Why Sales Superstars May Not Become Sales Management Superstars - 10 Qualities of Top Sales Managers

The following job promotion ritual is repeated in numerous sales organizations every year:

Step 1: A sales management position is vacant due to growth, attrition, or the dismissal of an existing sales manager; Step 2: The top sales representative in the organization (or department) is selected to fill the vacancy; Step 3: The top salesperson doesn't like to (or is unable to) manage the sales performance of other individuals, so he keeps focused on personal selling initiatives, but in doing so, is failing in his role as sales manager; Step 4: The cycle repeats itself.

Although sales representatives and sales managers both work within the realm of selling, many of the strengths required for success in the roles of sales manager differ than the strengths required for success in the role of sales person. Therefore, few top-performing salespeople will become top-performing sales managers. This is important to know if you're looking to hire a new sales manager in your company, and you expect this individual to be successful filling that role.

This isn't a phenomenon that's unique to selling. There are many highly-skilled and successful physicians, for example who are unable to effectively manage a staff of other physicians. There are many prized athletes who are not able to successfully coach a team of other athletes. There are skilled kitchen designers, plumbers, and attorneys who are unable to manage respective groups of other kitchen designers, plumbers, and attorneys.

Before I offer support for my thesis, allow me to confess that there are two situations where I will not argue with the individual who says the top salesperson in an organization will become a successful sales manager:

(1) The first is where where the new sales manager retains the responsibility for personally generating sales revenue. This individual is, in effect, either a part-time sales manager, or a sales manager in title only; (2) The second is when the sales manager's role is to be almost exclusively a rain-maker (a generator of new business opportunities). That is a selling role that some sales managers play, but it is not a management role per se.

The following is a list of strengths (skills) that are required to achieve phenomenal success as the manager of a sales team (or any team, for that matter). However, none of these skills are substantially required for phenomenal success in front-line selling. This doesn't mean that a top sales performer will never be a top sales management performer, but it means that the strengths required to fill the two roles are substantially different.

Strength #1. Delegating.
The sales manager certainly cannot do the front-line sales activity for his entire sales group himself. Meeting a sales quota requires the contribution of all members of the sales team. The successful sales manager must possess the ability to delegate responsibility to others so the group can achieve its goals. Delegating is quite a different skill than, say, closing skill, which is required of top sales performers, but the skill of delegation is not a skill which is typically required for top sales performance.

Strength #2. Willing to give up the top spot.
Top sales performers who become sales managers must be entirely willing to give up the position of top performer in a sales organization. For those who can't, disaster awaits. Sales managers must be willing and able to put their top salespeople on pedestals so their egos can be adequately fed, while also keeping their own egos in check for the sake of the advancement of their team. In a larger organization there is still opportunity for competition between several or many sales managers, but a top sales manager has to be able to point to his top performer and give her credit for being the top salesperson in his group. He also has to encourage other non-top-performers to become top-performers. Since many salespeople have been ego-driven in their successful sales careers, this transition from achiever to encourager is critical. The skill of allowing someone else to be the top dog is not a skill required for success in selling, and in fact, can be antithetical to it. Many sales managers who have previously been a top sales performer who have been driven throughout his entire career to achieve "pedestal" status will not work tirelessly to put another individual on this same pedestal.

Strength #3. Focusing on others.
Sales management requires an outward focus on others' sales performance, whereas successful selling requires an inward focus on one's own sales performance. Being in control of your own sales is one thing; but it's impossible to be in control of an entire team's sales. Therefore, a loss of direct control of the sale is required in favor of a focus on the sales manager's team members.

Strength #4. Supervising.
Sale managers must possess front-line supervisory skills. They need to know how and when to step in to discipline or change behaviors in an employee. They must possess wisdom about when to support subordinates versus when to discipline them. Top sales performers do not need supervisory skills to achieve top dog status.

Strength #5. Managing.
The key skill of the manager is to utilize every subordinate's special strengths to achieve the goals of the sales group. Weaknesses in employees exist, but assembling a group of team members who have strengths in the right areas, and knowing how to put those strengths to work, is not required of top sales performers. It is, however, required of sales managers who wish to achieve top sales performance. These management concepts are described by Marcus Buckingham in his book "The One Thing You Need to Know About Great Managing, Great Leading, and Sustained Individual Success" (Simon & Schuster, 2005).

Strength #6. Coaching, training, mentoring.
Successful sales managers should be able to coax salespeople to improved performance, both in one-on-one coaching events and in classroom training environments. Although there may be some of these elements present in all selling top performers, these elements are crucial for top sales management performance.

Strength #7. Leading.
According to Marcus Buckingham, again in "The One Thing You Need to Know," successful leaders have two key attributes: (1) They have the ability to create a vision for the future; and (2) They have the ability to get subordinates lined up within this vision, so that individuals' efforts will support, and not hamper, the group's progress. Successful sales managers have these leadership attributes. Leadership skill is not required of top sales performers.

Strength #8. Filtering directives.
The sales manager will receive many directives from her superiors. To be effective, she must know when to filter out or adjust these directives, and when to take them on with reckless abandon. This is a delicate balance, and not knowing when to do which one can wreak havoc in a sales organization. The wisdom to know when to embrace upper-management directives, and when to subtly give them secondary attention, will help determine the success of the sales manager's team, and therefore, the success of the sales manager.

Strength #9. Hiring and Firing.
Top-performing sales managers must make be able to accurately predict sales performance during the interviewing process, and must leverage that ability in their hiring of subordinates. Without this ability, sales performance will suffer. Top sales performers do not need this predictive skill. Successful sales manager must also know how and when to remove an employee from their team so that negative repercussions are minimized.

Strength #10. Deciding.
There's no question that making good decisions is important in successful selling. But in a sales management role, all decisions are magnified because each decision affects more than one individual. The sales manager's decisions affect an entire staff of sales professionals and their customers. This means decision-making skills are vital for the sales manager.

There are many skills required for sales success. Among them are the ability to prospect and create business opportunities, the ability to identify prospects' needs, and ability to close the sale. But the sales management qualities listed above are not substantially required for individual selling success.

While there's some overlap between the required skill of the peak-performing sales manager and the peak-performing sales person, here's my advice: if you're looking for a sales manager who will succeed, hire one that possesses the strengths of a sales manager (those listed strengths above). Many peak-performing salespeople don't possess those strengths.

Project Management 2.0 - The Ultimate Benefits Of The New Approach To Project Management

NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESSES BROUGHT BY ENTERPRISE 2.0

The social network phenomenon has already transformed the consumer Web into so-called "Web 2.0." Now Web 2.0 is affecting business processes in thousands of organizations by offering incredible communication and collaboration opportunities known as "Enterprise 2.0." "All these things that are thought to be consumer services are coming into the enterprise," says former Oracle Corp. President Ray Lane, now a general partner at the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Major corporations all over the world, such as IBM, Procter & Gamble, and Walt Disney, have embraced Enterprise 2.0 technologies. We are witnessing the transformation of traditional ways of doing business, and this transformation is caused by the new-generation applications.

