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.

Taking Care of Your Stakeholders

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 3 Comments on Taking Care of Your Stakeholders

When planning the requirements definition phase of a project it is necessary for PMs and BAs to consider the diversity of stakeholders and their need for clarity, care taking and accountability.

In a recent project to implement an enterprise wide software product and related procedural and organizational change, the PM initiated a process in which a large number of business operations stakeholders from different departments would take part in the analysis and discovery of requirements for changes to the package and to plan for the procedures they would follow to make the system effective in their business areas.

The process was referred to as gap-fit analysis.

Members of each of the business units were to be introduced to the system’s features that would impact their roles in a series of presentations and demos. Then the stakeholders would explore the system’s features in a sand box environment. They would use their experience and knowledge of their roles to decide on change requirements.

Senior management had agreed to the principle that there would be minimal change to the package. People would change their procedures to fit the package rather than change the package to enable retention of the status quo. 

The PM had a good conceptual plan and buy-in from senior and middle management. But, things started to go wrong when attendees (supervisors, clerical staff and lower level managers) began to complain about the fact that the schedule of presentations was dictated to them and they weren’t given sufficient time to clear their schedules. Some pressure from above got them into the presentations.

Then, having attended the presentations, which were informative and allowed time for discussions and questions, many attendees did not have a clear understanding of their next steps. They were unclear about what they were supposed to do and how they were supposed to do it, even though they were given a template to use to provide their input.

Some people left their presentations thinking that they had to completely change the way they had been working for decades simply because the new system and the IT department said so.

Others were anxious about using the sand box, an instance of the system that had been set up to enable them to “play” with the features that supported their roles. They were afraid to mess things up, even though the feedback template had a sentence on it that explicitly said that it was ok to just play without concern. Some never read the introduction to the template while others didn’t really let what they read relieve their anxiety.

Stakeholders did not know who they could call if they ran into trouble. They had not agreed to the arbitrary ten day time frame for doing their exploration and turning in their feedback. They were not given the “hand-holding” they needed.

Within a week of the onset of the presentations, senior business management was reporting the displeasure of their people and as a result, their own displeasure, to the PM and then, when the PM made excuses, to his director.

Several people did not really know what “Gap-fit” analysis meant.

Intervention Needed

An intervention was needed to turn things around and make the best of the situation.

What went wrong? What were the causes underlying the near failure of a logical and sound conceptual plan? What needed to be done to turn things around?

At the root of the problem were untested and incorrect assumptions and expectations:

  • The stakeholders’ needs and priorities were not fully defined and validated.
  • The need for speed was assumed.
  • The participants’ understanding of what was being asked of them, why it was being asked and how they should go about doing it was assumed but not validated with them.
  • Participants were expected to behave like assertive “professionals”.

Needs and priorities

The assumption that the needs and priorities of business stakeholders in a project are completely aligned with project priorities is more often incorrect than correct. Current operations always take precedence over any future oriented activity. Projects are always future oriented.

The desire to maintain the status quo is usually quite strong, even when the status quo is painful. People dislike uncertainty. There will be resistance.

Make sure participants in requirements gathering activities are given sufficient time to adjust their schedules and that they are convinced or at least open to the idea that the project will improve their lives and the health and well being of the business. Remember the participants are working full time on their current jobs and that the requirements definition work is extra.

Senior level mandates might get people into the room but it won’t necessarily make them receptive and cooperative.

The Need for Speed

Getting things done quickly in projects is a common excuse for sloppy planning and insensitive communications. Clearly, we want to get things done fast but not at the expense of quality. Over and over again we pay for moving too quickly by having to suffer the consequences of errors and omissions. Planning takes time. Assuming that people will know what to do and will do it takes no time, but is a formula for disaster.

In this case, a week or two spent on planning, documenting and vetting the schedule and process would have gone a long way to make for a more successful engagement. People would have better understood objectives, their roles and responsibilities, and the work they were to perform. Planning would probably have identified the need for support and it’s ramifications on cost and schedule.

