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.

To Be Effective Be Responsive, Not Reactive

pitagorsky Aug21In project work it is often necessary to act quickly and decisively as things change and situations arise. These changes and situations might include the loss of a resource without notice, discovery of a serious design flaw or significant new requirements, all in the face of a committed deadline and budget.

Reactive vs. Responsive

The need to act quickly may be taken as an excuse for reactive behavior. Reactive behavior is action taken without sufficient thought or planning. It is one of the key causes of poor individual and project performance.

Effective performance requires responsiveness as opposed to reactivity. How do these differ? Responsiveness implies thoughtful action that considers long and short term outcome in the context of the situation at hand. Reactive behavior is immediate and without conscious thought, like a knee jerk response. Reactive behavior is often driven by the emotions. 

The place for Immediate Action

Clearly, there is a place for immediate action, action that takes place with no more of a second or two of thinking.

You are confronted by a mountain lion out in the woods. There is no time to analytically consider the consequences of your actions. If you are a well trained woods-person you will immediately know what to do and you’ll do it. If you are not accustomed to confronting lions in the bush then you might still react, but perhaps not so skillfully. Your fight or flight reaction will kick in and maybe you’ll freeze or run or start crying. The lion might take your reaction as a threat or an invitation to chase you down and eat you.

The problem with reactive behavior is that it is likely to be the wrong behavior for the situation. Responsive behavior, includes immediate “blink” responses, along with more measured responses based on analysis of the pros and cons of options and their consequences.

Malcolm Gladwell, author of Blink, describes blink responses as follows, “When you meet someone for the first time, or walk into a house you are thinking of buying, or read the first few sentences of a book, your mind takes about two seconds to jump to a series of conclusions. … those instant conclusions that we reach are really powerful and really important and, occasionally, really good.” He distinguishes between emotionally fueled intuitive and gut feel reactions, which don’t seem rational, and blink responses or rapid cognition. He says, “I think that what goes on in that first two seconds is perfectly rational.

It’s thinking—it’s just thinking that moves a little faster and operates a little more mysteriously than the kind of deliberate, conscious decision-making that we usually associate with ‘thinking.’”

In Project Situations There is Time To Think

Fortunately, most issues confronted in projects are not life or death situations requiring immediate reaction. There is time to think. Sometimes there is not a lot of time to think, but usually there is not only time for one person to think but there is time for some degree of collective thought and dialogue.

Of course, we don’t want to get caught up in analysis paralysis, attempting to come to consensus on every decision through study, dialogue and debate that might take weeks when we only have minutes, hours or days to decide. We want to find the right balance point; the right degree of analysis and consensus process for the situation.

Emotional vs. Rational Thinking Making

Take for example a situation in which a target date has been set for a major deliverable in a project, like a decision on the architectural design for a product that will drive the rest of the project and significantly influence post project sale and use of the product. As the target is approaching, it is discovered that additional testing of the alternatives is required to satisfy the technical groups who have been asked to compare and score the options based on technical considerations. The testing will take several weeks longer than the time remaining to hit the target. The target has been set by senior executives, who view it as being critical to hit for political reasons.

The project manager is faced with a dilemma. Does she make a decision that is unsound technically and may lead to more delays and changes down the road to hit the immediate target or does she go to the executives and tell them that the target will not be met?

The decision could be made based on emotional or rational thinking. Emotional thinking is thinking driven by emotions like anger, fear, greed or aversion. Sometimes, it can appear to be analytical thinking.

There may be discussion and facts may be looked at, but in the end the decision is made based on reaction to the emotions rather than the objective realities of the situation.

Rational thinking may take emotions and subjective issues into consideration but is not driven by them. An expert project manager is often able to make a highly effective decision by weighing a few critical factors, including his own emotional and subjective responses as well as those of his team, clients and sponsors. Rational thinking is not just analytical and by the numbers. The analysis results and the numbers are inputs to a far more complex process.

In our design decision situation, the emotional decision would probably be driven by fear and would end up telling the technical group that they will have to make their evaluation without having the results of the desired tests – we’ll get to that later, and if worse comes to worse we will have to change our decision. A rational decision would probably be to advise the executives of the situation and inform them that there will be a delay unless they insist upon meeting the target date, informing them that if they do insist the consequences may be very costly in the future.