The term Enterprise 2.0 was coined by Andrew McAfee, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, in spring 2006. Professor McAfee introduced this term to describe the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their peers (partners or customers).

Through the adoption of wikis, blogs, collaboration planning tools, social networks, and other "weapons of mass collaboration," as Don Trapscott calls them in his book Wikinomics, collaboration patterns are changing in today's organizations. Enterprise 2.0 software and business practices provide managers with access to the right information at the right time through a system of interconnected applications and services. Examples of thousands of small companies as well as giants like Microsoft, Toyota, and many others show that Web-based Enterprise 2.0 applications let businesses obtain a huge competitive advantage in the form of enforced innovation, productivity, and agility through access to the collective intelligence of many professionals.

Efficient gathering and sharing of information, facilitated social connections within enterprises, and improved customer interactions are not the only benefits that Enterprise 2.0 software delivers to small companies and huge corporations. Let's see how these tools can help to manage projects.

THE NEW APPROACH TO MANAGING PROJECTS

The Enterprise 2.0 movement is naturally affecting and captivating project management in organizations. Blogs, wikis, and other second-generation tools offer better opportunities for communication and collaboration. Thus they provide a great potential for improving existing project management practices.

Traditionally, a project manager is the major link in all project-related communications. This directly influences the efficiency of the team, as well as the manager's own productivity. Nowadays, many companies still utilize Microsoft Excel spreadsheets or traditional project management applications, like Microsoft Project, for tracking their projects. E-mailing text documents and spreadsheets is still very popular, despite its many shortcomings.

E-mail is a closed communication medium, and many companies confirm that it does a poor job of capturing and sharing knowledge. For example, if you e-mail a document to two people, you then have three copies of this document to manage, merge, and differentiate. It is hard to work on this document simultaneously. This is not the only problem. Knowledge is buried in e-mails, as it is available only to the sender and the recipients, so all the other team members cannot benefit from it. For example, if an employee e-mails a status update to his manager, the change will only be visible to other people after the manager manually updates the schedule. This produces unnecessary work and delays the exchange of information. There is little visibility and control over the project if all information is buried in thousands of e-mails residing in employees' mailboxes. The list of disadvantages could go on.

Traditional project management tools are not focused on collaboration, either. They were mostly designed with the top-down approach in mind and are not meant for open collaboration. These tools are focused on a project manager and make him the core element of the project communications. He first has to pull facts out of employees through meetings and e-mails, then put them into a file and communicate the project plan to upper management and clients. The process is then repeated every time something changes. The project manager also needs to play the role of an alarm clock, reminding employees of their deadlines and overdue tasks. The whole process turns out to be time-consuming and effortful, and it results in a heavy burden for a project manager. The amount of routine work sometimes does not leave the manager time for leadership.

Enterprise 2.0 technologies catalyze innovations in project management. These innovations can be called Project Management 2.0. The term highlights a new approach to project management, characterized by a dramatic shift toward having collaboration as the heart of managing projects. The new-generation tools take care of the routine part of a project manager's work: reminding team members about deadlines, merging status updates into a single plan, and communicating changes. New tools also let people collaborate and share information easily. The role of the project manager is changing; he is becoming a project visionary, instead of a taskmaster. New-generation tools give him more space for being a project leader.

What makes the new technologies so effective? I will list the five key benefits below.

Making It Simple to Collaborate

One of the major constraints associated with traditional project management software was its complexity. Traditional tools have hundreds of features, which take months to master. Adoption of traditional project management software is often connected with spending a lot of the employees' time and the company's money on training. In contrast, the second-generation project management tools are lightweight and easy to use. They provide an opportunity to start collaborating immediately, without any delays for extensive learning and initial set-up.

New project management tools can be easily utilized even by unskilled computer users, making it possible to involve more people in project collaboration. A well-known example is blogging. It is very simple to share ideas in a blog and get feedback in comments. Simplicity drives adoption. When people like the software, they use it more often.

New software tools provide a much better user experience, which helps to solve one of the biggest challenges of traditional software packages. One of the major problems with traditional tools was the users' unwillingness to update data regularly. Plans often got outdated and became useless because of that. New tools are much more convenient to use. For example, they let you create tasks in the system by sending e-mails from their Blackberry devices. This level of simplicity and convenience engages users and thus helps to keep information up-to-date. This is a critical component for successful project management software implementation. The power of new tools comes to the surface when they turn simple actions of individual users into a great product of collective work. In Enterprise 2.0 terms, it is called collective intelligence and emergent structures.

Collective intelligence is the capacity of human communities to evolve to higher order complexity and harmony, through differentiation, integration, competition and collaboration. In other words, it is a form of intelligence that emerges from the collaboration and competition of many individuals. This notion is closely connected with the term "emergent structures."

Emergence is a way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. In plain terms it is a form of collective behaviour, when parts of a system do together that they would not do by themselves. Therefore, emergent structures are the structures that appear as a result of multiple, relatively simple interactions of a number of individuals. The interactions are uncontrolled, but are purposeful.

Together these two powerful principles make project management 2.0 tools powerful instruments for improving teams' productivity.

Taking Advantage of the Wisdom of the Whole Team

The new-generation, Web-based tools give team members an easy way to contribute to the common repository of tasks and plans. These tools unleash the power of collective intelligence and change the pattern of project management.

In his book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki states that "groups are remarkably intelligent and are often smarter than the smartest people in them. Groups do not need to be dominated by exceptionally intelligent people in order to be smart." He also stresses that "decentralization's greatest strength is that it encourages independence and specialization on the one hand while still allowing people to coordinate their activities and solve difficult problems."

With the new technologies, people get a more efficient working environment where they can gather and share knowledge from different fields that each project team member is an expert in. The project manager guides the team's work and chooses the right direction, based on the information received from the individual employees. The tools even help the manager to merge this information, turning an e-mail mess into well-organized timelines.

At the same time the new-generation tools let project managers control changes and the progress of the project work. Reporting is highly automated on all levels, including corporate executives, who get their view of the project automatically.

The reports are pulled on the fly from real data, so they are up-to-date. All these factors boost the team's productivity and help the company make the right decisions at the right time.
Collective intelligence goes hand-in-hand with emergent structures, another practice that has a great impact on contemporary project management.

Many-to-Many Structure Benefits

Microsoft Project and many other traditional management tools allow you to have only a strict, one-to-many work breakdown structure of tasks (and other similar items). This creates several negative consequences. First, there can be only one view of the project, while in real life there might be a need to have many different views of the same project. Project marketers, business analyst, engineers, and testers might want to slice the project in different ways. Often, the same person needs different slices - for example, by release and by feature. This inconvenience makes the software less usable and thus people become hesitant to check plans and update them regularly. On one hand, these factors lead to obsolete and useless project plans. On the other hand, the necessity to select one work breakdown structure greatly increases the cost of mistake for the project manager.

The whole process becomes very tricky and requires a lot of up-front thinking, predictions, and responsibility for the project manager.

