Skip to main content

Author: George Pitagorsky

George Pitagorsky, integrates core disciplines and applies people centric systems and process thinking to achieve sustainable optimal performance. He is a coach, teacher and consultant. George authored The Zen Approach to Project Management, Managing Conflict and Managing Expectations and IIL’s PM Fundamentals™. He taught meditation at NY Insight Meditation Center for twenty-plus years and created the Conscious Living/Conscious Working and Wisdom in Relationships courses. Until recently, he worked as a CIO at the NYC Department of Education.

Risk, Uncertainty and Continuous Planning

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 5 Comments on Risk, Uncertainty and Continuous Planning

When a project kicks off it is like rolling the dice, you never really know how things will turn out until the end.

Experienced and rational project managers understand that risk management is an integral part of planning and that planning is a continuous process throughout and beyond project life into the operational process that the project sets in motion. These PMs consider uncertainty to be a certainty. They realize that everything is subject to change and that each change has ripple effects.

Project managers expect change in resource availability, requirements, organization structures, policies and procedures, and technology. They realize that the duration and outcome of testing cannot be predicted with certainty. It is testing, and it is done to find defects. How many defects there will be and how long it will take to fix them can be estimated but cannot be known until testing is complete.

Other stakeholders may not be as understanding about risk and uncertainty as PMs. Many are uncomfortable when they do not have a solid sense of what will happen. They want a guaranteed end date, deliverable, and cost.

The project manager is responsible for managing expectations using risk management, incremental and continuous planning and effective communication.

Case Study

Let’s look at an example:

A complex organization decides to acquire a commercial off the shelf (COTS) software package as the vehicle for transforming its operation by automating key business functions, including tactical decision making. The decision to go the route of a COTS solution was in keeping with generally accepted best practices to avoid the costs and risks of unnecessarily developing custom software.

The risks of the COTS approach were considered. They included the realization that the organization would be reliant, to at least a degree, on the continued support of the vendor and constrained by the vendor’s release cycle. There was a commitment to minimally customize the software to minimize cost and complexity, make needed changes to the existing business process and moderate the risk associated with significant changes to the product.

The project was planned and kicked-off. A qualified vendor was selected in a formal and well-regulated procurement process.

The vendor, assuming a large ongoing revenue stream from other services to be offered to the client, cut its price and in effect “bought” the contract. They took a risk (consciously or not). The expected revenue stream did not materialize.

The first phase of the project – the implementation of automation of point of sale operations at over 1200 locations went like clockwork. The organization’s financial systems were easily fed the data from point of sale in an interface that required no customization of the package.

The second phase did not go as smoothly. It was discovered during detailed requirements analysis and design that the package would not fully satisfy the needs of the organization without significant customization. A choice had to be made – 1. customize the product, 2. build phase II software in-house or 3. create interfaces between the package and in-house business applications to create a hybrid system.

The hybrid approach was chosen based on the assessment of the cost and risk of the options and the desirability of avoiding unnecessary business process changes.

As the second phase of the project progressed some of the risks recognized early on began to appear as issues that required rethinking the plan forward. The vendor was losing key staff and was thinly resourced. In addition, the client perceived that the loss of expected revenue would affect vendor motivation. That made it even more necessary to ensure local autonomy for future enhancements.

The internal business organization also lost staff that had been dedicated to the project and was not able to provide requirements and sign-offs in a timely manner. The training department did not engage in the project planning until late in the project, resulting in last minute discovery of business process issues requiring business decisions and systems enhancements.

The internal application development group faced significant turnover and resource shortages coupled with more extensive programming requirements than originally expected.

Risk Management and Planning Process

A risk management process was put in place from the start of the project. Risks were identified, described, assigned an owner and scored based on assessments of probability of occurrence and impact. Monthly risk meetings were held at which existing risks were reviewed and reassessed and new risks identified. Risks that materialized were identified as issues and action taken to resolve them. The plan was modified accordingly. At times, because uncertainty was great, the plan did not commit the project to a fixed delivery date.

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

The planning took risk into account, though did not perform probabilistic planning. Probabilistic planning is planning that allows for multiple scenarios and a range of cost and time outcomes. PERT is a classic example. Each task is estimated using a weighted average of pessimistic, most likely and optimistic outcomes. Monte Carlo approach adds a statistical capability that runs a large number of possible outcomes to predict a statistically accurate range of outcomes and probabilities.