Clearly the executives could opt for hitting the target date, either based on their emotions or based on a measured assessment of the pros and cons. It’s their decision and they’ll have to live with it (or find a way to blame someone else for the fallout.)

Telling the Difference

Telling the difference between reactivity and responsiveness is a challenge.

It is necessary to clearly know what it feels like to be driven by emotions and what it feels like to be in the driver’s seat, managing emotions and applying rational thinking. To know what these conditions feel like requires emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence, in turn, requires the level of mindfulness that allows the individual to step back from his or her emotions and the feelings they bring up, viewing them objectively and not getting caught in reactivity.

Knowing the difference there is choice and responsiveness. Not knowing the difference there is reactivity.

Don`t forget to leave your comments below.

Learning from the Past

pitagorsky July17Pretty much everyone knows that it is beyond clever to learn from past performance. Unfortunately, not everyone takes the time and effort to do it.

To paraphrase an often repeated warning, if you don’t learn from the past you are likely to repeat it.

Now that’s not bad if past performance has been error free, cost effective and has resulted in optimal outcomes. Though reality seems to be that without learning we are more likely to repeat poor performance than we are to repeat optimal performance.

Humans are learning machines. As individuals we soak up knowledge from the time we are infants. We try to walk, fall down, getup and keep at it until we get the hang of it. The same thing happens when we learn to ride a bike or swim. 

We learn communication and relationship skills, learning skills and other complex skills through trial and error and emulation. 

We can learn to do things well and we can learn to do things badly. The more conscious the learning process, the more likely the outcome will be positive. If each experience is see as a learning experience and there is clarity about what the objective is, then there will be continuous improvement.

If the objective is optimal performance, then each learning event will support that. If the objective is to gather up a certain number of credits or fulfill a regulatory requirement, then that objective may be met without achieving any performance improvement.

The Problem and Its Causes

The learning process continues beyond early childhood, though with increasing difficulty, as we grow older. We take on bad habits like getting angry at ourselves for not getting something right the first time or like being too embarrassed to admit failure. We learn to be afraid that we will be ridiculed or punished. We learn to blame others for anything that looks like failure or error.

In the realm of projects and business processes, we are faced with the challenge of learning from the past not only as individuals but also collectively as teams or organizations. Individual resistance to learning is reinforced by organizational policies, time binds, poor leadership and inadequate management practices. The result is organizational learning disability.

Not learning from past performance is costly on multiple levels. Errors are repeated. Best practices are not carried forward into future projects. Valuable players are demoralized and leave, or worse, stay and stop caring. The organization that does not learn does not grow. Its costs increase and its ability to perform decreases. 

The Possibilities

Address the causes of learning disabilities to create a learning organization.

“Learning organizations [are] organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.” (Senge The Fifth Discipline, 1990: p. 3)

Learning organizations continuously improve their performance. They realize that if you want to improve performance you must understand and improve your process. They know that improvement requires the persistent investment of time and effort and a willingness to break through the barriers that make candid critical analysis difficult.

The Solution

The solution is obvious and well documented. Be willing to step back and honestly and openly assess your performance. Be accountable. Make your process transparent. The standard approach is to:

  1. Establish goals, objectives, success measures, baseline and approach
  2. Overcome the cultural obstacles to learning – blaming, fear, etc.
  3. Review performance, document successes and failures.
  4. Analyze their causes.
  5. Determine what to do about the causes.
  6. Do it.
  7. Measure the results.
  8. Continue.

Step 1 supports the idea that to have clarity about what is to be accomplished, how, and a way to determine if it was enhances the ability to achieve desired results. It supports the need for objectivity.

The most difficult step is step 2. While many organizations attribute the absence of an ongoing learning and performance improvement process to lack of time, the real cause is lack of resolve. Organizations do not perform learning activities such as post project reviews because people are afraid of what might happen when poor performance and negative events are identified and discussed. They are afraid that people will become defensive. They fear that even if the review isn’t a blame-fest nothing will change anyway, so why waste the time.