Project management 2.0 tools have fewer restrictions. They let structures emerge, without strong central control. These structures are born from lots of little interactions that are designed to solve specific problems. For example, collaboration planning tools, like Wrike allow work-breakdown structures to emerge from the bottom up. What employees design as the best work-breakdown structure for their tasks becomes a part of a bigger picture seen by the manager.

In these tools hierarchies are many-to-many, in contrast to the one-to-many hierarchy in Microsoft Project. This effectively means that you can pick any reasonable sub-set of tasks, create a view and share it with someone who needs this view. It is not like all-or-nothing sharing of a file. At the end of the day more people can collaborate. As the new tools allow team members to make changes to the initial structure simultaneously, more people can organize and reorganize their views, and more structures emerge. The resulting structures fit project participants much better than one stiff work-breakdown structure.

This agility helps to bring iterative and incremental practices into project management without giving away the control.The project manager's job becomes more about coordination and guidance than routine manual updates, and the whole team can react to changes much faster.

Project management 2.0 tools allow you to start with one task, add twenty more, organize them, add more tasks, reorganize them, and repeat the process on a daily basis by many or your employees and managers. When seven employees share their daily to-do lists with a team leader, the team leader gets a bigger picture. When five team leaders share their teams' plans with project managers, a picture gets bigger. When it goes through directors and the vice president to the CEO, the whole structure evolves from what was one task into a big ecosystem that perfectly suits the organization. All with a help of very simple tools and very powerful principles that stay behind those tools - collective intelligence and emergent structures.

Empowered by emergent structures and collective intelligence, project managers can combine field knowledge coming bottom-up with the guidance coming top-down. There is also a significant benefit for executives: emergent structures emergent allow you to get complete visibility that bridges the gap between strategic corporate plans and daily to-do lists of employees. Getting the Bigger Picture
Full insight into what is going on in the organization is vital for aligning internal business resources with the requirements of the changing environment. For example, if we speak of software development, the bug fixing schedule may affect the next release schedule. The next release schedule in its turn may affect the marketing campaign, which may affect sales plans. Sales plans will naturally have an impact on financial plans. Having the whole picture helps corporate executives to make a better choice for allocating internal resources when there is a need to react properly to the changes in the business environment. Project management 2.0 tools empowered by emergent structures and many-to-many hierarchies are naturally able to provide this big picture view. Emergent structures help to turn separated strategic plans, quarterly plans, project plans and daily to-do lists of team members into one business development master plan. Many-to-many hierarchies let corporate executives see each project and their whole organization from different points of view. These two powerful principles allow managers to drill down to each team member's tasks and follow the work of the whole enterprise at the same time.
When project managers can easily view every detail of their project development, and corporate executives are able to use their business resources most rationally, projects bring value faster.

Productivity Boost

With new tools, project managers save hours on routine operations related to aggregating the information from e-mails and meetings and keeping it up to date. Reporting is simplified on all levels, as part of it can be easily achieved by sharing the related part of the collaborative workspace. Second-generation project management software gives every team member an opportunity to be aware of the changes in the project without unnecessary meetings, e-mails, and phone calls. The collaboration becomes much faster and much more productive. It results in faster project delivery and faster return on investment.

To start innovation and improvements in your organization is easy. As was already mentioned above, new tools are very user-friendly and easy to adopt. You just have to pick the right ones.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.0 TOOLS: A NEW COLLABORATIVE SPACE

Perhaps the most popular of the new-generation applications that companies can benefit from are blogs, wikis, and collaboration planning tools.

Blogs

Both internal and external use of blogs can be advantageous for a project. The major benefit of internal blogging is that it gives the opportunity to facilitate direct communication between various layers of an organization. Blogs allow team members who otherwise would not have been aware of or invited to participate in a discussion to contribute their expertise. Thousands of companies now use blogging tools like Blogger, LiveJournal, Typepad, Movable Type, WordPress or Radio UserLand. For example, British Library and University College London collaborate on a project called the LIFE (Lifecycle Information for E-Literature) through a blog. A blog is a way for these two organizations to work together more efficiently and keep all the project information in one place.

External blogging helps to encourage the strongest community goodwill, and this goodwill, in turn, promotes significant marketing and sales gains. Thousands of companies are already reaping the rewards of their investment in external project blogging. For, example, companies like Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun Microsystems, and SAP write project blogs on a regular basis. The number of non-technology organizations that have their own project blogs is rapidly growing, too. One of the most prominent examples is the From Edison's Desk blog - a blog for the GE Global Research project. It offers an opportunity for technology enthusiasts around the globe to discuss the future of technology with top researchers from one of the world's largest and most diverse industrial research labs.

Wikis

A wiki is another technology that can be successfully applied to managing projects. Its basic advantage is that it lets users to create, edit, and link Web pages easily. Wikis usually have very few restrictions, thus they tend to accumulate a shared knowledge that was traditionally kept out of stiff corporate enterprise software and intranets - the knowledge that was usually buried in e-mails. A good example of wiki usage would be Dresdner Kleinwort, the investment banking division of Dresdner Bank AG that gained an e-mail traffic volume reduction by 75%. They also slashed meeting time in half. Another example is a Linux-based operating system called Fedora, which uses a project wiki to bring the end user's point of view into the product development. There are a lot of wiki solutions that are be successfully used by many companies. The most well-known is an open source wiki called MediaWiki, the one that is used by Wikipedia.

Wikis and blogs are good generic tools that can help to share knowledge much more effectively than e-mails. To gain visibility and control over operations, companies also need to empower their managers and employees with a collaborative planning solution.

Collaboration Planning Tools

New collaboration applications and platforms combine the level of control associated with traditional project management software with the benefits of Web 2.0 applications to give a productivity boost to companies and bring better visibility. The best tools in this field are integrated with e-mail and easy and inexpensive to adopt. They democratize project management software. Can you provide some examples
Collaboration planning tools bridge the gaps between employees' to-do lists, project plans, and strategic goals. With the help of these tools, a project manager gains complete visibility of all the projects he is responsible for. The upper management knows what is going on inside of every project and has the whole picture. The software takes a lot of routine operations on its shoulders - turning e-mail mess into a nice-looking timeline, reminding people about overdue tasks and building reports. These tools help to collect information and make it accessible to any team member anywhere. This expedites information sharing and accelerates decision making.

Governmental, educational, commercial, and non-profit organizations all over the world are embracing project management 2.0 tools to improve their project management. Corporations like McDonalds, Walt Disney, Apple, Toyota and Capgemini utilize second-generation project management applications within their departments.

CONCLUSION

The use of innovative project management technologies promises to have a profound and far-reaching effect on how projects are managed today. These technologies let companies acquire the key ingredient to success in any business - they help companies make better decisions faster. Project management 2.0 gives a great productivity boost to project managers and their teams.