Deterministic planning is the alternative. Here, the tasks are estimated with a single point, and the project end date and costs are predicted based on the single scenario.

Many projects are planned with the deterministic approach. One reason for this is the extra effort and skill required for the probabilistic approach. Another is that in some organizations capital budgets may not be presented as a range and may not include a contingency fund.

This was the case in the example project. As a result, the planners presented a worst-case scenario based on pessimistic assumptions – the result of risk assessment. They faced a time box that limited funding and contracts to five years.

As incidents occurred risks became issues, and the plan was adjusted to keep it as a realistic picture of the predicted outcome. The base budget was used as a bench mark. Because it was based on pessimistic assumptions, the project remained on and under budget. Resource shortages made it necessary to under spend. The time line restriction led to a reduction in scope.

Because of the scope reduction, there was a need for subsequent projects to fully implement the overall program. Operational accommodations had to be made. The changes in the vendor relationship prompted an increased need for autonomy from the vendor regarding enhancements.

The good news was that stakeholders on all levels were prepared for uncertainty. They were kept abreast of risks, issues, and changes. Expectations were managed using risk management as a means for highlighting and working with uncertainty in a concrete and understandable way.

Sponsorship During and Beyond Project Life

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 6 Comments on Sponsorship During and Beyond Project Life

Without a sponsor who values the outcome of a project and is willing to take on the challenge of motivating the organization to support the effort, the project will fail.

Without a transfer of the responsibility to sustain sponsorship and manage ongoing operations from the project manager to a process or product manager, benefits will not be realized, and the project will be deemed a failure even though it might have delivered the product on time and within budget.

The Project

Take for example a project to enable a buying cooperative to consolidate and mine data from its member organizations, each of which has its own procurement and inventory systems. This is a case of gaining an enterprise-wide view of data across relatively autonomous organization units with different application systems. In other words, collect data from several sources that have different identifiers and formats and use it to gain insights into trends, performance and preferences.

The technical solution to this problem is relatively sstraightforward the Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) approach. In this approach, the project establishes a common taxonomy and format, creates applications to extract data from source systems and transform the incoming data to the common identifiers and format. For example, each source has a different way of identifying its vendors. The transformation would rely on a translation table with each source vendor identifier paired with a common identifier and on descriptions of the incoming data format and mapping it to a common format. In addition, the project defines and initiates the process that will be put in place to keep the data transformation rules up to date and make sure that the data is regularly transferred according to the process rules.

Critical Needs

In our coop, the executives at the member organizations want the end result – comprehensive data in a central place to be used for business intelligence and decision support. The project is kicked off. A project manager is appointed and given direct access to the executives and a high degree of authority within the development team. Since each member organization has its own IT function, the project Manager does not have authority to direct them.

There were the following critical project objectives:

  1. Develop the system to collect the data, transform it and place it in a data base,
  2. Implement a database centered information system accessible by the members and the coop’s data analysts
  3. Each source organization to provide initial mapping and transformation information
  4. Define an ongoing operational process with a central administrator or process manager to make sure that the data is collected in a timely manner and the transformation data is kept up to date.
Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

In projects of this kind, the technology solution is not the problem, as long as the architecture requires minimal change at local levels. If, on the other hand, the solution requires that each feeding system make changes to accommodate the need for centralized data, the project becomes more complex and there is greater risk of failure as local IT groups wrestle with competing demands on resources. Unless the sponsor is very strong, there is little motivation at local levels to prioritize projects like this.

Beyond the completion of the project, there is the ongoing process to keep the meta data (the transformation rules, and formats) and the actual data up to date. This is the tricky part that requires sustained sponsorship. it is tricky because there is a need at the coop level to have responsible staff to monitor and administer the ETL process and at the local level to have each member organization follow a process to ensure that its data and mapping are kept up to date.

Motivating the Sponsor(s)

The most critical objective is sustaining the operational system and process. Things change as new vendors come on aboard, old ones leave or change, local systems are modified. he system means enabling, motivating and monitoring performance. Since projects must have a finite completion, the ongoing process is not part of the project. It is turned over to an operational group. The project manager must make sure, as part of the project, a process manager is appointed, who keeps the sponsor(s) motivated for the life of the process. The process will be ongoing for many years. The process manager must have access to the executive sponsors and take oin the role of continuously improving the product and making sure it is used effectively.