Participants’ Understanding

Assuming that people know more than they do is all too common. Some may think “since I know something, everyone else does too.”

I once facilitated a knowledge exchange between IT specialists and the bankers they supported. At the break after the bankers made their presentation regarding their business one of the technology guys came over to me and said that he finally understood what it felt like to be bombarded with a bunch of acronyms that were totally incomprehensible to him.

When we ask people to do something, we need to make sure they know what we are talking about. We cannot rely on them to ask. People are often averse to asking questions because they feel it would make them look stupid. Yes, they need to get over that. But until they do, it is necessary to draw them out, explain things clearly and in a language they are likely to understand and get them to feed their understanding back to us. This takes time and effort, but less time and effort than doing it after the fact.

Assertive professionals

Expecting people to behave like assertive professionals is asking for trouble. First of all we barely know how such beings behave and even if we did there would be significant exceptions. Some people are naturally assertive while others have to work on it. The ones that have to work on assertiveness may not be aware of their need. They just do what comes naturally.

When faced with someone who doesn’t ask questions or make their needs known take the time and effort to draw them out. Intuit the questions they might have by reading body language and facial expressions. Ask questions like, “Some people may think that this is a dumb idea, why would they think that?” Use written responses and small group exec praises to get people who are reticent to express themselves in large groups to talk. Take the time to list probable questions and issues, both positive and negative, so you can raise them if no one else does.

Conclusion

To maximize the probability of the success of your requirements and design sessions take a service oriented attitude. You are there to serve the stakeholders not just to elicit and document their requirements. Being a good servant, you must anticipate their needs to give your stakeholders what they want and need before they ask for it. Intuit their needs and cater to them. Find subtle ways to transform resistance into cooperation by building trust and understanding stakeholders’ objectives and how they relate to project objectives.

Know the personalities of your stakeholders and the organization’s cultural norms. Adapt your approach so that you are giving them what they need in the way they need it. Test your assumptions, ask the stakeholders for their cooperation and follow up to find out if you have met their expectations.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Is There an I in Team?

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 4 Comments on Is There an I in Team?

pitagorskyMar26 2
“At present, people create barriers between each other by their fragmentary thought. Each one operates separately. When these barriers have dissolved, then there arises one mind, where they are all one unit, but each person also retains his or her own individual awareness. That one mind will still exist even when they separate, and when they come together, it will be as if they hadn’t separated. It’s actually a single intelligence that works with people who are moving in relationship with one another. . . . If you had a number of people who really pulled together and worked together in this way, it would be remarkable. They would stand out so much that everyone would know they were different.” 
~David Bohm (physicist, philosopher, & mystic)

There is an old saying that says that there is “no I in team.” It is another one of those overly simplistic, imprecise and misleading statements that lead both novice and more senior team members astray.

When speaking about interpersonal relationships and team dynamics it is best to acknowledge that there is paradox, complexity and much room for misunderstanding and conflict. Oversimplification is the last thing we need. As Einstein has said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Teams are not simple. Whenever people come together to do anything there is a complex of relationships that must be carefully managed.

When it comes to teams, we are seeking a “single intelligence that works with people who are moving in relationship with one another. . . where they are all one unit, but each person also retains his or her own individual awareness.” In other words, there are a bunch of “I”s who can work together to pool their skills and intelligence to become a unit.

When a team is assembled we seek individuals who have the skills required to play their roles and the ability and willingness to work with others towards a common goal. The concrete skills such as programming, design, testing, and administration are important. These skills are what individuals bring to the team along with their experience and perspectives.

Often overlooked are the ability and willingness to work collaboratively, appreciation for the roles of others, and the acceptance of a common goal and process. These are essential to effective teamwork. Without these the concrete skills may very well be wasted.

