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.
PMTimes_Aug15_2023

Making the Impossible Possible – Expectations, Loss, and Loss Leaders

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles.

“It always seems impossible until it’s done.” Nelson Mandela

 

Projects burdened by impossible objectives tend to fail, disappoint, and burnout performers. They are a sign that the decision-making process is broken. To avoid failure, make sure there is a solid understanding of the difference between possible and impossible goals and objectives and a well-thought-out decision-making process.

 

In the context of project engagements (see my recent article Engagement Management: A Key To Successful Projects), setting impossible objectives is often the result of a poor approval process, inadequate estimates, lack of effective pushback by project management to either an overzealous sales effort or an overly demanding client/sponsor.

 

Beware of an Over-Zealous Attitude

The tendency to set impossible objectives is strengthened by attitudes like the one expressed by Mandela and this one from Muhammad Ali:

“Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration.”

 

The ‘can-do’ attitude is powerful and motivating. But, in fact there are some things that are, in fact, impossible. For example, changing the past is impossible, as are completely controlling the future or getting a ten person-day task like setting requirements done in a day by assigning ten full time people to it.

As the Serenity Prayer recognizes, it takes wisdom to know the difference between what is possible and what is not, and the courage to act.

 

Is It Worth It?

There are objectives that seem impossible but may be possible. A big question for project stakeholders is, what is it worth to find out?

In project management the “wisdom” referred to in the Serenity Prayer needs to be shared among sales, project sponsors, and clients and it needs to be embedded in the engagement management process.

Stretch goals push the edge of performance but achieving them can be costly and have a high probability of failure. Go for it if cost is not a significant constraint, achieving goals is highly rewarding in non-financial terms, and expectations are realistic.

 

For example, the cost of fighting and winning against the apartheid system in South Africa was not a significant constraint. People were willing to give their lives and livelihoods to win. The reward, freedom, was worth the cost. And expectations, while high, were realistic – people were willing to keep at it as long as necessary and had no idea how long that would be.

But in business and technology projects we have a different dynamic. The sales price, which is made up of costs plus profits, sets up a goal for the project manager and team that, if unmet, costs the organization and the team. The organization loses money, the team is faced with failure, clients and sponsors are disappointed.

In-house projects have a similar dynamic. The sales price is the cost estimate which with expected benefits drives project approval. Cost and schedule overruns and unrealized benefits are costly to the organization and the performance team. Clients and sponsors are disappointed.

 

A key question is – Is it worth it to attempt to achieve the stretch goals?

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

Decision Making and Consequences

Portfolio Management’s project approval process is the forum for making the decision to decide if ‘it’s worth it’. There is no problem when the answer comes out of a well thought out analysis of costs, benefits, alternatives, and risks, and expectations are well-managed.

 

But when the decision is made based on bad estimates and emotion, with a misguided understanding of what is and isn’t possible, there will be hell to pay.

 

Looking at two situations, considering costs, competition for resources, and benefits, we can see how project approval works.

 

1. In situation One a contractor organization is selling a project to a client. The sales team works with the client to find a price that the client likes. This comes out of a negotiation within the client’s procurement process. Ideally, the sales team considers input from estimators representing the performance team and comes up with a price that sells and is profitable.

If the sales team does not consult the performance team, the price is likely to be an impossible goal. If the performance team is consulted and says that they can do the job, but their costs would eat into or do away with profit, that’s where the decision makers come in. Their job is easy if the price and costs allow for sufficient profit.

If profit is lower than executives would like or if there is a loss, then the decision makers must decide whether to take on a loss-leader project that will, say, get the company in the door at a new client or keep competitors out of an existing client. They must assess whether this project is worth doing given limited resources and more profitable or critical projects.

If the decision makers decide to approve, they must (but often do not) set expectations with the performance team to let them know they are shooting for a rational target and why the project price is so low.

This scenario is linked to incentives – sales commissions pinned to gross sales price or to profit and bonuses for the performance team. And, of course, schedule – delivery targets, their priority, and time to completion – is a major factor.

 

2. Scenario Two is where the work will be done by in-house resources. In this situation the dynamic is different. The project price (the cost to the organization) may be set based on a well thought out or faulty cost estimate or based on available budget and a strong desire to do the project.

