How to Get Project Teams to Respond

by David Ashley

Real-world project management doesn’t always conform to the path prescribed in best practices, such as the PMBOK Guide. That’s probably a gross understatement for some work environments. Logical or not, those of influence within organizations tend to get their way. Here’s my war warn advice: don’t fight it. Instead, work with it.

Here’s one common example: amidst the flurry and weight of operational demands, something as simple as getting project team members to respond to basic information requests can be extremely frustrating to the project manager and the project timeline. Since management approved and prioritized the project, one would think that the demand to execute the project (under the authority of management) would be met with at least the same urgency of any other equally important operational request. But, that’s not always the case. Since it’s “only” a project, it’s somehow less important. Such is the common battle between operations and projects.

I took over one project in which the business lead was at her wits end. A priority project has been approved (a project manager had yet to be assigned), but no one was providing the information she needed to determine the scope of the work to be done by a very specific date. This date could not move because it was governed by an outside audit agency. And so with every passing day she became even more frustrated.

I discovered that she was new to the organization and her only mode of requesting the information she needed was through a very brief initial meeting and a series of email follow-ups to an initial email. The people to provide the information worked just down the hall from her. They were in the middle of a massive operational workload and the team was understaffed.

We can surmise from this that it was a complex situation:

• The business lead was new to the organization and had yet to understand the culture or establish a working relationship with the teams.
• Low-impact communications channels rarely get the job done.
• It is unreasonable to expect more output from overworked staff.
• It is challenging to compete with real-world operational work.

All these might be reasons that make this type of situation challenging. However, there are techniques that can minimize the effect of even the most difficult situations. Here are a few:

Start Smart. Start by setting expectations at the onset of the project. This should include a communications plan. This should also include an honest risk analysis - a realistic understanding of potential blockers, team challenges, and competing work priorities. Meet with key team members prior to project kickoff to discuss anything that may prevent the on-time completion of the project. And more importantly, begin to establish a partnership to overcome these things. Ask: How can I help make this work? Transparently put all these things on the table during the kickoff meeting.

Make Fast Friendlies. Don’t just be a task master. Get to know your team members. Understand what motivates them and how to best work together with them as individuals in various situations. It’s easier to inspire a friend than an adversary. This takes time, which isn’t an abundant commodity. So, do it quickly. Forward positive statements followed quickly by positive actions usually does the trick. For instance: “Mike I would like to create some time for you to work on this. What if I talked with Kathy to get what you need from her? Then I’ll stop by in an hour so I can pick up the information I need from you. Does that work?” Create opportunities to do favors, work together, and demonstrate the concept of teamwork.

Communicate Broadly. Include managers of project team members in all communications. Consider including everyone in your communications who has the power to motivate a successful ending. Be constructively annoying. However, be sensible. Don’t break protocol – you probably don’t want to involve VPs in routine tasks. Your relationship building will help you understand how to best communicate with and gain cooperation from individuals. Talk face-to-face if that works better. Call them if that works better. Meet them for lunch or coffee if that works. Send friendly instant message reminders. But don’t be or nagging. Inject humor. A sincere smile goes a long way. Figure out what method of communication works for each individual and use it. On any particular project you may have multiple methods of communicating with each team member.

Specificity is a Necessity. Plainly broadcast the work to be done, who is expected to do the work, and when it is expected to be done. These three elements leave no question in anyone’s mind about expectations. A brief note: don’t make up dates. As much as possible, dates should be given to you by the person expected to do the work. Sometimes they don’t have much of a choice, but give them as much authority as you can to determine the pace of work and target dates.

These are a few ways to get teams to respond. Use them in combination with any other best practice that works within your organization to help reduce frustration on teams and projects. How can you get teams to respond? It’s pretty simple: be a team member.

Managing Dissonance

by David Ashley

Project managers are charged with the responsibility of leading and managing teams to achieve predefined goals. Creating a carefully constructed plan and executing to that plan is central to what separates effective project managers from those that are not. Simple, right? Not quite.

Here’s the thing: executing a great plan relies on people. People have a propensity to shift between two opposing ideas. They do this when it makes them feel better. It can happen at any time. In psychology this is referred to as cognitive dissonance. (McLeod, 2008)

A few examples:

• We might think that killing is bad, but not as an act of war.
• Many who believe that personal debt is disadvantageous will have credit card balances.
• People who commit to a project plan will decide not follow the plan.