Individuals agree to merge their individual goals and values with the goals and values of the team. We can’t expect most people to give up their individuality and personal goals for the team. There may be exceptions to this, for example, military teams like the U.S. Navy Seals, but for the most part, in organizations, reality is that individuals will not sacrifice their lives for the good of the team. Given this reality, we seek a reasonable degree of self-sacrifice.

The ability to work collaboratively is part of the wiring of social animals like humans. Unfortunately, it is easily overshadowed by egocentric conditioning and a lack of relationship skills training. The skills of active listening, conflict management, communication, patience, empathy and mindfulness are all necessary to enable collaborative work. Emotional intelligence is a critical factor.

The willingness to take a productive role in a team is different from the ability to do so. Team work requires a commitment of time and effort and a willingness to subordinate personal needs, at least to a degree, to the needs of the team.

Willingness implies motivation and motivation in team work is tied to organization policies, objectives and values. In an organization that overly values individual performance and autonomy, individuals may not be willing to take a healthy part in the team. In a basketball team if each player was out to maximize his scoring the team would probably suffer. Where the team’s scoring is a mutual objective of the players, the individual is more likely to assist others in their scoring.

Appreciation of the roles of other team members arises when team members have a sense of the big picture and there are clear, accepted team goals and objectives. With an understanding of conflicting objectives (for example the objective of doing due diligence in requirements definition and quality management vs. the objective of finishing quickly), it is likely that conflicts between team members will be avoided when they hold roles required to achieve conflicting objectives. Understanding and acceptance will replace impatience and anger.

The acceptance of common goals and objectives supports the willingness to take a collaborative role and clarifies roles and their importance. Goals and objectives in meaningful projects are often at odds with one another. As stated above there is conflict between the speed and quality. There is also conflict between desires for a complete and comprehensive product and the desire for short term benefits. Other conflicts may include differences in design and approach, among others. Common high level goals make it possible to find resolutions that satisfy competing objectives. A balanced approach is needed.

The acceptance of a common process is also important. In a recent project key team members clashed because they had different understandings regarding the way the project was to unfold. One wanted a phased approach in which short term results would be delivered and refined, while the other wanted a totally finished product before turning things over for use. In the same project some stakeholders thought nothing of continuously adding on must-have requirements that delay acceptance of the product, while others believed that new requirements should be postponed and implemented as future enhancements. A team that agrees upon its methods and procedures is more likely to succeed.

Cultivating the conditions for effective team work requires a combination of

  1. Policy and value setting at the organizational level to promote teamwork
  2. Regular communication of the policies and values to reinforce the message
  3. Training in the relationship skills (communication, emotional intelligence, conflict management, etc.) that are the foundation for teamwork
  4. Project kickoff and ongoing communication within the team to ensure that objectives and approach are mutually understood and accepted by all team members and that relationship and other issues are resolved
  5. Accountability for behavior that affects teamwork and the team’s performance.

Teams are the foundation for projects. A well-functioning team greatly increases the potential for project success. While there are instances of teams gelling and succeeding without any direct attention to the teamwork process, it is more likely that teamwork will have to be cultivated. Treat your team like a rare orchid, care for it.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Are Your Sponsors and Clients Satisfied?

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 7 Comments on Are Your Sponsors and Clients Satisfied?

Stakeholder satisfaction is a critical success factor and a key performance indicator. It is arguably the most important criteria for measuring project management success.

Project Management Success

The goal of project management (PM) is to improve the probability of project success by ensuring that the right projects are done in the right (i.e., most efficient and effective) way.

PM success is the degree to which project management as a process is achieving its goals and objectives. This goes well beyond the measures of project success, which focuses on whether a project meets its goals and objectives. Project management success is measured across multiple projects, over years.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders are the people who play the roles of sponsors, clients, managers, performers, regulators and anyone else who might impact or be impacted by projects. If project management is performed well, and the stakeholders play their roles well, the stakeholders will be satisfied.