Instead of profit, decision criteria include benefits. While benefits are realized over years and often far exceed costs, available budget and contention for resources are constraints. A decision is made.

If the performers know they are shooting for a rational target all’s well. When they are driven to meet impossible objectives there are consequences like failure, poor morale, relationship issues, turnover, and burnout.

 

Going Forward

As always, assess your current situation and track record.

  • Are project overruns frequent?
  • Are estimates chronically inaccurate?
  • Are staff members driven to do the impossible?
  • Do you have a clearly defined well-functioning decision-making process that includes managing the impact on staff of stretch objectives?
  • Who is accountable for project overruns, particularly when realistic project level estimates are ignored, and cost targets are set based on political or sales oriented criteria?

Based on that assessment what do you need to change and how will you change it?

 

And, of course, do not believe it when someone says, “it’s impossible.” Check the facts, get other opinions, use your intuition, then decide. Push the edge to do the impossible when it is worth it. Make sure expectations are well-managed.

 

 

PMTimes_Aug1_2023

Engagement Management: A Key to Successful Projects

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles.

If you are experiencing unproductive disagreements, dissatisfied stakeholders, finger pointing, and misunderstood roles and responsibilities, look to your engagement management (EM) process.

 

All projects are engagements among project managers, performers, clients, sponsors, functional managers, and “customer care” people in sales and support roles. Whether you are in an organization providing contracted services or you are managing in-house projects with clients in your same organization, if you manage a project without managing the engagement, you are likely to fail to satisfy stakeholders, even if your project achieves its objectives.

 

This article describes engagement management and the critical importance of collaboration and the clarity of roles, responsibilities and objectives to ensure that stakeholders are satisfied:

  • Clients are satisfied because their expectations are met – what you promised, what they bought, what they need, and what you deliver match up.
  • Sponsors are satisfied because there is value to the organization, desired benefits are realized at an acceptable and expected cost
  • Performers and managers are satisfied when they are not overburdened by impossible demands, unnecessary bureaucracy, unhealthy relationships, and poor working conditions
  • Regulators, accountants, attorneys, procurement specialists are satisfied when their views are respected and rules, protocols, and regulations are followed

 

The Engagement Management Process

Wise service industry organizations formally recognize the engagement management process with pre-sales, sales, performance (projects and services), relationship management, and support functions as part of an overall engagement.

 

For example, a typical service organization has the following functions involved in each engagement

  • sales and marketing to attract and ‘close’ clients
  • engagement management to oversee and coordinate
  • delivery to manage and perform projects
  • functional managers and staff to provide resources and expertise
  • procurement to find vendors, negotiate, and manage contracts
  • legal to make sure that contracts are clear, valid, and satisfy needs of the parties
  • quality management to make sure what is delivered is acceptable
  • customer service to manage the relationship, maintain communications, and provide support,  before, during and after the project
  • administration and finance for accounting, billing, reporting and other services.

 

Roles and Responsibilities

Roles and responsibility assignments vary depending on organization structure and the relationship between the client and the providers. The structure and degree of formality of the process depends on the stakeholders’ legal relationship. If they are in separate corporations, procurement, accounting, and legal issues must be formal and precise to avoid unnecessary conflict and better manage the conflict that does arise.

 

When the providers are in-house, there is a similar need for clear understanding among the stakeholders. Though, since there are no legal requirements, it takes greater discipline to follow best practice standards that manage disagreements and unmet expectations. Legal and procurement professionals may have no involvement but someone (the PM, a PMO, or a quality management group) needs to make sure that agreements are clearly documented, and decisions are made with objectivity.

Whether in-house or not, a project manager (PM) may play multiple roles. For example, sometimes the PM provides customer support and sometimes business analysts, salespeople, or customer service specialists play this role. Sometimes the PM is the engagement manager.

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

The Engagement Manager

Everyone should be clear about who is doing what, who has final authority, what reporting is required, and how decisions will be made – majority, consensus, authority.

Holding the engagement together is an engagement manager, who may be managing a portfolio of accounts with multiple projects and is responsible for making sure the clients are happy and the contributors to the engagement are playing together nicely.

 

Whether the client and provider are in the same organization or not, there is a similar need for attracting and closing realistic deals, establishing and performing a project, maintaining healthy stakeholder relations, and following up with support.

