Sunday, 31 October 2010 00:00

The Dearth of Competent Middle Management

Rate this item
(1 Vote)

It happens hundreds of times a day around the world, the CIO calls an urgent IT Management Committee meeting. She has heard that one of the projects in the portfolio, a seemingly simple project doing a routine upgrade, is projecting a 20 percent cost overrun and will be three months late. How can a project go that far off track since the last week's executive team meeting? Managers scramble to get their stories straight, determine who to blame, form opinions and alibis, and pummel the project manager for failing to manage the project correctly, even though he has been saying the project is in trouble for months. The project has drifted from its initial intent and now the ultimate goal is to find someone to blame.

Corporate Culture

Something has broken down in middle management. How could it fail to see the impending doom? This layer is supposed to monitor projects, consolidate information, and provide guidance to project managers and executives. With trouble, these managers are now in a position of reacting rather than directing. They try to push the problem down and eventually come in to "help" the project. Nothing strikes more fear into the heart of a project manager than hearing, "Hi, we're from management and we're here to help." Their form of help is to request reports, slice scope, and impose time constraints rather than determine the root cause of the delay. The result is a poorly developed product that is still over budget and requires excessive time and money to maintain. In the end, middle management gets credit for the rescue, the project team receives the blame, and customer is displeased with the product since it has no value.

The problem stems from middle management's culture. They fail to report or act on actual status, which eliminates the opportunity for small mid-course corrections. Their hope that the project will correct itself, despite the fundamental flaws in the assumptions, is a panacea. For them, ignorance is much easier than resetting expectations and gaining alignment.

To exacerbate this problem, current business culture rewards the fire fighter and penalizes the pragmatist. The urgent rescue produces immediate gratification at the cost of a robust solution and yields only short-term benefits rather than properly addressing the problem with logical analysis and resolving the root causes of the problem.

It is all About People

In all of this, the people assigned to solve the problem—middle management—are the problem. For whatever reason—the Peter Principle, ignorance, inattention, or the desire to be a hero—middle managers by and large are not monitoring projects or correcting the problems as they appear. Ignorance is no excuse. Attempting to blame incomplete project reports is only denying the manager's fiduciary responsibility to validate the project's progress. No matter how one looks at it, middle managers are not doing their jobs.

Over the last few months, I have accrued numerous theories on why this is happening:

  1. The Peter Principle has been taken on a new dimension. With the rapid expansion of businesses prior to 2008, qualified resources were difficult to find, too many people were promoted to fill positions without a thorough vetting of their qualifications.
  2. Companies over emphasize short-term gains. As underscored by events such as quarterly earnings and maintaining triple constraints, companies focus excessively on "the now" versus a long-term view of the product's value.
  3. Everyone admires the hero that comes in to fix the problem. At least in the US, the imagery of the white-hatted cowboy riding in on a gallant steed to solve all the problems in one swift, albeit short sighted, swoop continues to capture our imagination and wonderment. We as a society envy their abilities.

Although these are all perfectly valid, I have to stick to my personal view that at its root companies are tantalized by technology, processed by process, and removed from their resources. This prioritization must change. We need to hire people that have experience, not certifications; we need interpersonal communications, not status reports; we need old-fashioned management, not a checklist for grading performance.

Tantalized by Technology

Sarcasm abounds on how technology has made our lives simpler and less hectic—cars are easier to maintain, nearly instant communication has reduced our stress, and technology failures rarely cause anxiety. However, some of us are old enough to remember the days when we could tune cars in our own garage, escape from the phone by leaving the building, and power failures were not predecessors to panic attacks. As such, technology should not be our first line of defence or offense. Demote it to a tool used after the right people are in place to perform the job in the most efficient manner. The proper priority is people, then process, and, in a distant third, technology.

Back to the Basics

Put down your cell phones, close email, walk down the hall, and talk to the people doing the work. One-on-one interaction, with all its body language; casual conversation, with its innocuous but vital titbits; and the ability to quickly correct a misunderstanding are at the core of communication and leadership. Doing this will identify the real status of the project, identify and help solve problems, backfill for the project manager's deficiencies, and quietly create success. It will lack the flash, urgency, and attention of the flamboyant failure; however, quiet and trustworthy success will build confidence and credibility in the manager and the leader. Success that provides value is always recognized.