In this article, we will address sponsor and client satisfaction. Of the stakeholders, sponsors and clients are usually deemed the most important, though, without satisfied performers, satisfying the sponsors and clients is increasingly difficult; without satisfied regulators, it is unlikely that sponsors and clients will be satisfied.

What Sponsors and Clients Want

I have observed that clients and sponsors want 1) consistently successful projects, 2) minimal uncertainty, 3) no unpleasant surprises, 4) being kept abreast of the things they think are most important and 5) being involved in project activities as little as possible.

1) Consistently Successful Projects

The desire for consistently successful projects is obvious. Everyone wants projects that are completed on time and within budget, and deliver expected value adding results, including repeat business and profit.

If your projects are consistently successful, it is likely, but not guaranteed, that sponsors and clients will be fully satisfied. Frequently, there can be success while project management as a contributing factor is not acknowledged. Success is expected. Satisfaction is neither measured nor publicized.

To ensure satisfaction it is necessary to apply a variation on the old “Tell’em” presentation approach – Tell them what you will tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them. In the PM context, it is, tell them what you are going to do for them, do it, and tell them what you did. In other words toot your own horn. But, don’t be obnoxious about it; do it subtly.

2) Minimal Uncertainty

Minimal uncertainty is relatively easy to deliver as long as the reality that there will always be some uncertainty is accepted. While there are tricks like padding estimates and schedules to give the illusion that there is no uncertainty, these lead to problems.

It is best to educate stakeholders regarding the nature of estimates, risk management and the inevitability of change. Then keep them abreast of changes as they occur, or even better, before they occur.

Of course, educating sponsors and clients is not so easy, since they are usually too busy for anything remotely resembling theory. This means that the education must be subtle and fully integrated into the normal process of reporting to and working with the stakeholders.

3) No surprises

Most people want to avoid surprises, particularly unpleasant ones. When people are abreast of what is going on in and around the projects they are interested in, there are no surprises. 

Unpleasant surprises in projects are usually about unmet expectations. By keeping stakeholders informed and aware that there is no certainty in projects (or anywhere else, for that matter), expectations will be managed. That doesn’t mean they will always be met. It does mean that when they are not going to be met there is plenty of warning and alternative plans to set new, realistic expectations.

Surprises are a sign of poor communication. The communication process requires that the sender sends the right information and the receiver receives and makes good use of it. Surprises mean that information has not been provided properly and/or that the recipients have not paid attention.

4) Being Kept Abreast

That brings us to keeping stakeholders abreast of the things THEY think are most important; not necessarily the things YOU think are most important.

Effective communication about the status, progress and prognosis of projects is the key to managing uncertainty and surprises.

Project managers must make sure that the stakeholders want the information they need. This takes us back to the education issue. Senior stakeholders must value the information that lets them know what is going on, what’s being done about issues, what they need to do, and the prognosis for the rest of the project.

Some stakeholders want far less information than they need to play their roles and to avoid unpleasant surprises. Some stakeholders don’t want other stakeholders to get certain types of information. For example some middle managers don’t want to send bad news up to their superiors; some sales reps and account managers want to spare clients from the stress of knowing that trends are not as positive as they “should” be.

Given the nature of sponsors and clients and their position in the hierarchy, it is not possible to force them to listen, read and absorb the information they need. It is necessary to present information in a way that it is engaging and at the right level of detail. Dashboards and status reports must be designed to get attention, focus it on the information that makes a difference and elicit questions. Questions let you go down into a next level of detail when it is of interest and lets you avoid it when it is not.

Get stakeholders to want what they need and give it to them in a way that is most likely to get the information across in the shortest amount of time and minimal effort.

5) As Little Involvement as Possible

Sponsors and clients are busy people who have much more than a few projects on their plate. Their desire for as little involvement as possible is understandable. However, the right level of involvement is necessary.

For sponsors and clients that involvement must include the time and effort required to absorb the information that will enable them to play their roles. Those roles are centered on setting direction, defining requirements and making decisions, including the decision to accept the project outcome and close the project.

