightful book called The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. You must know your team - their strengths and weaknesses and how to best interact with them and to recognize that we are all not the same. This newsletter deals with FEAR of CONFLICT. So, is conflict bad? It depends on how each of us defines conflict. As related to differences, conflict is defined as a disagreement or clash between ideas, principles or people, such as “the two sides came into conflict over the proposed contract”. Relative to literature, conflict is described as “plot tension” or opposition between or among characters or forces that shapes or motivates the action of a plot.  Plot Tension - What a terrific way to think about conflict in an organization or on a project - tension that forces or shapes or motivates the action. This is exactly what we want. We want the differences or the disagreement to result in some action “in a productive way” for the benefit of the team. So what are the characteristics when plot tension is not a norm? Typically, we observe boring meetings, personal attacks, behind the back politics, omitted critical discussions, silent team members, and above all - wasted time and energy with (as Lencioni calls it) posturing and interpersonal risk management.   “Interpersonal risk management”, as a leadership specialist, I love that that term. A much longer term than “the three letter acronym” referring to keeping one’s posterior from being unduly exposed!! (grin) What is the role of a leader? Here are some chiseling thoughts:  1. Leaders must not avoid conflict. If you are currently being led by a leader who likes to avoid conflict, this will be difficult to overcome. Leaders must not avoid conflict - plot tension is not only OK but encouraged! 2. Leaders need to recognize conflict when it occurs and remind the team, during the conflict engagement, that conflict is good and healthy.  3. Leaders need to model conflict encounters by staying away from personal attacks. 4. Leaders should get help in the review of how differently we all address conflict. Check out the Thomas-Kilmann instrument drawing at the bottom. Each of us will approach conflict differently and our styles plotted differently on the Thomas- Kilmann diagram. Knowing this will help the leader’s team understand better how to recognize differences and enhance collaboration.  Note that this second characteristic of Lencioni’s dysfunctional team model is the FEAR of CONFLICT, not the PRESENCE of CONFLICT. Note the characteristic that is tied to this trait is Artificial Harmony. This is interesting because there are teams today that have considerable amount conflict and hence, should not be afraid of conflict. However, be careful with this quick conclusion. Could it be that when the team gets together for meetings they tend to show a lot of Artificial Harmony, because most of the people are “afraid” of the conflict? Hence, when the meeting breaks up, they go back to the personal attacks, behind the scene judgments, etc. - just a different way of manifesting conflict!  I believe the presence of unmanaged “un-productive conflict” goes back to the bottom tenet of Lencioni, LACK of TRUST. We just don’t trust each other and this is absolute key to dealing with the PRESENCE of CONFLICT and the FEAR of CONFLICT.  Conclusion: In conclusion, the next time you are in a meeting, ask yourself if you are observing “real harmony” or “artificial harmony”? If the answer is the latter, then maybe a conversation with the leader (could be yourself!) is in order to address these “unspoken” fears.

All of us have had experiences in working with teams that have been either borderline dysfunctional or even desperately dysfunctional. Either way, it is not much fun to be in these environments, for the leaders or the team members! Additionally, the quality of work produced by the team suffers. 

Patrick Lencioni has an extremely insightful book called The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. This newsletter article will be the first installment of a 3 part series on this book. We will explore the question today: “What do I do as a leader with a team that is under-performing?” Read on. You will find the material thought-provoking. 

Lencioni’s basic premise on the causes of a dysfunctional team is best described in the hierarchical diagram below. Each of the causes for dysfunction is rooted in the elements below it. The foundational element in any high performing team is TRUST. Hence, lack of trust is usually rampant in dysfunctional teams. 

What is the leader’s responsibility in building trust in a team? 

According to Lencioni, the goal of a trusting team is to establish real comfort in being exposed to one another’s strengths and weaknesses. Individuals in a trusting team will act without concern for protecting themselves. They act for the good of the team and are not “political” i.e., they are genuine and unafraid. In a trusting team, members understand the weaknesses of team members and feel confident that knowing those frailties will not be used “against” them personally or “against” the team as a whole. 

What is the role of a leader?  A leader must be open and vulnerable with the team and must set the standard for behavior. A leader must be genuine, caring about the members as individuals, not as machines, or simply pawns in the team or in corporate power plays.  

Recommendations: Lencioni recommends some sharing of “personal history” to prepare team members for knowing and encouraging one another and for breaking down barriers. In addition, Lencioni suggests assessment profiles (such as the Winslow or Meyers-Briggs) to help team members really know their teammates.  

Probably the most risky but higher payoff idea is what Lencioni calls the Team Effectiveness Exercise. In this exercise, each team member must identify two things about every other team member: 1) one area that is their most important contribution to the team and 2) one area that a team member must improve on or get rid of for the success of the team. The process starts with the team leader, focusing on one member at a time, and going around the group. Following the meeting, it is then up to the team member to analyze this feedback and take action on the recommendations. This “quick 360″ assessment could provide immediate feedback and motivation for team members taking action for the good of the team.

These are all great ideas and Lencioni gives even a few more! Give them a try… take action today in improving your team’s performance!

How do you get learning and change to stick?Chip and Dan Heath’s book “Made to Stick” has some interesting ideas on “why some ideas survive and others die.” In particular, they have an interesting acronym they use for why stuff sticks…

S - Simple
U - Unexpected
C - Concrete
C - Credible
E - Emotional
S - Stories

I like their results because I find them to be very true and very relevant to the consulting and training that I do. Think about it with me for a few minutes, maybe it will stick sort of like the picture shows with the hooks and the loops in Velcro!S - Simple - First, I like their approach to stickiness because it is simple. Not too complex. Just a simple 6 step process as to why we remember stuff. One example of simplicity described in the book is the statement “If you say three things, you say nothing.” This was a big deal in the Clinton campaign of 1992. Clinton, being a bright fellow, inspite of also having poor judgment, wanted to pontificate on several different issues - the economy, Perot’s balanced budget, and a few others. His advisors finally got him to listen. It is the economy - period! Focus on the economy! This strategy lead to a successful campaign. Keep it simple.

• Only 37 percent said they have a clear understanding of what their organization is trying to achieve and why
• Only one in five were enthusiastic about their team’s and their organization’s goals
• Only one in five said they had a clear “line of sight” between their tasks and their team’s and organizational goals
• Only 15 percent felt that their organization fully enables them to execute key goals
• Only 20 percent fully trusted the organization they work for

Now for the context…Covey restates this…”If a soccer team had these same statistics, only 4 of the 11 players on the court would know which goal is theirs. Only 2 of 11 would care. Only 2 of 11 would know what position they play and know exactly what they are supposed to do. And all but 2 players would, in the same way, be competing against their own team members rather that the opponent.” This analogy creates some real credibility with the audience, by establishing context. What these statistics mean to someone’s own space.
 

E - Emotional - We covered this in the last newsletter. Remember that studies have shown that if you engage emotion, you increase your level of what you remember! I love the quote by the change agent and civil rights activist, Maya Angelou, “People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” (Maybe repetition might also contribute to sticky - if you remember July’s Newsletter!)

S - Stories - To me, this is one of the great tools of stickiness. It has to do with credibility and emotion, and to me even connection. Credibility makes people believe, emotion makes them care, and stories can actually get people to act, according to Heath. If they can connect the story with the knowledge being transferred along with inspiration, then action follows.

In our next newsletter, I will share with you a great story right out of Heath’s book. It has terrific application to project management - but you will have to wait until the September Newsletter!

For now, remember the acronym, SUCCES. The next time you are trying to move an organization forward, or get an idea or an important change to stick, think SUCCES all the way!