Read 12712 times

Related items

  • Process Mapping

    Process is at the core of any business. It makes work predictable, repeatable, and transferable. Without it we cannot scale our businesses. However, process can be a bane to making progress. Processes that work for a $10 million company have difficulties supporting a $30 million company. Trying to scale them to a $300 million company will not only fail but not address the issues that larger companies have that were never dreamt of in a smaller organization. Processes need to be discarded, revamped, and built—all of that without creating an overburdening bureaucracy.

    Anytime you need to go someplace, you first have to know where you are. Processes are never static and your company's current state is probably far from where you think it is. Hence, the first step is mapping out you company's current state followed by defining the future state. This is more than a logical map of the process; it must also include physical maps. Whether your process is solely to provide a service (say, website development) or physical (say, manufacturing) there are logistical issues that complicate the process flow. Without fully understanding those nuances, future state processes will not reach the desired efficiencies.

    For more information about process mapping fill out the form to the left and we will get in touch with you.

  • Success vs Culture

    The other day a Latvian student contacted me for my views the connection between culture and success criteria—an important and intriguing topic. After working in Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Israel, United States, and Canada, I wear many scars of both blatant and subtle cultural violations. I also know that within a culture one person's success is often another person's failure. So, after dispelling concerns about clicking on some random email link, I completed her survey (please feel free to take it yourself). In the process, I struck up a friendship with the student, Kristine Briežkalne, who is studying at Riga International School of Economics and Business Administration . She has some interesting views and presented me with a Venn diagram showing four frames to a project (business, client, project management, and growth perspectives) and how they intersected. As the diagram is part of her Master's thesis, I will let you ponder the how to label the overlapping areas (an eye-opening exercise).

  • Kill The White Knight

    There is a reason we do not teach classes on fixing failing projects. Many a cynic feels that we simply do not want to teach our trade, however, our reason is far nobler—we should be teaching prevention rather trying to create white knights to save the day. It is the same philosophy as building a fence at the cliff's edge rather than an emergency room at its base. Our language is replete with idioms telling us to look past the symptom and address problems at their root cause. 'An ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure' or 'a stitch in time saves nine.' Please, feel free to supply your own in the comments. Unfortunately, most of our businesses loathe this philosophy, waiting to address an issue until it is irrefutably broken.

  • The Executive-Project Manager Gap

    It was such an innocuous question, "Working on an article; what is the biggest problem you see with project governance at orgs? Can you comment?" Can I comment? Really? That is like cheese to a mouse. Where could I start—bureaucracy, draconian process, poor executive sponsorship, disengaged leaders? Plenty of fodder, because they all lead to project failure. I fired off, "Creating an over bureaucratic morass stifling innovation & implementing process instead of cultivating leaders." Then the maelstrom started and it went directly to the gap between the executives and projects managers. Naomi Caietti, Robert Kelly and I had a great conversation. Most of the thread is below.

  • Disband Your PMO

    After nearly 30 years of project work, I struggle to understand the role of a project management office (PMO). Even though, I have written of the pros and cons, and read a plethora of articles, opinions, and how-to guides little has been done to convince me that the PMO is reducing project failure. It seems to be nothing more than a tool to fill a void in leadership? Even the acronym, which is so widely thrown around, has little meaning as the "P" has no less than four meanings. It is an executive's crutch for their lack of understanding in how projects work. These, like other, unattended holes in the corporate accountability create opportunities for new and greater bureaucracies and empires that further obfuscate accountability.

Leave a comment

More Info on Project Recovery

Tell me More!

Please send me more information
on fixing a failing project.

Rescue The Problem Project

Internationally acclaimed

Image of RPP

For a signed and personalized copy in the US visit the our eCommerce website.

Amazon logo
Buy it in the United States Buy it in Canada Buy it in the United Kingdom
Buy it in Ireland Buy it in Germany Buy it in France
Buy it in Italy Buy it in the PRC
Buy it in Japan
Book sellers worldwide.

Upcoming Events

Other's References

Sitemap