Unless stakeholders are sufficiently involved, they will not be satisfied. It is the manager’s responsibility to make sure that stakeholders understand the nature of their involvement. Sponsors and clients, like all stakeholders need to know what is expected of them and why, and they need to commit time and effort to the project. As in any contract, each party has responsibilities.

Conclusion

A principle measure of project management success is the satisfaction of clients and sponsors, as well as other stakeholders. This success factor should be measured and included in performance metrics.

Sponsors and clients want 1) consistently successful projects, 2) minimal uncertainty, 3) no unpleasant surprises, 4) being kept abreast of the things they think are most important and 5) being involved in project activities as little as possible.

Project managers and the managers of the project management process must make sure these stakeholders get what they want and want what they need. The project management process must include a highly effective communications capability that educates and informs.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Conflict is Useful, Don’t Avoid It

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 5 Comments on Conflict is Useful, Don’t Avoid It

pitagorsky Jan29“Conflict is a fact of life. People disagree about what they are doing, why they are doing it and how best to do it. In fact, if you are working in any kind of collaborative effort and there is no conflict, then something’s wrong.“1 

Conflict is a difference of opinion that prevents agreement. In projects we deal with complex concepts and complex relationships and the combination of the two makes for a fertile ground for conflict. Conflicts are normal and, if managed well, they can be quite useful.

Conflicts are normal because people have different ways of looking at things and different ways of interpreting what they see. We have a propensity to become attached to our perceptions and create fixed positions around them. This leads to unhealthy conflict, but when the attachment and fixed positions are eliminated there is the possibility of healthy conflict.

Conflicts are useful because they are opportunities to address multiple perspectives on meaningful issues and find the most effective ways of moving projects towards successful ends.

But, conflict has a harsh sound to it. Some people think of it as something negative. Some definitions have it as being a struggle or fight for power or property. One definition from Merriam-Webster is “strong disagreement between people, groups, etc., that results in often angry argument.”

I met an experienced management consultant who trained people to not have conflicts. They learned to manage controversies, disputes and differences of opinion. He didn’t like the word conflict so he used other words. To me “A rose by any other name smells as sweet.”

Conflict is disagreement between people with different views. It is neither good nor bad. It may manifest as a small dispute or a major battle. It may result in often angry arguments, or in optimal resolutions and continuously improving relationships among the participants.

Decisions and Conflict

Conflict management is of critical importance because it is at the heart of decision making. Decision making implies that there are competing possibilities and that means that there is conflict to resolve. Decisions set the direction for action. High-leverage decisions are those that have a significant impact on the project, for example, whether to build or buy is a high-leverage decision while what color a particular component will be has a far smaller impact.

The Absence of Conflict is Dangerous

When there is no conflict in a project or anywhere in an organization, for that matter, there may very well be something wrong. It may mean that the people involved all think alike, seeing things the same way because they share common thinking and communication styles and a common belief and value system. This may sound good – peaceful consensus, no discord, everyone happily going in the same direction, kumbaya – but it is dangerous and boring. Why, because it is likely that there are alternatives that are being overlooked that may be significantly better than the one everyone agrees upon. Decision making is easy when everyone thinks alike and there are few, if any, alternatives. Decisions, however, may not be all they could be.

In an Abilene Paradox the participants decide on a course of action that is not in their best interest or in the best interest of their organization. People don’t want to rock the boat or are afraid that their opinions will seem stupid or will upset others, so they don’t raise objections or alternatives. As a result, flawed concepts lead to flawed plans and designs which then lead to project and product failures.

For example, Bill presents a plan he has worked up, Jose is pretty sure that the plan is overly optimistic but he doesn’t express his opinion. Sita also keeps to herself the thought that the plan is overlooking some key issues and is therefore optimistic. If either Jose or Sita had spoken up, the other would probably have chimed in. Chances are that Bill would have agreed and been open to adjusting the plan. If Bill was resistant, there would have been a dialog, debate or even an argument about the issues. The end result would most likely have been a more effective plan. With Jose and Sita not speaking up, the group was off and running on a project that had little chance of successfully coming in on time and budget.