If the sponsorship is strong, the ongoing operational process will be funded, staffed and made an integral part of the business process. Otherwise, the data will become stale and ultimately go unused – or worse be inaccurate and used. A strong sponsor is one that has the authority to get the people involved to do their parts in both the project and the ongoing process. In our example, there is no single strong sponsor. The executive in charge of the coop is the sponsor, but has little or no authority when it comes to getting the members to do their parts. In a different type of enterprise – one in which there is a hierarchy leading up to a CEO with overall authority – the authoritative sponsor is available but sustaining interest may be a problem. Also, since there is often a structure in which division heads have autonomy and the CEO steps back from operations the use oif the sponsors authority may be difficult.

In projects, sponsors are motivated by, first, the idea and promise of valuable benefits and then by the realization of the benefits. In our case, if the information received by the coop members is deemed valuable, the local leadership will make sure that their part of the operation is properly performed. On the other hand, if the information is not valued at the local level there is little to motivate due diligence in the operation, even if there are clear SLAs and procedures.

The project manager must be a salesperson who sells and keeps selling for the life of the project and makes it clear to the sponsor(s) that unless there is sustained funding and due diligence performance of the ongoing process the desired benefits will not be realized. The same is true for the process manager. He or she must keep the pressure on through the sponsor(s) to motivate sustained operational performance. In the context of our example, he or she does this by regularly monitoring operational performance and the actual use of the consolidated information – dash boards, inquiries and reports.

In other situations – whether they involve the creation of a new product or the implementation of a new process, a project objective must be to transfer the role of the project manager to an operational team headed by a leader acting as product or process manager, making sure that sponsorship remains strong by keeping the benefits coming.

Optimize Project Performance by Applying Servant Leadership

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 8 Comments on Optimize Project Performance by Applying Servant Leadership

If your goal is to perform optimally – working in the most effective way possible to achieve objectives in the face of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity – then add servant leadership to your project management tool box.

A Servant Leadership approach will make you a better project manager and enable your team to excel.

Types of managers

There are two extremes on the Servant Leadership spectrum (an unscientific scale I made up). On one extreme there is the leader who is totally devoted to serving his staff and on the other, a leader who is entirely self-serving, not caring about their followers. Seeing them as difficult to necessities for getting things done..

Here are a couple of examples.

Glen was a senior program manager responsible for 3 large programs. Each managed by a program manager and consisting of multiple projects supported by several departments and vendors. The programs were in a public spotlight and often stories made it to the media. Glen was the kind of manager who took credit and the spotlight for all the successes of his programs. At the same time, while he was the focus of critical responses regarding problems, he had no trouble deflecting the spot light to others. For example, when one of the programs was recognized with an award, the award had his name on it instead of the program manager’s.

Glenn’s people worked for him. From his perspective, they were there to make him successful. He led them and used them. From their perspective his staff and peers harbored distrust and uncertainty about his intentions and how they will be effected by them.

Another manager, Hanuman, in a similar position, went out his way to shine the light on his people, the ones who did the work needed to meet objectives. He made sure the name or names of the people working on the projects were prominent.

Hanuman worked for his people. He made it clear that he was there to help them be successful. He made sure his people grew and felt they could lead themselves. He was a servant leader. His people and peers respected and trusted him because they could see no ulterior motives and they appreciated being helped and treated as equals.

Servant leadership is …

Servant leadership is an age-old concept. It means subordinating your ego and need for recognition to the needs of your team and all the stakeholders in your project. Robert K. Greenleaf coined the term for use in modern business back in 1970. He said: “Good leaders must first become good servants.”

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.

“The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?”

The Servant Leader is behind the scenes. She follows Lao Tsu’s saying “When the work is over and the objectives met, people feel that they did it themselves.” She makes sure that she does everything possible to make them successful.

Servant Leaders dedicate their efforts to the benefit of their followers, projects and organizations, setting aside-self-interest.

Benefits of Servant Leadership

Some might ask “why would I want to set aside my self-interest?” It is a good question. Only saints and messiahs are without self-interest, the rest of us want success and all the other things that make us happy and secure.

The bottom line is that Servant Leadership feels good, once you get past all the obstacles your mind throws up based on past conditioning, fear of losing control and being taken advantage of. While there are deep personal growth and spiritual benefits from serving others, we won’t go into them here. We will stick to the bottom line benefits of productivity and trust.

Project management success is about delivering meaningful results, on time and within budget. It is also about making sure there is an ongoing capacity to be successful across multiple projects.