Today, the project management landscape is changing, opening new competitive advantages for companies. While some companies are struggling with the pains of traditional project management tools and e-mail, others are becoming more efficient and innovative by leveraging the benefits of the new technologies. I hope this article will help you adopt some of the Project Management 2.0 tools and practices.

Art of Management in the 21st Century

Merely doing year-end PMR and overseeing employee output or input is not enough to create a healthy manager-employee relationship, and hence for longevity and stability in 21st century organizational setup. Managers need to be aware that employees are the reason for their existence. In other words, if there are no employees, there will be no need for managers. However, carefully knit and intellectually organized employees need not require managers. Consequently, managers have to play an extra-ordinary role to prove their existence in the 21st century management. They need to produce and deliver a unique set of skills that would create a fine line, if not substantial demarcation between their role and those of employees.

Needless to say, 21st century organizations are creating these hybrid set of employees, who are becoming equipped to assume dual roles - the manager-employee role, with confidence to manage their (work) as well as organizational values simultaneously (if I am not too far sighted!).

Where does the manager-only role fits in then? What this means is that managers need to be three-pronged value management experts. Managers need to learn and practice the art of managing more vigilantly. They need to consider (a) the employee-value management concept with significant degree of accuracy, (b) organizational-value management and, (c) manager (their own)-interest management, with greater prudence and analysis. They need to come up with an optimum mix of these three aspects to remain a distinguished icon in the 21st century management realm.

As far as employee-value management is concerned, managers need to adhere to the following aspects:

1. Listen: Most of the times managers are clouded by the perception of their experience, or lack of it, in an attempt to push their way in, justifying, accusing, or not listening to the employees grievances, or perhaps the reverse - the dynamic works in either ways depending on circumstances and management environment. Managers, in their active and proactive role should be good listeners. They need to value lateral and open conversation. As much as managers are required to voice out imperfections of employees (or conceal it for reverse dynamic to act in force), they must listen - be attentive and concerned with - employee voices.
2. Appreciate: Managers need to appreciate the issues and concerns raised by the employees in order to deal with both sides - management and employee issues - in a harmless, and win-win manner.
3. Contribute: as much as employees want the managers to play the big daddy, they not only want managers to be a sounding board, but also contributors to solutions of their problem(s). Employees need to be confident that a manager will always act in their best and fair interest, to build mutual trust and free-flow conversation. Managers need to play a vigilant role in breaching the gap between organizational values and employee values. They must be in a position to bring in synergy to this aspect as part of their management role.
4. Motivate: One of the arts of a manager and leader is her ability to motivate. To do that, a manager needs to identify what factors motivate or tick a particular subordinate (or employees in situations where manager-subordinate line is very thin). There may be certain features that may apply to all employees, however, there are some unique qualities (knowing that all humans are unique) and factors (regarding an employee) that a manager should be aware of in order to use it for the advantage of the employee and the organization, promoting a win-win deal.

Understanding human behaviour and mastering the art of molding a given set character, in an increasingly beneficial way, rather than imposing ways and means of changing them, requires, if nothing else, at least an understanding that people are different in various ways. Managers should be aware of the fact that 21st generation working environment creates a hybrid set of employees - intellectually capable and effective to assume operational and managerial role per se. In other words, managers do not need to manage employees work, however hone and apply the art of managing these hybrid groups from a value-management perspective - a tremendous challenge for managers, changing the dimension and dynamic of soft-skill set.

The above required traits of a manager can be applied to organizational value management as well as those managers own. Managing and balancing these three aspects (though these three can be ferned and spanned further when one looks at the micro-level - my next topic of discussion) will make a tremendous development in a positive way, from the role of traditional management (theory X, Y, or Z) to 21st generation management (I call it HuTech-theory, Hu stands for human and Tech refers to technology in this case). Finally, as employees change or upgrade their role from conventionally operational-specialized to operational-specialized-diversified-knowledge workers, managers have to decide swiftly where and how they can fit in this dynamic broad-based organizational equation. There are multiple factors at play, nevertheless, all can be grouped, at least at a macro-level, assuming humans are creator of and above the technology (for obvious reasons at this point in time), into employee-value, organizational-value and manager-value streams.

Difference Between Leadership and Management?

There are distinct differences between leadership and management. Sometimes you are able to keep them separate, and sometimes you must act as both manager and leader. Here are the differences between leadership and management, as well as some tips on integrating the two.

Leadership and management are two different concepts and actions. In many organizations, leaders and managers are the same people. The difference is in how you, as a leader and manager, separate the tasks of the two realms - and try to find a way to integrate them at the same time. In general terms, leadership can be defined as setting a vision and providing a goal or direction. On the other hand, management is the execution of the vision or the goal. If you are a manager and leader, you must balance the two. If you lead with no management, you'll provide direction with no concept of how to get to the ultimate result. But if you manage with no leadership, you'll find people in your organization wondering why they're doing what they're doing. Granted, in some organizations, the senior or executive level management can truly lead, that is, set the direction, while middle or line managers execute. Let's take a look at the true differences between management and leadership, and then find out how to integrate them.

One of the first big differences between leadership and management is the idea of change. A leader must initiate change - it's the whole idea of setting a direction or new goals. As most organizations know, change is difficult and sometimes uncomfortable. The leader sets the change as a positive, explains why the change is being made, and sets out either to manage it or to allow a team of managers to do so. A manager, though, when faced with change, must adapt to the change and then maintain the status quo - until another change comes along. Management is the practice of adapting and then maintaining - not necessarily determining changes that need to occur.

Another difference between leadership and management is the person's outlook on the organization. Leaders take a "bird's eye view" or "50,000 foot" view of the organization and its situations. From this vantage point, a leader can look at the big picture - how is the organization functioning, what processes are linked to what areas, and what changes will make things more efficient and cost effective. A manager, although in tune with the big picture, must continue to look at the micro picture, what's going on right in his or her area. This is not a short sighted view, but a view that can manage the nuts and bolts of the smaller unit.

Leaders and managers must take different views of processes and procedures, as well. A leader is concerned with overall processes. Remember, from the bird's eye view, a leader can see which processes are effective and which ones are not. A shift in process may come from an overall leader, but the procedures or execution of the new process is a management function. The managers with the micro views can make changes to their procedures in order to carry a process through from its beginning to its end. Along the same lines, a leader may even define a desired result, leaving process changes to other managers. In this situation, a leader might say that the time it takes to complete "Process X" is too long - the desired result is a shorter timeframe. Managers must be concerned with the tools that will help them achieve the desired result - for example, a new piece of equipment may be needed to shorten the timeframe for Process X, and a manager must have the knowledge of the tools to make this recommendation.

Motivation and control are also two other differences between leadership and management. A leader should provide motivation - after all, the leader is setting new directions. He or she must be ready to motivate by explaining why changes are occurring and what the desired results will bring. Motivation should also come from "kudos" for jobs well done and for improvements - this also means that encouragement must be the motivation for underperformance. A manager may have to take control after a leadership motivation occurs. This doesn't mean that a manager must be controlling or micromanage people or processes. It means that a manager must exercise a firm grip on the processes and ensure that people are getting their assigned tasks completed.