Causes of Conflict Avoidance

Personal styles, environmental conditions, planning shortfalls, attitudes, and hierarchies, influence the degree to which people avoid conflict.

One of Thomas and Kilman’s five conflict styles is Avoiding. People with this style do not address conflict directly. “Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically side stepping an issue, postponing an issue, until a better time or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.” (Thomas and Kilman, n.d., pp. 8-9). whether this tendency is caused by social issues or is simply in-born, is not as practical a question as , what can one do to balance avoidance with other alternative styles – confronting, compromising, etc to find the right approach for the situation at hand.

Homogeneity

Homogeneity is a condition in which everyone is alike. In organizations, this may occur because the selection of new members is skewed to reject anyone who may be different. Some managers choose people who think like they do, communicate like they do, even look like they do. “Others” who may somehow sneak in are converted, isolated or eliminated.

Homogeneous environments have become less and less prevalent as diversity awareness increases, but where they still exist it is skillful to recognize them and stimulate thinking that challenges preconceived beliefs and norms.

Watch out for “That’s the way we do it here” attitudes. Confront them by periodically having the members of the project team or department periodically asking themselves why they do what they do in the way they do it. Put processes in place that requires assessing at least two alternatives for every meaningful decision. Appreciate and acknowledge the value that contrarians bring. Promote healthy conflicts at the right points in projects to make sure that plan and design alternatives are evaluated to identify optimal outcomes.

Remember, the fact that a large number of people are in favor of something does not make that something right or good.

Fear

Psychological theories imply that people often avoid acting in a way that is contrary to what they perceive as the will of the group. Many people are afraid of bringing up differing issues. They fear being branded “not a team player.” They fear standing up to their boss. They fear being excluded from the group and losing their job.

Some people avoid speaking up because they do not adequately value their own opinions. “Who am I to say that there is a better way?” they might ask themselves.

Not Enough Time

Estimating and scheduling issues often influence conflict avoidance. For example, deadlines are too tight and don’t leave enough time for exploring alternatives. Conclusions are forced. Individuals who bring up objections or competing ideas are shut down. When you plan, make sure there is sufficient time for due diligence in decision making, especially for high-leverage decisions.

Estimating and scheduling issues may stem from tendencies to avoid conflict or from simple oversight. In the end, result is the same, conflict avoidance.

What to Do

Step back and assess the why you are not bringing up objections and conflicting ideas.

If it stems from emotions like fear, or anger, consider pushing through and doing what is unnatural. Confront when appropriate to make truly effective decisions by resolving conflicts based on fact and logic moderated by common sense and intuition.

Leave sufficient time in the schedule for dialogue and analysis.

Have project forums for raising and addressing issues and resolving conflicts. Openly discuss and reflect on your conflict management process, both as an individual and in your group.

Insert events in your plan that require critical analysis of deliverables and, at key points, assess strategy and design alternatives and other significant issues.

Don’t forget to leave you comments below.

Reference

Pitagorsky, George, Managing Conflict in Projects, Project Management Institute, 2012 p. 1

Patience – Is it a Virtue for Project Managers?

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles.

“Patience is a virtue.”

“The patient man shows much good sense, but the quick-tempered man displays folly at its height” Proverbs 14:29.

How well does patience serve the project manager?

When does Patience turn into indifference or passivity?

When does it become an obstacle to getting things done on time and within budget?

Patience, or forbearance, is the ability to endure difficult circumstances and annoyances that typically come up during projects. Patience allows the PM to endure annoyances like waiting for delayed deliverables and dealing with people who he/she perceives as slow witted, uncooperative and poor performers, without acting out anger. In Buddhism, patience is is the ability to control one’s emotions even when being criticized or attacked.

Impatience is identified with anger. Anger in any of its forms — from annoyance to rage — is, in most people, a natural occurrence.