Ideally, it is up to senior management to clear the way for organizational learning and insist upon post project reviews and regular operational performance reviews. But, in the absence of that it is quite possible to take it upon yourselves as teams or project managers to work within your scope of control to learn from you successes and failures to improve your process.

Going Beyond the Blame Game

To make learning happen it is necessary to go beyond the all too common blame game and to own up to the fact that no one is perfect. Covering up poor performance is guaranteed to perpetuate it.

How do you go beyond these habitual responses? 

Open up dialogue. Discuss process perspective and process management. To have everyone understand that everything has a cause and the cause is embedded in the process. While sometimes the cause is poor personal performance, much more often the cause is systemic – organizational policies, poor training, lack of process review and learning, flawed tools and procedures, etc. Knowing that allows the focus to be at meaningful targets. There is hope that improvement can occur.

Talk about the tendency to avoid directly confronting your own faults and the faults of others. Get everyone to realize that this kind of avoidance is a principle cause of the repetition of poor performance.

Calculate the cost of poor performance. Build a history of projects that have been performed and the cost of errors, omissions, poor quality products, unhealthy relationships that have occurred in them. Identify those that have occurred repeatedly.

At the beginning, hold closed reviews in which only members of the performance group attend. Gradually, include other stakeholders as needed.

Assess client, user, sponsor and performer satisfaction and address dissatisfaction while acknowledging positive performance. Keep in mind that you don’t do the work for its own sake, you do it to satisfy organizational and personal goals.

Let the Light Come in

Leonard Cohen says, 
“Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” 

The “crack” is the flaw or error that you have made. It is an opening that allows in the light that can illuminate opportunities for improvement.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

The Caring Manager

Pitagorski FeatureArticle June5What does it mean to be a caring manager who is there to serve his subordinates as well as to make sure they perform and achieve organizational objectives.

Recent incidents reminded me of how easy it is for a manager to lose track of the importance of making sure his/her subordinates are properly cared for and respected.

In one case a manager verbally abuses and threatens her subordinates when they fail to meet her expectations.

In another case, a long time employee, who for several years, had been competently performing work well beneath her capacity had made it known that she would like a transfer to a role that was both needed in the organization and which she was trained to play. 

Her direct manager, perhaps satisfied with the status quo or just too busy to take the effort to find a replacement and upgrade the employee’s role, did nothing about the request for over two years. Finally, the employee escalated the issue and with the help of others outside of her direct line of control, a transfer to a better position was arranged. 

Servant Leadership

The simple idea that a manager is there to care for his or her subordinates is expressed in the work of Robert K Greenleaf on Servant Leadership. Servant leadership is a set of leadership practices and a management philosophy that begins with the idea that a manger is there to serve his subordinates so they are better able to perform.

Servant-leaders share power, put the needs of others first, and enable people to develop and perform optimally.

According to Lao Tzu:

“The best leaders are those the people hardly know exist.

The next best is a leader who is loved and praised.

Next comes the one who is feared.

The worst one is the leader that is despised.

If you don’t trust the people, they will become untrustworthy.

The best leaders value their words, and use them sparingly.

When she has accomplished her task, the people say, “Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!”

Characteristics of a Servant Leader

Following are the principle characteristics of a servant leader. Managing in accord with these principles leads to a dynamic working environment that is effective, fun and free of the fear of failure.

  1. Listening: paying attention to what employees do and say. The unspoken is as at least as important as the spoken. Using intuition and analysis to get what is communicated the manager identifies needs and uncovers issues that get in the way of optimal performance.
  2. Empathy: employees are people who need respect and appreciation for their personal and professional development. The manager puts herself in their place to better understand their needs.
  3. Healing: A servant leader tries to help people solve their problems and conflicts in relationships.
  4. Awareness: A servant leader needs to be mindfully aware of himself, his environment with its values and people around.
  5. Persuasion: A Servant Leader seeks consensus rather than dictating from an authoritarian place of power. Openness and persuasion are more important than power and control
  6. Conceptualization: A servant leader thinks about short term day-to-day operational needs as well as the longer term needs of the organization, its people and its environment.
  7. Foresight: The manager analyzes risk and integrates tactics and strategies to learn from the past and achieve long and short term goals
  8. Stewardship: Managers are both stewards of their organizations and the society as a whole.
  9. Commitment to the growth of people: People have a value beyond their roles as workers. The personal, professional, and spiritual growth of employees should be developed through training programs and involvement in decision making.
  10. Building community: A servant leader seeks to create a community within her organization or project and across organizations and projects.[4]

These characteristics are meant to provide a framework for a leadership approach rather than a set of rules. Greenleaf stressed that it is each person’s responsibility to reflect on these and use them for personal development.