There are obviously numerous differences between leadership and management, and we've only discussed a few here. But what if you are, as managers are increasingly becoming, the manager and leader? How can you integrate and balance both sides of the leadership / management equation? Sometimes it's a question of levels: you may have to initiate change and motivate, then turn right around and manage the processes and the tools. There may be an easier way to look at the integration of management and leadership. According to Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, managing less is a great way to simply be a leader and manager all rolled into one. When Welch originally looked at his managers, he felt that they were managing too closely, not giving employees enough latitude to make decisions on their own within a framework. He transitioned managers into "creating a vision" for employees and always making sure the vision was on target - if not, adjustments could be made from the management perspective.

The most common argument to Welch's theory is that managers need to manage - they must be aware of what's going on at all times. Welch's advice: relax. Let people perform. Obviously if there's an issue, you may have to put your manager's hat back on and go down to the source of the issue. But by concentrating on the ultimate result and letting people get there, you're inspiring confidence and motivation. You're also allowing a new group of leaders to emerge.

Why Prophet Contact Manager

Competition is very tough in today's business world, and companies and businesses are always looking for a way to beat their competition and be more successful. One of the tools executives and managers are using to do this is contact manager software, which allows a company or business to track clients, business and networking contacts, and sales opportunities. In addition, some types of contact manager software can track all correspondence, meetings, appointments, etc. with the contacts listed in the contact manager software, while tracking your business activity and revenue. Prophet contact manager software is one type of contact manager software that does all of this. If you are an executive or manager looking for something to give your company or organization an edge on the competition, you should consider Prophet contact manager software. Prophet contact manager software has many features and benefits that will help you and your employees be more efficient and more successful.

Prophet contact manager software makes keeping track of your business contacts easy.

Anyone purchasing Prophet contact manager software will be amazed by how easy it makes keeping track of your business contacts. Prophet contact manager software works in conjunction with the Microsoft Outlook email program, and this contact manager makes organizing, managing, and monitoring your business contacts easy. This contact manager software allows you to see all the communication that you have had with each of your contacts. This contact manager is great if you are trying to determine what you and a business contact discussed or decided on a particular item, or if it has been awhile since you last touched base with a business contact and wanted to bring up some things from previous conversations. For example, if you are contacting someone in your network but who you rarely have contact with, you might want to use your contact manager software to check back to previous communication with them to see what the name of their kids are so that you can ask them about them and make it personal.

Prophet contact manager software has a search function.

One of the most frustrating things at work that can take up a significant portion of time is searching for files or other information on your computer. Usually this is information you know is on your computer, you just don't remember where you put it, but Prophet contact manager can help. Prophet contact manager recognizes that no one wants to spend half of their day at work searching for something, so they incorporated a search function into their software. The search function of the contact manager allows you to access the information you want very quickly, so you can move on to doing more important things.

A calendar and a task manager are also features of Prophet contact manager software.

Avidian didn't design Prophet contact manager software to simply replace the rolodex sitting on your desk. Instead, they designed the contact manager software to not only keep track of your business contacts, but to also provide you with a calendar to help you schedule and a task manager to help you ensure you are completing the projects and tasks you need to. Prophet contact manager software also allows you to sort your business contacts based on the appointments, meetings, and other items on your calendar and the items on your task lists. The contact manager allows you to see all the communication, appointments, meetings, tasks, etc. that are associated with a specific business contact.

Prophet contact manager software can help you increase sales

In addition to managing your business contacts; Prophet contact manager software can also help you manage your current clients as well as any potential future ones. Prophet contact manager software can help you track and manage your different sales opportunities with just a few clicks of the mouse. By having all this information available to you, using your contact manager software, you can increase your sales and increase your profit, making you more successful. Prophet contact manager software can also help you improve your sales and your relationships with your clients to make them more satisfied. Prophet contact manager software keeps track of all your contact, correspondence, and interaction with each client, so you can review over time to see where you are doing well with your clients and where you are failing to meet their needs and expectations. Then you can use the contact manager to take the necessary steps to fix wherever you are falling short.

In addition, Prophet contact manager software allows you to view the revenue you make from your clients. With Prophet contact manager you can view each individual client or have an overview of your entire company. Finally, Prophet contact manager software allows you to customize how you view your sales information. Prophet contact manager software allows executives and managers to customize and filter the information in the contact manager so they see only what they want to see. Competitors' contact manager software offers the option use the contact manager to break down sales into smaller groups, but don't allow for the customization offered by Prophet contact manager software..

What are the Differences in Leadership and Management

I'm often asked to define the differences between leadership and management. And each time I'm forced to define them, I get challenged. In this article, I'm going to pull out the qualities of each and discuss how to develop each of them. Both are so important to an organization and both require care and consideration when selecting the person for the role. Peter Drucker has been quoted as saying "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.

Let's look first at management.

Oftentimes, we discuss management in terms of the ability to get work done through others. However, as organizations have become flatter, we have many managers who manage process and programs vs. people. Are they any less of a manager? In fact, most compensation and promotion programs move people through at least the title of manager on their way to director so the true scope of the work that the manager is responsible for has changed.

Who makes a good manager? If I had the silver bullet answer to this question, I would be wealthy beyond imagination. However, we can examine what seems to make some managers successful and others not so successful. Most managers have one common trait--that is the ability to manage both tasks and process. That is why there are so many people out there with the word "manager" in their job title. However, many of them don't manage people. Think about it, there are thousands of project managers out there with no direct reports. They manage the process but not the people. They have influence but not direct responsibility.

In searching for good managers, it is incumbent on the organization to think first about the position. Does the incumbent manage task and process or do they manage task, process, and people? The two are very different. It is hard to find someone who does all three really well. The person who manages task and process if oftentimes a thinker who enjoys the analytical part of the job more than the people part of the job. They are more comfortable with spreadsheets, workflow charts, and process metrics than they are with people development and people challenges. As you think about the position, it is critical to think about the two very different profiles. Generally we get two out of three and really, with today's talent shortage, having two out of three key qualities isn't bad at all. We can generally compensate for or develop the missing third.

As with any key role, it is critical to line up organizational culture fit, skill fit, and personality traits. Time and time again, we've proven that when these three are in alignment, we get better business results (think profit) and happier employees.

Now, let's think about leadership.

What is the critical change that takes place as someone moves from manager to leader? And is it a linear process? I believe that is is in fact a much more dynamic shift that takes place in the leader's affect and way of being. I don't think we can "train for it" but I do think we can nurture and develop it.

Leader's have been defined by their legacy not their management style. Ken Blanchard said that "The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority." That leads me to believe that leaders are different than managers. As we think about leadership, we must think about the skills and qualities that a leader, vs. a manager, brings to the table.