Imagine a super-patient PM

Imagine a PM who is the personification of patience – easy going, unruffled, understanding. How would this person do in an environment in which only “squeaky wheels” get what they need from others?

What are squeaky wheels? In organizations they are people who make noise. Noise may include yelling, complaining, nagging, and exhibiting non-verbal behaviors that clearly show impatience. They make it clear that commitments are not being fulfilled. They yell, confront, send accusatory emails, escalate or otherwise motivate others to get work accomplished. Some organizational cultures accept impatience as a virtue.

Impatience as a Method for getting things done

“Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.” Aristotle.

In the absolute sense, patience may be a virtue. But, that doesn’t mean that the patient person cannot display anger as a means for getting things done. Nor does it mean that he or she can never get angry.

There is a thin line between impatience and the due diligence required of PMs to fulfill objectives on time and within budget. We can look at a display of anger and impatience as a means for getting things done or as a sign of immaturity and lack of self control. Sometimes, only those who raise their voice and act out angrily get the attention they need. At other times, the same behavior will get you disrespected, feared or fired.

Learning Patience

It is possible to not have anger come up when faced with annoyances, but, being patient doesn’t necessarily mean never getting angry or feeling impatient.

Being patient implies having the ability to withstand the physical and psychological discomfort that comes with not getting your way or not getting what is expected. That ability can be cultivated. You can practice to be non-reactive, to feel the sensations that underlie impatience and allow them to be as they are. Can you treat impatient feelings as if they were an itch that you choose not to scratch?

I coached one project manager who said he was impatient. Sometimes his impatience was useful, it helped motivate himself and his staff, but mostly it got in the way. His body language and facial expressions displayed his impatience even when he was not overtly acting out. His displays of impatience instilled fear in his subordinates and made his peers and superiors think he was unstable and immature. It made him feel as if he was out of control.

I asked him if he thought that impatience was in his DNA and a permanent trait. He actually thought that it was. I said, “Well, then you are doomed.”

He laughed. But I was serious. If you believe that you can’t change, then you are likely not to change. Identify yourself as impatient and you will continue to be impatient. Acknowledge impatience as a temporary trait that can be overcome and you have a chance. It takes quite a bit of effort and, well, patience, but, patience can be learned.

Patience is learned in stages.

  1. Recognize and acknowledge impatience and it’s effects. Note for yourself when impatience has come up and what it feels like. Be aware of how you react and how your reaction effects others. Identify the situations that trigger impatience.
  2. Make a value judgement. Is impatience a trait you value? Do you want to keep it as a a personal trait? Or, is impatience something you want to do away with? If you want to keep your impatience, then you are done with this list.
  3. Be kind to and patient with yourself. Realize that it will take time and effort to cure impatience. Impatience is like an infection. You start a course of treatment and understand that it takes time for the treatment to work.

    Treat your anger with the utmost respect and tenderness, for it is no other than yourself. Do not suppress it—simply be aware of it. Awareness is like the sun. When it shines on things, they are transformed. When you are aware that you are angry, your anger is transformed. If you destroy anger, you destroy the Buddha, … . Mindfully dealing with anger is like taking the hand of a little brother. – Thich Nhat Hanh

  4. Dismiss any sense of impatience being a permanent character trait and replace it with the notion that impatience is a habit that can be unlearned.
  5. Commit to the fierce practice of experiencing the feelings of impatience without reacting.

    At first, you may not be able to do anything but observe yourself as you react. That is where kindness to yourself comes in. Don’t beat yourself up or feel that you will never be patient. Learning to be patient with yourself is a major step towards being patient with others and the things around you that don’t fulfill your expectations.

With patience comes the ability to choose a course of action that is situationally appropriate. If you want to behave as if you were impatient to get someone to move when all they will respond to is a display of impatience, you can do it. But, mostly, you will establish a system that positively motivates and holds people accountable for their actions and inaction, and, patiently, let the system do its work.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.