Practicality

What does servant leadership and being a caring manager have to do with project management?

Project management is all about performance. We manage so as to improve the probability of successfully completing projects. Success is measured by our ability to achieve objectives – satisfying stakeholders by getting things done within time and cost constraints. The stakeholders are not only the clients and sponsors but also the project performers.

On a purely personal level, for most people, serving and caring makes the care taker feel good (there is scientific evidence that being kind is rewarding for its own sake). From a purely practical point of view, a servant leadership based approach is a means towards improving the way work is done. 

The loyalty, trust and appreciation that arises in employees and team members who feel they are cared for and respected by their manager transforms itself into higher levels of performance. Commitment to growth serves the need of continuity of the organization while other characteristics promote a healthy culture that reduces undesirable turnover and enables optimal performance.

The Challenge

The challenge is to personally apply the principles of servant leadership and the advice of Lao Tzu in a way that balances caring with the ability to achieve project and business objectives.

The challenge is also to promote these principles in your projects and organizations to create a culture in which there is no conflict between getting work done optimally and the health and well being of the staff.

What does being a caring manager mean? It means that the manager takes the effort to express his or her appreciation of the good work being performed instead of taking it for granted and only expressing negative feedback when there is a slip up. It means giving constructive criticism. It means making sure that subordinates have clear direction and the capacity to do the work assigned to them. It means having their back when it comes to supporting them in conflicts. It means treating subordinates as adults and peers. It means considering what is best for employees when making decisions. And it means providing opportunities for growth in an environment that is pleasant to work in.

Are you up for the challenge?

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Managing Superiors and Performance

Some responses to last month’s article on managing incompetence led me to continue on the subject with a follow up about the word incompetence itself and how to influence superiors to improve performance.

Incompetence – A Strong Word

One reader commented that the word incompetence is a “turn off” and that competence has multiple dimensions – technical performance, collaboration and communication skills, etc.

Yes, incompetence is a strong word. Labeling a person as incompetent in a session to address their performance and competence level would tend to shut down the communication process and make remediation difficult, if not impossible. When we address issues with the people we are managing we need to be sensitive to their feelings and how words may affect them. In short, starting a performance review with a statement like “Your incompetent” is not recommended! 

However, when addressing competence in an article or in a conversation about managing performance, using words that are direct, strong and meaningful, words like competence and incompetence, can add value. There is too much beating around the bush. While, being kind and considerate, let’s be direct, even at the risk of being politically incorrect.

Objectivity

There are many degrees of competence and many opinions. There is a high degree of subjectivity and need to be sensitive to the needs of each situation.

Objectivity is required. Base performance and competency assessments and discussions on clearly written and mutually understood expectations. 

To say performance is deficient without a comparison of that performance against an established standard is unskillful. Unfortunately, it is not all that common to have clearly defined performance standards. To a degree, we can rely on collective subjectivity – several people agreeing that an individual or group is deficient without a clear, formal standard. But I is dangerous. A group can agree to a level of competence that is too low or too high.

We need to support subjectivity with concrete evidence, even though it may be anecdotal, that performance is deficient. What problems have been caused, what targets have been missed, what expectations not met? If you cannot point to specific instances then there is little hope of addressing the competency issue and improving performance. Recognition of competency shortfalls is a starting point for improvement.

Managing Up

If the need for sensitivity and objectivity is great when working with peers and subordinates, it is even greater when managing the competency of superiors.

Another reader wrote that “I understand the concepts of trying to manage those that are a direct or indirect subordinate. How would you deal with a superior? Are you just out of luck? I know for myself I conduct 360 reviews with my team and I tell them to be brutally honest if there is something I need to work on. I provide my team with a questionnaire based on my Job description and required competencies. I indicate that I know I’m not perfect and I only want to improve as a team leader. If only I can get my superior to do the same.”