The Engagement manager makes sure all engagement functions are assigned, coordinated, and well performed, and that the expectations of all parties, including performers and executive sponsors in both provider and client organizations are managed.

 

The Sales Role

The sales role is as important when the project is in-house as it is in vendor situations.  Though in-house engagements often fail to recognize the need for a sales role.  Some of the in-house sales work, performed by “champions,” evangelists, or advocates, may be to promote project ideas and “sell” sponsors and clients on an in-house solution over vendor alternatives.

The sales function often leads when it comes to setting client and sponsor expectations and pricing, though these must be influenced by project constraints and costs.

 

Effective engagement management (EM) avoids a disconnect between the people who set client expectations (sales)and the project and support people charged with delivering the results. A well-defined EM process will ensure input from delivery and a decision by engagement management or sponsors as to the final deal. Salespeople are most effective for the organization when they are compensated based on the profitability of their sales.

Consultative selling ensures that both the client and provider understand the client’s needs. Collaborative selling involves delivery experts in the process of defining and pricing the work.

 

What You Can Do

Engagement management is both necessary and complex. If you are experiencing dissatisfied stakeholders and lots of useless and avoidable conflicts, it is likely that your engagement management process needs to be assessed and improved.

The first question to ask is “Do we have a defined process?” There is always a process, but if it isn’t defined, roles and responsibilities are likely to be unclear and some functions may not be performed well or at all.

 

For example, if customer service and engagement management functions are not identified and assigned, responsibility defaults to the PM. If the PM is aware of the needs and has the necessary competency, all will be well. But if the PM expects someone else to handle the relationships and accountabilities, and no one picks up the work, there will be trouble – arguments, dissatisfaction, etc.

To avoid trouble, whether you are part of a contractor firm or an in-house service department, step back, assess and define your process. You can do this for a single project, but it is better if it is done on a broader scale. It requires involvement and buy-in from all the stakeholders in the sales, customer service, and performance organization.

 

Related articles
Improving Project and Engagement Management Performance
Vision and Systems View to Improve Performance
The Challenge Of PM In Engagement Management
PMTimes_July18_2023

Manage Adversity with Resilience

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles.

The way we handle adversity, particularly our resilience, impacts performance. Adversity is anything that gets in the way of achieving goals and objectives. It takes many forms, including self-doubt, emotional reactivity, and disruptions like loss, error, stress, or unexpected change. Some adversity is to be expected.

 

Our self-awareness and mindset are the keys to successfully handling adversity. Train the mind so you DON’T FREAK OUT. React in panic, anger, or fear and you will not be able to respond effectively. Calm down, manage emotions and mental habits, in the face of adversity and you will be able to recover and respond.

There are many techniques for calming down, but that is a topic for another time. You can visit www.self-awareliving.com for some ideas.

 

Here, in this article, the focus is on how we perceive adverse events. We can view them as obstacles or opportunities. We can believe that we are helpless or that we can influence our situation.

 

Resilience

Resilience relies on accepting adversity, perceiving it as an opportunity to recover, and knowing you can act even though you may not be in complete control.

Resilience is the ability to roll with the punches and recover from adversity, to return to a stable state after a disruption. When your project hits a wall, resilience allows you to carry on as best you can.

 

For example, after a poor performance review, resilience enables an individual, team, or organization to grow from the feedback rather than becoming depressed by it or resistant to it. A resilient project manager will bounce back and learn from the experience of a failed project. An organization that promotes resilience does not blacklist a manager who has failed, but instead provides support.

 

A resilient person tends to take an active approach toward solving problems, perceives their experiences as constructive opportunities, engages others for assistance and support, and has a positive and practical vision of life.

A resilient team or organization is made up of resilient individuals who support one another. It recovers and moves on when faced with adversity

 

Adversity Quotient®

Adversity Quotient® (AQ) is a measure of resilience.

“Adversity Quotient® – is a measure of a person’s capacity to deal with the challenges that he or she experiences on a daily basis” (Paul Stoltz, Adversity Quotient®: Turning Obstacles into Opportunities, 1997).”

 

Paul Stoltz identified four C. O. R. E. dimensions for measuring AQ – Control, Ownership, Reach, and Endurance.