Leaders must be able to set the course for some end goal. Whether it is a project or a corporate strategic direction, the leader must have the ability to influence if they are going to rally support for the mission. I've seen leaders that can take a group of exhausted implementation consultants and rally them into working even harder to achieve great things. I've also seen an appointed "leader" brow-beat her people into exhaustion. And those war torn veterans have no interest in achieving great things anymore. According to the Gallup organization, 71% of the United States workforce is either not engaged or is actively disengaged in work. Does the leader have anything to do with this? I think so.

The leader's influence is stronger than a manager's line authority whether or not that manager is managing a process or managing people.

Here are three questions we need to ask ourselves as we think about management and leadership within our own organizations:

1. How do we find that unique blend of charisma, vision, and practical thinking that come together to form a leader and how do we get more of it within our companies?

2. Since everyone isn't going to be a leader in our organizations, how do we develop good managers and target and develop specific managers for leadership positions?

3. What are the gaps in management and leadership that we are currently facing?

First, let's examine the blend of charisma, vision, and practical thinking. How do we assess what is needed within our organization and then, how do we go about getting it. In terms of charisma, I think it is generally a blend of personality, energy, and brevity. A unique recipe is needed for each organization, department, or team. Thoughtful consideration and analysis can help us find out what is needed. Start with talking to the team. Then, talk with the current organizational leaders. What's missing is what is needed and sometimes it is a gut feeling that will help you identify the missing skills.

Secondly, I think that great leaders have both innate talent and the ability to learn and develop. Therefore, we must develop our managers. The key to management development is insight and the key to insight is 360 degree feedback. There are great tools on the market that will allow organizations to assess and then develop their managers using 360 feedback. Most studies show that this is one of the few tools that actually make a difference in the manager's mindset. Most managers, whether they manage task and process or task, process, and people, rarely make changes in their "style" unless they have an event that forces them to. A 360 event can provide insight like no other event can, with little risk, and those are the types of events that move the needle from manager to leader. Or we realize that the needle doesn't move and we can make different decisions about that person within the organization.

Finally, what gaps are we currently facing? As the Millennial's are coming into the workplace, we are going to have to deal with a generation that isn't used to leadership and at the same time is impatient for advancement. They have been conditioned and trained to work in groups where each and every person has an equal voice and leadership, if there is any, is a role that is shared. In addition, we have Generation X moving quickly into the ranks of senior leadership and many of them have very little corporate loyalty. We need to have programs that meet the needs of both of our generational leaders. For the Gen X managers, we need to help them trust the organization and themselves. For The Millennial folks we need to help them think about the responsibility and reward that comes with leading others. Using tools to provide coaching and mentorship to both of these groups will go a long way in helping them succeed.

It will take time and reflection, but any organization can develop both managers and leaders and the rewards for doing so will be shown on the organizations balance sheet. Because the companies who fail to plan for organizational growth and survival will ultimately underperform. Talent will leave and so will institutional knowledge and skills. Leaders will go where they are wanted. And, everyone needs good managers.

Matrix Management

Matrix Management is a compelling buzzword with a tempting nirvana of shared resources and unlimited access to expertise that lies in other functional areas. But are the resources really ready to be monopolized by multiple managers in a redesign of the organizational structure? Think twice before you plug yourself into the matrix.

What is Matrix Management?

Matrix management is a style of organization in which people are pooled for work assignments or to concentrate on specific tasks. In a standard structured environment, employees in a department report directly to a Functional Manager or supervisor responsible for the performance of a department or business unit. However, in a matrix environment, some of these employees may be assigned with select employees from other departments to simultaneously report to a Project Manager appointed for a specific project. In the matrix organization, employees are treated as shared resources between managers and may have to work under multiple managers simultaneously. Managers may have responsibilities for employees shared on isolated projects as well as sharing manpower for several departmental functions.

There Four Primary Styles of Matrix Management Organization

Balanced Power Matrix

In a Balanced Power Matrix organization the resources are assigned from multiple departments and power is shared equally between the Project Manager and the Functional Managers. Philosophically, this type of equality in authority empowers Project Managers to facilitate rapid results by bestowing equal power for making decisions and dictating schedules. However, more often than not, this perception of balanced authority creates conflict. A servant can not serve two masters. The employees are typically caught in a conflict between the ongoing performance requirements of existing job responsibilities with a Functional Manager and the disparate assignments dictated by a Project Manager. Over extended periods of time either the functional job or the project performance suffer. This is frequently underscored by personality conflicts that arise from inability to monopolize the time of shared resources.

Strong Project Matrix

In a Strong Project Matrix organization the Project Manager is primarily responsible for the project and may recruit resources from multiple business units to achieve a specific task. Functional Managers assign resources as needed to support the project. Frequently the same resources are recruited for multiple projects, creating a strain for the Functional Managers and associated business unit performance. While the Project Manager may have responsibility for the attainment of a defined task, the Functional Manager is ultimately responsible for the performance and assessment of the individual contributor as an employee. In this environment the Project Manager is bestowed with authority, but lacks the balance of accountability and responsibility for the individual contributor. This creates the allure of an "accountability free zone" for Project Managers and recruited resources which eventually degrades into projects with insignificant results, lack of focus and a detriment to functional performance.

Functional Matrix

In a Functional Matrix organization the Project Manager maintains limited authority to oversee the cross-functional aspects of a project. Functional Managers maintain control over the manpower and assign resources according to project requirements. The Project Manager is primarily responsible for documenting the milestones and the progress of the project, communicating regularly with the Functional Managers. In this style of matrix management, the Functional Managers share in the responsibility to achieve project results and the project manager acts as a facilitator, rather than a controlling management capacity.

Soft Boundaries Matrix

In a Soft Boundaries Matrix organization the functional team members provides individual expertise and assign resources on an as needed basis. In this environment it is not necessary for a Project Manager or Functional Manager to oversee the assignment of resources. Individuals may contribute as necessary based on a balance of functional responsibilities and the needs of a particular project, assessing the relative importance and urgency of the day to day job responsibilities and the project tasks. This can be an effective matrix solution in a mature environment that has motivated and capable resources available to contribute as needed for projects.

The Truth Behind the Myth of the Matrix

Proponents of the matrix organization are allured by the concept that highly capable resources can be shared between business units to expedite important strategic projects. Typically the most vocal proponents of adopting matrix management as an organizational structure are those managers that desire to draft the expertise and resources from surrounding functional areas in an effort to compensate for shortcomings in their own functional areas. Such shortcomings are defined as strategic projects and resources are drafted from surrounding functional areas to work under the control of a Project Manager. While this style of organization trumpets the occasional notable project result, it is a mere distraction to the underlying impact of strain and diminished performance of the functional organization.

Conceptually the matrix organization is designed to share expertise, knowledge and talent of each individual as needed in multiple functional areas and multiple projects. If all employees shared the same amount of expertise and responsibility in different contexts, then this would be an effective balance. In reality, turn-over of employees creates an unequal balance of experience. Expertise, intellectual capital and experience are rarely equal, so the demands for project related tasks are rarely equal. This can easily create a strain on the most valuable resources within the organization and the associated functional management structure.