“Leaders that use the servant leadership style tend to gain a great deal of respect and trust from their employees, according to psychology professor Paul T.P. Wong of Tyndale University College in Toronto. The strong positive feelings between management and employees that the servant leadership style promotes translate into a high sense of morale. When employees are satisfied with their jobs and their company, workplace productivity rises.”
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-servant-leadership-style-11693.html

With trust as a foundation, people are more likely to be transparent regarding work issues and to promote greater certainty (for example, estimates will tend to be more realistic) and fewer conflicts. Morale and motivation will tend to be high and that will translate into better performance, assuming a healthy environment and clarity regarding objectives, roles and responsibilities and constraints.

Servant Leadership contributes to

  • The building of strong collaborative teams
  • High quality relationships between leaders and followers
  • Job satisfaction, high performance, and a culture of helping others
  • A culture in which ROI and customer satisfaction are high.

Characteristics of a Servant Leader

Assess your management style based on the following characteristics:

  • Let others know you serve and care and encourage them to do the same
  • Invest your time and energy
  • Do whatever needs to be done
  • Promote and value diverse opinions 
  • Cultivate trust and transparency
  • Cultivate leadership in others
  • Eliminate the negative effects of hierarchy.

Experiment

Try this for six months. Work towards cultivating these characteristics in a comfortable and practical way that serves your need for security and control and serves your team members, peers, customers, sponsors and the organization. Subordinate your self-interest and become a servant leader. See what happens around you and how you feel.

Managing Project Relationships: “Second Guessing” and Criticism

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 6 Comments on Managing Project Relationships: “Second Guessing” and Criticism

Relationships in projects are complex. People with a tendency to get caught up in emotions, defensiveness, misconceptions, biases and unfounded beliefs are the major contributing factor.

Relationships is a broad topic, too broad for a single article. This article will focus on the way people deal with perceived criticism and conflict.

I’ve recently been accused of “second-guessing” a colleague. I was taken by surprise, since my role, or so I thought, was to offer candid input regarding decisions and proposals that effect a particular program. The program is large and complex and is focused on the colleague’s business unit. We had agreed to partner on the leadership and high-level direction of the program.

The “second-guessing” incident took place in the context of an invitation to a steering committee meeting. Previously, the steering committee consisted of four executives, including myself, and the program manager. My colleague called a steering committee meeting, inviting two of the executives, the program manager, director of application development and the head of the enterprise PMO. These last three report directly to me. I declined because it was scheduled at a time I would be out of the office. I asked my colleague for a change of time, not realizing the program manager had taken it upon himself to question the invitee list in an email. My colleague responded, saying

“I am tired of being second-guessed on every decision.

The steering committee needs to grow to incorporate the business unit’s leadership team.

You or your program manager could have come and asked me in person if you disagree.”

I was confused. I had not disagreed with anyone about anything, all I did was request a change of schedule so I could attend the meeting. Following a moment of annoyance, I realized that this was a learning opportunity. Was I second-guessing all his decisions? Was it OK for him to change the completion of the steering committee without conferring with me? Was he over-stressed about all the stuff he had to do?

This is a simple scenario, probably easy to resolve with a brief conversation. However, this kind of thing comes up all too often. A designer objects to being “second-guessed” by his team mate, supervisor or architect. A PM objects when a functional manager questions her decision. Functional managers object when their decisions are questioned. The result of these objections can be to drive a wedge between people who must work together to accomplish objectives.

On the job Learning

However skillful one may be in relationships, it is best always to be open to learning through experience and reflection on the relationship process. Because relationships are so complex and changeable, that learning is ongoing. The master of relationships realizes that there is always room for improvement and that reactivity makes things worse. Seek to understand and respond.

The most meaningful learning takes place when actively engaged in performing work and, particularly, when navigating the relationships that are fundamental to effective project management. It is in action that classroom and book learning move from intellect to embodiment.

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

Second Guessing and Criticism

With the goal of continuously improving relationships, performance and quality, let’s explore “second-guessing” and the line between it and useful questioning, criticism, risk analysis and raising alternatives.

Second guessing is defined in several different ways. For example, to “anticipate or predict (someone’s actions or thoughts) by guesswork. Judge or criticize (someone) with hindsight.”

“To criticize or question the actions or decisions of someone: to try to guess or predict what someone or something will do.”