 

Control is the degree to which there is a sense of the ability to predict and influence adversity. The perception of control, the ability to influence outcomes, results in an incentive to act. The opposite leads to apathy. The person who feels that they have no control is likely to think “There is nothing I can do, so I won’t do anything.” Of course, the practical reality is that we do not have total control. But we can influence the future. Knowing that, if we work at it, we can at least control the way we think and act.

 

Ownership refers to the sense of accountability for outcomes. With ownership comes the drive to avoid or work through adversity.

 

Reach looks at the scope of adversity. If adversity is viewed as having a very broad impact on one’s life, the individual will likely feel helpless and pessimistic. They will feel as if they have little control, and according to Stoltz, will make poor decisions and isolate themselves. Containing adversity, seeing its impact as having a defined scope, benefits individuals and groups by increasing a sense of control and promoting ownership.

 

Endurance is linked to the perceived duration of an adverse event. If the adversity is seen as temporary one will be more likely to push on than if it is viewed as never ending. For example, a project manager who perceives that their innate ability (a permanent condition) is the cause of a failure is less likely to persevere than one who views the cause as a temporary condition, like an error or insufficient effort, which can be corrected.

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

Developing a Resilience Mindset

Resilience can be cultivated. The C.O.R. E. dimensions point to a mindset change. Mindset drives feelings and feelings drive behavior, and performance.

When we have a mindset that believes that we can influence the conditions we face and that we are accountable for the outcome, we shift from helplessness to power. With a mindset that is intent on learning from the agitation that comes with adversity there is acceptance rather than pushing away or hiding from unpleasant feelings.

 

In one situation a project manager faced with the loss of a key, highly skilled project team member who held significant institutional knowledge was able to move on and recover. Recognizing but not being driven by her anxiety, she mentally stepped back and worked out a transition plan including a “download” of information and adjustments to the schedule. The project would not only succeed but would be in a better position because it no longer relied on a single key player.

We are most able to manage adversity when we step back, own the situation, assess it, define its reach and duration, and understand that the change or problem is not the end of the world as we know it.

 

How do You Change Your Mindset

It is easy to say, “Change your mindset and become resilient.” However, doing it requires intention, self-awareness, and intentional patient effort.

 

To break the habits that get in the way of resilience:

  • Understand that your mindset is the result of years of conditioning and mental habits.
  • Know that you can change the way you think by patiently
    • paying attention to your thoughts and feelings,
    • questioning your beliefs and biases, and
    • persistently applying the effort needed to change.

 

References

The relationship between adversity quotient® and job – PEAK Learning
The power of Adversity Quotient to one’s productivity
Organizational Resilience and Adversity Quotient
PMTimes_July11_2023

Managing Disgruntled Stakeholders: All Feedback is Useful

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles.

“You can please some of the people all of the time,

you can please all of the people some of the time,

but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

John Lydgate adapted by A. Lincoln

 

In complex programs and projects (as well as in life in general) it seems that you can’t always satisfy everyone. Even if you put out a great product someone will think it should be more perfect, different, or delivered sooner for less.

 

If you choose a vendor, won’t like your pick. Some think there is too much communication while others think there is not enough. Some have an old grudge, an ax to grind, and no matter what you do it won’t be enough, they’ll criticize and come up with should haves and could haves that make your decisions look lame. Some like green, others like blue.

 

The master project manager cares about what the critics have to say but is not driven or upset by it. The PM cares because what critics say may be relevant and useful and/or because others my hear it and it may affect their decisions, opinion of the product, and the PM’s performance. The goal is to satisfy everyone, if possible. And it is not always possible.

 

As a rule, it is best to hear what is being said about your project, decisions, and results, objectively assess its content and relevance so you can decide what to do about it Note that if you ignore it, you open yourself to the risk of making a disgruntled stakeholder even more angry and dissatisfied.

 

Timing

Criticism is most valuable when it is received before action is taken. If a plan or decision is criticized there is an opportunity to make changes before it is acted upon with minimal cost. After the fact, the information may be useful as a means for learning, but it won’t affect the outcome or may be too costly to use.

 

In one case a stakeholder, let’s call her Jane, criticized the choice of a contractor based on history with the vendor. The information would have been useful in making the decision to put the vendor on a “short list” after an initial assessment. When the list was made public Jane complained, with disdain for the decision makers – “How could you shortlist them after what they have done?”

 

Because the final choice had not yet been made Jane’s information could still be used. Had Jane waited until the final choice was made, the information would have been completely useless and no more than a way to make the decision makers look bad or somehow make Jane look good.