Matrix management organizations are designed to mandate a formal structure in order to compensate for a lack of coordination and cooperation between functional areas. This can be an indication of a lack of vision, unclear or undefined strategy, conflicts or compartmentalized functional business units. If it is necessary to an independent organized management structure that is distinctly separate and equal in authority to the existing management structure, then there is probably something else broken within your business.

Real Importance of Project Management

Project Management is a very important and valued aspect of many organizations. Effective Project Management is typically characterized by the definitions associated with the Soft Boundary Matrix or the Functional Matrix. When associated with well defined projects that have clearly defined objectives and timelines, the role of Project Manager can be an essential element to the success of an organization. Frequently these projects are associated with implementation projects, integration or installation projects that have easily defined purpose and ends. This is distinctly different from a matrix management organization in which Project Managers exist with a goal to justify their existence by creating new projects. On the contrary, an effective Project Manager should be indistinguishable from a functional team member, sharing the responsibilities, documenting and coordinating progress toward finite goals with well defined purpose.

Portfolio Management is Risky Business

A friend of mine (we'll call him Al) was out looking at daycare centers with his wife. Their two year old daughter was ready to expand her horizons and learn the intricacies of social behavior and all the risks inherent in her new world. To Al's dismay, no daycare center met the standards of control he would have expected in a daycare. This new world was fraught with risk. Doors weren't locked and children could escape. Gates were not on the stairwell and children could fall and injure themselves. Peanut butter was in the fridge and children could access it. Al wasn't willing to run the risk of introducing his daughter to this environment. Oddly enough, Al didn't have similar controls in his own house. No childproof door locks, no stair gates, and peanut butter in his fridge - sometimes on the counter!!

It was clear to me that a person will hold an unknown environment to a higher level of scrutiny than a person who is familiar with the same environment. It also became clear that a person's experience will determine the amount of risk they are willing to tolerate. For example, if I put three people in Al's deficient daycare and put a jar of peanut butter on the counter, the first person with no children may shrug their shoulders. The second person with a child may say, "Maybe we should remove the jar of peanut butter." While the third person who has a child with a peanut allergy may say, "I need a peanut free environment for my child. This is unacceptable." This dependency on individual experience and individual risk tolerance becomes a greater issue to organizations. When trying to ascertain the level of risk inherent in a project portfolio at an enterprise level, it is difficult to compare like with like without a risk management process and model that will represent the enterprise's willingness to accept risk.

The Problem

Risks that are not identified cannot be assessed. While an organization is dependent on a project manager to identify risks associated with a point in time project, there is no clear way to determine inherent risks to the organization. Organizations that have made the move to portfolio management have been successful at time management, resource management and time and budget status reporting at the portfolio level. While each of these advancements is a major achievement on its own, an organization that makes decisions on this data does so without a sense of risk associated with the performance of the portfolio. Decisions get made and risks are reacted to. Many issues are created due to unforeseen risks.

So what is wrong with this picture? After all, risk is an accepted part of business and life for pretty much everyone.

Risk is inherently a function of value and as such the more value at stake the more risk one is exposed to. Therefore, the notion that risk is a negative situation to be entirely avoided is a flawed argument, as this can only be guaranteed if/when an organization invests in cash cow initiatives where high value can be attained with no risk. We all know that cash cow initiatives are not sustainable and are the exception, not the rule.

The ultimate argument is found in the financial market where stocks and bonds are valued by level of risk tolerance. Bonds are considered safer bets and therefore yield lower returns while stocks are considered risky investments and are expected to yield higher returns. Over the past 100 years the financial market has designed numerous mechanisms to manage the dynamics of risk and reward with continued lessons learned along the way.

Independent of industry, size and source of funding (i.e. capital market, private equity, tax dollars), organizations must be well versed in balancing risk and reward if they are to survive and succeed in the competitive and volatile economy of the 21st century.

With Risk Comes Opportunity

The old saying that "the apple does not fall far from the tree" rings true when one takes a moment to reflect on why risk management practices are at such an elementary level. The answer lies in what organizations have come to believe to be good project management.

So what happens to managing risk? Risks become issues, issues become actions, and actions get managed using the same project management processes designed to manage the value line. The problem is that project management practices designed to deliver value are based on nomenclatures such as deliverables, milestones, performance indicators, quality, timeline, budget, approval, benefit realization, etc. These notions work perfectly for the value line where the lingo describes value-based characteristics.

To manage risks, organizations need to invest in elevating their risk management practices to the project portfolio level, to attain the same level of maturity as project management practices. Otherwise, risk management will continue to be at the mercy of an individual project manager's experience and will be managed well by a few and missed by most. This key concept drives the requirement for organizations to baseline their risk tolerance and provide their project management team with a consistent set of risk management standards and practices. Absence of risk management standards and practices will result in an environment of inconsistent risk tolerance and management, since project managers' personal tolerance for risk will driver their approach for managing project risk. The danger of such a notion is that some project managers will have high tolerance for project risks while some will have lower tolerance, which might or might not be applicable to the priorities of the organization.

We have all come to appreciate the necessities of standardized project management tools and methodology, and there are very few organizations that allow a project manager to use his/her own favorite project management tool and methodology. Risk management is no different, and organizations need to invest the same level of diligence in their risk management practices as they do in project management practices.

The Framework

The identification of potential risks within a project portfolio is of major importance to a proactive risk assessment process. It provides the opportunities, indicators, and information that allows for identifying all risks, major and/or minor, before they adversely impact an organization. An aggregate view of project risks within a portfolio will provide organizations with a holistic assessment of all risks, provided that the risk identification

framework at the project level is comprehensive.

The first step in risk assessment is to clearly and concisely express the risk in the form of a risk statement. A risk statement can be defined in the following terms:

o The risk assessment statement outlines a state of affairs or attributes known as conditions that the

project members feel may adversely impact the project.

o The risk assessment statement also articulates the possibility of negative consequences resulting from

the undesirable attribute or state of affairs.

o This two-part formulation process for risk assessment statements has the advantage of coupling the

idea of risk consequences with observable (and potentially controllable) risk conditions.

When formulating a risk assessment statement, it is helpful to categorize the risk statement within categories that best reflect the priorities of the organization. The project portfolio Risk Registry (Table 1) outlines the risk statement associated with "strategy" risk category. The project portfolio Risk Registry will have most value when customized to reflect organization risk categories and corresponding risk statements.

Once the project portfolio Risk Registry is vetted to reflect business priorities and challenges, the risk statements need to be evaluated against the probability and impact of actualization. The variable chosen to measure probability and impact of risk actualization reflects an organization language, as it is critical that baseline assessment is understood internally and represents organizational risk and exposure.

A quadrant analysis of risk category actualization in terms of probability and impact provides the organization with transparent disclosure of risk at the project and portfolio level. This assessment enables an organization to attain a baseline understanding of project portfolio risk based on the organization's own internal knowledge and experience.