Managing less than competent superiors is not easy. Sensitivity, subtlety, objectivity (are they really incompetent or just not living up to your expectations, for example), skill, resolve and courage are all needed. The courage is about taking the risk that you may upset your boss and suffer the consequences. Often direct confrontation is too scary and may be ineffective.

An alternative to direct confrontation as way to manage those above is to shine so brightly as an example that your managers begin to emulate you. Setting an example, particularly when it comes to how to lead and manage requires resolve and patience. The resolve is to keep doing what you know is right even though you are not getting support or recognition from above and possibly even resistance from your peers and subordinates. The patience is about being able to wait for results without requiring them. Do what you do and let the results emerge. Be objective. Are the results positive? Are they meaningful?

This approach does not directly address the problem of a weak superior but it does help to minimize the impact of suboptimal management performance. You are not pushing down the negativity, you are doing your best to create some resistance and create change within your scope of control and influence.

Often this is a long shot. If you make no headway and run out of patience, fire your boss! That means finding a new position and leaving. If that is not a practical possibility it comes down to making the best of it. Accept what you cannot change, change what you can and be wise enough to know the difference. 

On the macro level – It’s All About Performance

Competency is a critical aspect of performance management and performance management is a complex process. Success in addressing competency and performance issues depends greatly on the attitude of the people involved and the organization’s level of maturity.

In addition to setting a positive example, you can begin to discuss management practices and the importance of performance assessment and continuous improvement with the goal to open the organization to a learning dialogue. A learning dialogue means communicating about improving performance by improving processes. In this dialogue the performance of individual players is not assessed and discussed. Instead the discussion is focused on goals, benefits, best practices and barriers. 

In the absence of a culture of process awareness and assessment, what Peter Senge refers to as a learning organization, it is up to individuals to take the leap into the uncharted space of facilitating critical analysis of performance. Varying degrees of formality are possible. At the onset it may be very informal. Discussions arise out of specific incidents or interesting articles or comments. Individuals make a commitment to make the shift from complaining to the more productive direction of cause analysis and problem solving. Often the dialogue begins without the performance challenged person or people involved. Ultimately they must be drawn in to create change.

As a core group begins to recognize the benefits of and possibilities for improvement they enlist others. Once there is a sufficient argument, recommend greater formalization of process improvement/competency improvement to senior management. This may require a business case at some point but can begin with a good oral argument to a friendly and receptive leader. In effect, the dialogue plants the seeds of process awareness and that leads to learning and improvement. 

Again, patience comes into play. Dialogue is about the exchange of ideas without attachment to changing anyone or anything. Let go of judgment and disappointment. Once the seeds begin to take root and the ideas spread and are more widely accepted there is the need to shift from dialogue to planning and action. Action is most likely to be effective if it comes from above and is institutionalized. It is a long haul.

When patience runs out or when it is clear that the long haul is measured in life times rather than years – move along. Fire your boss. Until then, stay positive, do what you can in your scope of control to be part of the solution.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Managing Incompetence

Incompetence is a strong word.  It means the inability to perform; a lack of competence. 

There are degrees of competence – master, expert, competent, marginally competent, marginally incompetent, incompetent, disruptively incompetent, … . 

Competence goes beyond the relatively easy to measure performance of concrete skills to include behavioral /relationship competencies, emotional intelligence, thinking skills, mindfulness, concentration and self awareness.

Someone who is highly skilled and able to perform competently when working on his or her own can be incompetent when working in a team.  A person’s level of competence is influenced by a complex of communication, collaboration, conflict management, emotional intelligence, and concrete skills.

Another person may be less than competent in applying concrete skills, for example a programmer who can’t program very well or an analyst that gets the numbers wrong, a teacher that doesn’t teach well.   But that person may be competent in the sense that he/she communicates and collaborates well and is open to learning to acquire or improve skills, and , in the extreme be ready to acknowledge the need for moving on.  Others are incompetent across the board, with neither concrete nor behavioral and awareness competencies.

How often are your projects and operations burdened with less than competent players who may be on management, technical performance, administrative or executive levels?