 

Soliciting Feedback

To get timely criticism it must be solicited. This may take the form of focus groups, or asking individuals to provide their opinions so you can use them to make better decisions.

Who do you ask? As usual, it depends on the situation – sometimes you seek out people with expertise in the subject matter, or who have ‘good’ taste, or who will be affected by the decision.

 

For example, if you are considering design you would want to solicit technical design input from engineers, software experts, etc. If it is about look and feel, then it would be potential users or clients, as well as designers with aesthetic views.

 

Note that it is not uncommon for project managers and decision makers to avoid getting input from others. They may believe that it overcomplicates the decision making and is costly in the time and effort needed to prepare effective solicitations, sift through, assess, and respond. Avoiding feedback may also be caused by “ego issues” like a sense of superiority or insecurity.

 

While it is true that extra effort is required, not soliciting feedback opens the risk that stakeholders will be dissatisfied and critical after the decision has been acted upon to create a fait accompli.

Note that we are not implying that a democratic vote should be taken or that opinions received must be used to make the final decision. The project plan and organizational protocols and policies establish the authority of decision makers. What is being implied is that it is wise to solicit input as a means of making better decisions.

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

 

Substantive or Empty: Fact Check

The timing of criticism and the solicitation of feedback are important as is considering the accuracy and relevancy of the content.

Was Jane’s experience with the vendor recent or in the far distant past? Had the contractor learned from the experience and changed its methods and personnel to avoid a repeat of poor performance? What were other customers’ experiences? What was Jane’s relationship with the vendor, for example was there a personal issue that tainted Jane’s view? How complicit was Jane in the vendor being unsuccessful?

 

To make effective use of critical input it is necessary to assess, and fact check it in order to make an informed decision. To simply take it at face value, whether you accept it, reject it, or ignore it, leaves the door open for additional criticism and loses the benefits that may come from the feedback.

 

Politics

There are political issues. Feedback from a senior stakeholder must be addressed in a way that does not create unpleasant ripples. Imagine if Jane was the project’s senior sponsor or a highly placed and influential client. Would questioning his/her/their opinion result in an explosive response or would it be viewed as the normal and wise thing to do? That depends on Jane’s mindset.

Stakeholders are people with biases and beliefs that are often perceived as being “truths.” Questioning their opinion may be taken as a personal affront. So be careful.

 

Ignore or Respond

If you receive feedback respond. Ignoring it risks upsetting its source and demotivating people from giving feedback in the future.

The response may be a simple statement like “Thank you.  We will take your input and fold it into our decision making.”  This recognizes the effort taken by the source while not committing the decision makers to following the advice offered. You might want to go further and give reasons for not complying or to say how you chose to make a change based on what you have received.

 

Open To Criticism

If you are open to feedback and criticism, solicit it, and respond with courtesy and respect, you will have fewer disgruntled stakeholders and better decisions.

 

PMTimes_July4_2023

Make Accountability a Cultural Norm: Stop Blaming

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles.

Just about everyone says they believe in accountability; many try to avoid it.

 

In previous articles[1] I highlighted the nature of accountability and its benefits. I’m returning to the theme because it remains a controversial topic that is linked to performance improvement and the cultural and psychological biases that get in the way.

 

Accountability is “The obligation for an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner.”[2] It is the obligation to report and explain about what one does and does not do and to take responsibility for the consequences – “being called to account for one’s actions.”2[3]

 

Accountability is simply about acknowledging both your own behavior, and the behavior of others.

 

Though it is not so simple. It is linked to perfectionism and the avoidance of criticism. It is complicated by the reality that there are often several decision makers responsible for an outcome and that results are caused by changing and uncertain conditions, outside of anyone’s control. Accountability is too often linked to blame.

A goal is to make accountability a norm embedded in a culture committed to optimal performance. When we do that, we must avoid finger pointing and replace it with cause analysis and action to remediate current issues and avoid future instances of unskillful behavior.