Second guessing is perceived as criticism. Criticism is a major issue in the world of projects. “Most dictionaries initially define criticism as an expression of disapproval. Synonyms are attack, censure, condemnation, and disapproval.” Couple this with a tendency of many people to avoid facing the fact that their ideas and performance are not perfect and there is reactivity. Add into the mix the false perception that bringing up objections, risks, and alternatives delay the project and complexity increases.

Like criticism of any kind, second-guessing is an example of feedback. Useful feedback is feedback that has the power to improve decisions or to improve future behavior based on the analysis of past behavior. For example, bringing up risks or alternative approaches when designing and planning can help to avoid problems and result in better outcomes. Evaluating past performance can lead to process improvement changes.

Subjectivity

There is a fuzzy line between negative criticism and useful feedback. Much of the difference is in the mind of the perceiver. The distinctions can be quite subjective, based on factors like mood, stress level, biases, the need for control, resistance to criticism and more. One day a person might accept a question or comment as constructive feedback, another day, the same feedback, given the same way, by the same person, may be considered second-guessing and a cause for defensiveness and anger.

If you are committed to continuously improving relationships and performance, explore questions like

  • How does stress, the need for control and the desire to simplify and expedite things by making unilateral decisions effect performance, relationships and quality?
  • How does this effect decision-making and the quality of decisions?
  • How can clarity about roles and responsibilities make relationships healthier and communication and decision making more effective?
  • How do emotional reactions, rudeness and disrespect impair relationships, team performance and motivation?
  • How can formal processes like risk management and making decisions from multiple perspectives help to ensure that feedback is constructive and received well?

The answers to these questions, particularly when you work them out with your team, can clarify the distinctions between negative second-guessing and useful feedback and help to avoid the reactive behavior. There can be a transition from subjectivity to objectivity.

You can assess the following factors to decide whether and how to offer input and how to take it in and respond to it

  • Time – is the feedback hindsight or is it before an action has taken place? Is it getting in the way of progress or dampening motivation?
  • Content – is it true? Is the feedback meaningful, based on fact or analysis, or is it based on unfounded belief or bias?
  • Useful – will it help? Is it worth the time and effort to pursue?
  • Intention – is the intention to show the other party up, improve a future outcome or learn from past performance?
  • Demeanor – are the parties reacting emotionally or are they expressing themselves in a rational and respectful way?
  • Context and forum – Is the feedback direct or indirect; given in public or privately; using the most effective media; part of a formal process?

Conclusion

As a giver, avoid the perception that you are “second-guessing” by making sure your input is at the right time, for the right reason, presented in a way that it can be received as positive input and to the right people. Present your issue with courage, clarity and an understanding of how it might affect the other. Realize that however you present your input, it can be perceived as second-guessing or negative criticism.

As a receiver, avoid reacting to critical input and questioning. If you label it as second-guessing, make sure the label is not creating a bias in your mind that discounts the content. Monitor your moods, emotions, and biases to see if you are being defensive, reactive and avoiding what could be valuable input. Be aware of how invested you are in YOUR way, YOUR decision and how that might close your mind to helpful input. Observe how the perceived need for total, unquestioned control influences the situation. Ensure that your response is respectful and in keeping with the goal of optimal performance and healthy relationships.

Whether you do it yourself or with the team, make sure you take the time to learn from your experience and to carry that learning forward to continuously improve.

References
https://www.google.com/search?q=Second+guessing&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS471US471&oq=Second+guessing&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5407j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/second-guess
Pitagorsky, George, Criticism – An Improvement Opportunity, Breakthrough Newsletter http://www.pitagorskyconsulting.com/breakthrough_newsletter.html

Speaking Truth to Authority – Criticizing and Contradicting Your Boss

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 2 Comments on Speaking Truth to Authority – Criticizing and Contradicting Your Boss

At a team meeting, your boss comes up with an idea for a new way of performing your team’s work.

While the idea has some merit, it does not really work given real-world conditions. What do you do?

What if your boss frequently sends double messages – one day she praises a work product and a week later uses it as an example of how you and your team need to improve your performance? Or, if he is constantly making your job harder by putting up roadblocks or not protecting you and your team from the roadblocks that others put up.

Contradicting the Boss

One of the most anxiety producing situations at work is criticizing on contradicting your ‘boss”. When you are a project manager or business analyst, your boss may be a manger, sponsor or client, or all of them, to one degree or another.