Most people have an innate need to avoid inner conflict, to keep harmony between attitudes and beliefs and to avoid imbalance between values and actions. When faced with two opposing ideas we naturally need to deconflict. We generally have three approaches to maintaining inner harmony.  

• We change or reverse our attitudes
• We gather more information to sway the attitude in favor of one of the ideas
• We decrease the importance of one attitude in a way that favors the other

All of these types of actions involve rationalization. Rationalizing is not always a negative behavior, but in this context we are defining it as the act of convincing ourselves that it’s reasonable to discredit one idea to favor another. We do this even if we had previously favored the now discredited idea.

There have been studies on the origin of cognitive dissonance. One research article talks about how children and monkeys both used decision rationalization when given the option between two choices of equal value. (Egan, 2007) I have seen evidence of a similar type of rationalization behavior in adults during some of the projects I’ve managed; between choices that could be understood as equally valued. For instance, the choice between performing a task to resolve a real-world operational priority and a high priority project task.

When after establishing a high value on following a project plan (from the earlier example), a team member chooses not to follow the plan because they have rationalized a different attitude about the value of following the plan in favor of another option for that moment or in a given situation.

People rationalize behavior. You might say, “Of course we do.” But if it is a matter of course then why do we still struggle with this behavior in projects? If we understand it so well, then why do we not immediately recognize it for what it is and adjust accordingly as if it's normal or expected?  

Realistically, these situations can be very complex with many interrelated contributing factors. But for the sake of understanding some basic managerial approaches we will keep this simple. The question we will attempt to answer here is: what is a project manager to do about the disruptive nature of cognitive dissonance during a project?

What happens psychologically to a team member who chooses against following the project plan (again, from our example)?  They have either (or in some combination):

• Changed their attitude toward their commitment to the project
• Received information that led them to believe something else was more important than the project
• Decreased the importance of their commitment to the project

In any of these situations there is a cognitive process, perhaps some rationalization.

Here are a few suggestions for the project manager:

• Formulate a realistic risk management plan. Take some time at the beginning of the project to understand and openly discuss the risk of losing commitment to the project. Consider other scheduled tasks and the likelihood of unscheduled tasks. Talk through how the team will handle these situations before they happen. (Raydugin, 2016)
• Use the risk management plan to the advantage of the project without minimizing the value of other choices. During project status checks, specifically ask if the team knows of anything that may block the accomplishment of upcoming tasks. If any are identified, refer to the risk management plan and exercise the resolution documented in the plan. This will strengthen the relationship between team members, respect the value of other demands, and eventually form a sustained commitment to completing the project.
• Be as generous as possible with timelines. Be aggressive toward meeting goals, but account for all reasonable disruptions in the project timeline. Be fair to team members with regard to their schedules and other priority work. They need to know that the project manager is on their side and flexible enough to accommodate conflicting priorities. However, team members must also be held accountable to their commitments. Agree on the balance.
• Communicate often, formally and informally. Constantly communicate, and not just during scheduled meetings. But don’t be a nag or show disrespect. Demonstrate a genuine interest in the time challenges team members are facing. Offer to work with them and their management to achieve project goals as well as other high priority tasks.

Responsible team members choose project success. Innovative project managers find ways of making workable choices by dissolving the three primary reasons for abandoning commitment to the project. 

Practice these methods:

• Be fair and available to team members in a way that attitudes about the project don’t shift negative.
• Develop and exercise risks plans that have the flexibility to ensure any information gathered about other priorities does not sway their attitude toward the project.
• Reinforce relationships in a way that keeps the importance of completing the project high.

Cognitive dissonance is a theory of which project managers should be aware and know the steps they can take to help combat some of the uneasiness that befalls team members during project execution.  This article outlines some of the methods that can be used. Choose success through innovation!

References

Egan, L. S. (2007, November). The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance, Evidence from Children and Monkeys. Psychological Science, 18(11), 978–983.

McLeod, S. (2008). Cognitive Dissonance. Retrieved from Simply Psychology: http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Raydugin, Y. (2016). Handbook of Research on Leveraging Risk and Uncertainties for Effective Project Management. IGI Global.