The Impact on the Team

A less than competent player on the team places a burden on the other team members and jeopardizes the team’s success.  The work needs to get done and done well.  That often means that the more competent players must take on work they may not have had to take on had the full team been highly competent.  This may lead to dissatisfaction among the team members, particularly the higher performing ones.  It may lead to cost and schedule impact as errors and omissions occur, rework is required and performers are over worked.  When competency shortfalls are in the behavioral realm, emotion based interpersonal conflict and misunderstandings sap team energy.

In some cases incompetent players in influential positions can be the cause of poor decisions which lead the team into in misguided directions.

Take for example a person assigned to a team responsible for selecting a vendor for a large complex program.  The person failed to read and/or understand the Request for Proposal and the project charter which clearly (for the other members of the seven person team) stated the nature of the program and the role the procurement would take.  The person, instead of asking questions during briefings and Q&A sessions, he began to raise issues with senior managers on the program’s steering committee, making statements that were inaccurate, based on a serious misunderstanding of the program.  This led to a flurry of activity to dispel the misconceptions.  The positive result was to have an opportunity to inform people and clarify understandings.  

Depending on the individuals and their process, the person, continuing on as a member of the team might harbor resentment because he felt that he was made to look foolish for having missed the point of his assignment.  The other members of the team might lose respect for the person but have to continue to work with him and his slowness to understand and unwillingness to acknowledge his need to ask questions, listen to the answers and do the required reading.

Cause

When we analyze this incident, we can find a generic cause that underlies many such incidents.  The person’s performance capabilities and shortcomings in this case were known, yet no-one, neither his superiors, nor peers, no-less his subordinates, had ever confronted the issue.  The organization’s weak performance management process and a culture that accepts marginal if not incompetent performers as a norm contributed to the problem.

While failings in the hiring process contribute to the presence of incompetent performers, the lack of an effective accountability based performance management process is the root cause of having incompetent performers on teams. 

In some fields there are structured evaluation or assessment programs to track the competency of individual practitioners, but even in those fields incompetent performers slip through.  Often, there are little or no defined objective criteria and many of the criteria are in the interpersonal/behavioral realm and are hard to quantify.

Competency assessment and competency improvement through training, coaching, mentoring and on the job performance reviews are means for managing competency and ensuring that an organization’s staff is made up of competent players and that incompetent players are identified, remediated and, if necessary, eliminated.

Managing the Work at Hand

But, these are long term solutions that do not help an individual project manager (PM) who is faced with an incompetent team member.  What options does the PM have?

He/she can confront the issue directly by creating a clear case with objective proof of incompetence and bring it to his superiors for action.  This, in a healthy environment, seems the best course of action.  It would ideally lead to a replacement or at least some leeway regarding meeting tight deadlines and budgets.  It would lead to remedial action to train, retrain or eliminate the poor performer.

What if the culture or the PM’s manager does not support such a direct approach?  What if the manager says something like “He’s been around for years and no one else complained, just make due and don’t bother me with this.”?   Or, “He’s the boss’ brother in-law and he’s not going away?” What if the incompetent person is an employee of the client firm for which the PM is working as a consultant and there is no mechanism for performance review?

In one case a person in a technical position was not able to perform his work competently.  There were errors, delays and poor quality results.  There was no time or budget for training and the performer’s manager did not acknowledge the shortcomings. The project was being managed by consultants and the marginal performer worked for the client.   The approach was to assign the person to tasks that were administrative, short, and non-critical, and to closely supervise the performer or team them with a peer who would make sure quality was acceptable. If the performer’s work was so poor that it had to be redone, it was given it to someone else and the complexity of tasks assigned was reduced.

We found a right balance and made the best of it. 

It seems that finding the right balance and making the best of any situation is key to managing anything.  With competency issues, it is important to objectively assess the situation, putting aside “should be” thinking.  Focus on the situation and what you can do about it.

What is happening? How is it effecting the project?  What are the time and cost constraints and risks? How has this issue normally been handled?  What is the environment like? How aware and mindful are the players?  How emotionally intelligent?

What are the options for remediation, elimination, and managing current work and its effective performance?

With answers to these questions you can craft a practical solution while considering the personal feelings of all parties.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.