While it is generally viewed by management experts that it is your boss’ responsibility to create a safe place for such confrontations, how often is that found in the real world? It is up to you as an individual to balance the values of being candidly truthful and maintaining a good relationship with your boss. Of course, the same thing is true for anyone with whom you have a relationship, though for this article we will focus on the relationships in which you are subject to your boss – a person who has the power to fire you or give you a performance review.

The Benefits of Truthfulness

In general, being candidly truthful is beneficial. Individuals, teams and organizations optimize their performance when constructive criticism or opposition is offered and received in the spirit of continuous improvement. The Abilene Paradox is a wonderful reminder that withholding negative input makes it less likely that problems will be avoided, and optimal solutions found. It reminds us that it is everyone’s responsibility to speak up and provide their views.

Yet, there are limits. Personalities and psychological tendencies can get in the way. Some people take any kind of criticism or opposition as an attack and a sign of disloyalty, becoming defensive and angry. That is bad enough if the person is a peer or subordinate, but when it is your boss, you can be fired, given a bad review, labeled as a trouble maker or just told you to shut up and follow orders. That being so, fear gets in the way of being candid.

Navigating the tricky issues of managing the relationships in hierarchies is more of an art than a science. There are no easy formulaic approaches, though there are some guidelines and skillful practices that will make the task easier.

Four Questions

Before giving feedback – critical or otherwise – address these questions:

  • What are you criticizing?
  • What is your motivation?
  • Will it do any good?
  • How will it be perceived?
Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

Criticize Things, NOT People

Criticizing a person generally results in defensiveness. Separate the source, the person who created the thing in question, from the target. Criticize an idea, a statement, behavior or work product as opposed to a person. The person is the source but not the thing itself. Changing behavior or the content of a document, as hard as it may be, is far easier than changing character.

While the source may identify with his or her creation, you must separate the two. When you do, you are able to assess the situation and communicate so as to minimize personal attachments.

Ideally, the issue of not identifying the issue with its source has been addressed in a training or team building exercise. That way it is possible to remind one another to promote objectivity to achieve improvement. But, remember that even then the author is likely to be somewhat attached to and identified with his or her result.

Motivation

The question of motivation is an important one. Are you criticizing an idea or action because it makes you feel smart and important or because you are trying to help the other person, the team or organization? Is anger or frustration driving your need to criticize? Is fear the reason you are holding back?

The ideal motivation for giving critical feedback is to promote improved performance. Though, often, there is a combination of motivating factors. You may feel frustrated or motivated by showing how smart you are and, at the same time, think that what you have to say is beneficial. That is where the next question comes in.

Will it Do Any Good?

Will your criticism have a beneficial impact, will it change behavior so that the result is a better deliverable or a more effective process?

Even when there is a likelihood that what you have to say is beneficial, you still must consider the risk you are taking vs. the reward. Here is where social awareness comes into play. Social awareness consists of the ability to sense what others think and feel and an awareness of organizational norms and relationships.

It is in anyone’s best interest to be open to useful criticism, simply because it gives them the ability to reflect on their idea or behavior and opt to change it. Though, there are those who don’t believe that and feel that criticism is an attack to be defended against.

How will it be perceived?

How your criticism is perceived strongly influences whether what you have to say will have a positive effect.

For example, if your social intelligence tells you that your boss is averse to any kind of criticism or that you are in an organization in which any criticism from a subordinate is culturally forbidden, no matter how accurate and perceptive your criticism is, it will not be perceived well and therefor will not have the beneficial effect you intended it to have.

How to do it?

Having assessed the situation and made the decision to go ahead and give your input to the boss, do it skillfully.

Timing is critical. Depending on your organizational culture, it may be perfectly acceptable to have your say in public, as the idea is being aired. In other situations, you will get better results if you take your boss aside and have your say one-on-one and doing it in a way that will allow your boss to come back to the public forum exhibiting his intelligence and ability to critically reflect on his or her own ideas and change his opinion.

Whether in private or public, send ‘I’ messages. “I think there may be a more effective way to handle this, because …” as opposed to “your idea has some flaws.”

Stick to facts and objective criteria as opposed to unsubstantiated opinions.

Ask questions like “Have you considered X as an alternative?” or, “What would happen if ‘Z’ occurred?” or, “What were your decision criteria?”

You might also begin your criticism with some praise – “What a creative idea?” – before getting into the meat of your input. Close with something positive, like “Do you think we (or you) can resolve the problem more effectively by looking at some of these options?”

In the end, well-meaning criticism, presented skillfully, sensitive to personal feelings and cultural inhibitions, is a means for continuous improvement.