 

A Scenario

Let’s look at a scenario from a construction project that as an example of accountability in action:

A contractor responsible for laying down a concrete sidewalk pours concrete on one segment that is widely off from the color expected by the sponsor. The contractor had provided a selection of samples and a light gray one was chosen. The concrete poured was yellow! When the project manager saw it he was not happy. He was even less happy when the sponsor saw it and irately demanded an explanation. The PM was accountable to the sponsor but was not responsible for the error. The contractor, accountable to the PM, took responsibility even though the underlying cause of the problem was with the vendor who supplied the cement. That vendor was accountable to the contractor.

 

The contractor didn’t try to wriggle out of the need to replace the concrete (an expensive undertaking). He took responsibility.

There was no anger, no finger pointing. Just recognition of the problem, who was responsible for remediating it, a course of remedial action, and agreement about the outcome.

 

Had the contractor behaved differently, the issues would probably end up in a legal battle and over time a poor image for the contractor. By looking at the causes of the error, the contractor and the sponsoring organization could find ways of avoiding similar problems in the future.

 

Blame is Why We Are Not Candid and Honest

Accountability is simple, but there is a big if. Candid and honest reporting is not always evident. And the reason for that is rooted in the need to blame someone and the tendency of people to avoid blame.

To blame is to “assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.” Synonyms for blame are to criticize, condemn, find fault with fault, denounce, attack, guilt, etc.

 

A recent Harvard Business Review article stated that blame is the most destructive behavior in relationships. It encompasses criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.

The author goes on to explain that “humans are all naturally wired to blame other people or circumstances when things go wrong.” … “Our brains interpret blame the same way they interpret a physical attack.” And “Blame also kills healthy, accountable behaviors. Nobody wants to be accountable for problems if they think they’ll be punished for doing so. Furthermore, learning and problem solving go out the window in workplaces that tolerate blame. Instead of learning from mistakes, blamed employees tend to hide their mistakes.” [3]

 

To make accountability part of the culture it is necessary to change the mindset from blaming to learning from mistakes.

To do that it is necessary to combine training, planning, and practical lessons learned sessions following projects and when errors occur during projects.

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

Training

There is a need for training that directly addresses accountability and awareness of the tendency to blame and avoid being blamed and how that tendency gets in the way of sustainable optimal performance.

That kind of training is uncommon, particularly in the places that need it most. It is often left out of project management and other business courses. There is a tendency to avoid psychological and mindset issues.

 

Effective psychological and mindset training requires skillful facilitation and is often best done by embedding it into “practical” management education and reinforcing it regularly in lessons learned activities. Many very good technical management skills trainers are not qualified to teach the emotional and social awareness skills that are needed to address the issue of blaming and accountability. These skills require experiential learning that goes beyond intellectual/conceptual thinking, and sensitivity to those who may be averse to looking at their own thinking and emotional awareness.

 

Planning

On a more concrete level, accountability and responsibility begin with planning. Communications planning sets the stage for accountability by establishing a reporting process.

Human resource planning establishes responsibility for reporting and performance. Task planning, scope definition, scheduling, risk management and cost estimating set expectations and define roles and responsibilities.

With a comprehensive plan a baseline and with the expectation of candid and honest reporting, accountability becomes a reality, unless it is blocked by cultural and emotional resistance.

 

Lessons Learned: What, Not Who, is the Cause

Lessons from past performance are learned during debriefs held whenever a project ends and at key points during project life. Looking back at performance is a means for individuals and organizations to learn from experience. The focus is to find causes, not point fingers.

Quality management gurus agree that the causes of errors and quality shortfalls are caused by flaws in the system rather than by individual performance alone. Even though an individuals’ behavior is the direct cause of a problem, systemic issues like poor training, inadequate support, unreasonable expectations, and flawed processes are often the underlying cause

 

[3] https://hbr.org/2022/02/blame-culture-is-toxic-heres-how-to-stop-it#:~:text=Humans%20are%20wired%20to%20blame.&text=These%20propensities%20are%20partially%20psychological,or%20environmental)%20influencing%20their%20behavior.

 

Assess Your Process

The way forward to a culture that values and uses accountability to promote improvement begins with assessment, so that individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole can acknowledge the degree to which they avoid or promote accountability and eliminate blaming.

 

[1] https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/accountability-and-performance/ and https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/accountability-a-contributor-to-optimal-performance/
[2] www.businessdictionary.com/definition/accountability.htm
[3] Sinclair, Amanda (1995). “The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses”. Accounting, Organizations and Society20 (2/3): 219–237. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0003-Y