The risk analysis model is designed to expand and normalize project management judgment, used in the risk assessment model, and apply a consistent baseline for the probability and impact of all risk categories. It is composed of the following steps:

1. Industry sources are used to establish a complete repository of threats that are applicable to the organizations.

2. Industry sources are used to determine the organization's vulnerability to industry threats. Then, the organization uses internal knowledge to narrow the list of vulnerabilities to those most applicable to the organization.

3. To further validate the applicability and relevance of threats and vulnerabilities, a processes of "so what" analysis is conducted where the probability and impact of identified threats and vulnerabilities are further validated. The "so what" analysis utilizes metrics similar to the probability and impact metrics used in the risk assessment model.

4. COBIT control statements are used to determine the level of controls that an organization has in place or could have in place in order to effectively manage the risk associated with outlined threats and vulnerabilities. Although COBIT controls are mostly designed for IT, indepth testing has revealed that COBIT controls are applicable to both IT and non-IT threats and vulnerabilities.

The outcome of the analysis phase is a repository of threats, vulnerabilities and controls assessed and validated through a series of workshops, where project and portfolio managers input is given the same weight as industry best practices. This ensures that the analysis result is applicable to the organization rather than a hypothetical environment.

An organization's risk tolerance is directly influenced by its ability and desire to invest in controls designed to adjust risk tolerance. The action model provides the framework to operationalize risk assessment and risk analysis findings based on the implementation of controls that provide the best level of risk mitigation for project portfolio priorities.

The action model leverages "so what" analysis to determine which controls provide the optimal mitigation results for threats/vulnerabilities with the highest probability of actualization and/or most implications. Furthermore, the action model provides the ability to assess the utility of existing controls in order to determine portability/reusability opportunities.

The action model also enhances the reliability of the quadrant report produced in the risk assessment and risk analysis phases, and specifically identifies the value of investment in controls as a means to mitigate threat probability and vulnerability impact.

In conclusion, the action model enables organizations to improve the effectiveness of processes used to deliver projects through investment in controls. The action model also develops roles, responsibilities and processes required to operationalize the risk assessment and risk analysis models in the form of specific actions. Roles such as Risk Manager and Risk Analyst are defined and incorporated into the business process. Each role in the risk management process has responsibility and accountability, and specific tasks within the risk assessment, risk analysis and risk action model. Finally, the action model enables organizations to establish pragmatic risk management processes.

Summary

Organizations are expected to manage risks and deliver high value capital projects. Anything else is considered sub-optimal performance. Delivering high-value projects requires a project management workforce with significant talent for effectively managing both the value line and risk line.

Managing project risk is no different than managing investment risk. In both cases, the "customer" who provides the capital demands that the investment is managed by professionals who understand and leverage risks to maximize return on investment. Failing to do so ends in the "customer" finding other alternatives, as capital investment is a precious commodity.

Tools designed to automate risk management become extremely valuable once organizations have understood and implemented the appropriate level of management processes for risk management. Unfortunately, many organizations fall into trap of buying pieces of technology, without having an in-depth understanding of the requirements and processes to use the technology.

Organizations have the technology and talent to deliver high value projects through effective and transparent management of risks and need to establish the supporting risk management processes. Start with a framework designed to build an enabling risk management process to manage project portfolio risk relative to organizational requirements. If we can all agree on the tenants of risk in our respective organizations, we won't have to suffer through miscalculation and mismanagement of risk.

After my friend Al communicated his concerns to his wife, they together created a framework to identify acceptable risk for a daycare provider. They discussed why they didn't hold their own home (the primary daycare) to the same standard. They determined how much they were willing to spend to mitigate certain risks and the likelihood of acceptable risk they were willing to bare. In the end, Al and his wife were able to select a daycare provider that provided the most reasonably safe environment for their child. In addition, they were able to develop a clear picture of some of the deficiencies in their own home environment and addressed them accordingly. The framework was critical in defining the conversation and providing them with a basis for discussion that ultimately enabled them to make an important choice. If only all organizations were run that way.

Will O'Brien is a partner in the Manta Group, a management consulting firm that focuses on IT Governance solutions encompassing Project Portfolio Management, Service Management, Risk and Compliance. His solid business acumen, coupled with extensive experience in consulting, management, sales and business development at senior levels in regional and international arenas has created a dynamic thought leader. Throughout his career, he has achieved success through strong communication skills, understanding of business principles and ability to align IT investments with business priorities.

Managing Employee Writing

The Problem

Enlightened organizations throughout the world are embracing the concept of total quality management (TQM), but at a time when many organizations ask their employees to "do it right the first time to improve productivity" the application of TQM to writing is overlooked. In fact, memos, letters, reports, instructions, proposals, and the many other forms of writing tasks in organizations are not done right the first time. Often, the third or fourth revision is still not "right."

The average professional employee (those with a college degree) spends 10 to 12 hours a week writing documents beyond the time spent on email. According to a survey by Boeing Aircraft, two-thirds of all memos and letters produced by employees and used by managers to make decisions required revision because the original was not clear. Most managers list good writing ability among the top three traits most desired in an employee without realizing that bad writing is a management problem, not an employee problem.

If, as managers believe, an employee who cannot write is a problem, then a good writing training program, of which there are many available to corporations, should fix that problem. It does not. Millions of dollars are spent by organizations on training programs thought to help their college-graduate employees write better. It doesn't work because training employees to write without also training their managers is wasted money.

"Well, I don't agree with that," managers sometimes snap at me when I am hired to consult with them to solve problems they are having with bad writing among their subordinates. They continue, "People with college degrees should be able to write excellently. But I have to rewrite all their stuff because they can't do it right the first time." When a writing project doesn't turn out right the first time blame is focused on the writer, and so begins a series of revision back-and-fourths that cost valuable professional time, and a great deal of money. And irritate managers.

Myths about Writing

There is a mythology in organizations about writing. Here are a few of the more prominent ones:

1. Managers have no responsibility for what is being written between the time they delegate the task and the time they see the result.

2. Part of a manager's role is to edit everything written by subordinates.

3. Everyone should write on a computer.

4. The English rules never change.

5. Engineers can't write.

None of the above myths have any foundation in fact. As for number 5, I hear
the same thing said of computer programmers, geologists, physicists - almost any professional! Nonsense!

Observations about Writing in Organizations

Following are a few observations about the causes of writing failure in organizations gained from12 years as a writing consultant to a Fortune 500 clientele.

1. Employee writing cannot be improved without changing the culture of the organization first. The "culture" of an organization is the sum of all socially transmitted beliefs, myths, and all other products of human work and thought. Culture is passed down from one generation of employees to the next, including the mismanagement of the writing process.

An example of this was the corporation that hired me to improve their proposal writing efforts. Many organizations depend on competitive proposals - bids - to keep their business going. There are both commercial proposals, and proposals for the defense industry. I worked almost exclusively for defense contractors. One Fortune 500 client I worked with had lost 32 bids in a row. Employee strength dropped from 2,000 to 400. I was hired to teach people how to write winning proposals. From the 1960's to the 1980's proposal writing remained about the same, but in the 1980's the style of proposals changed, and the organization wished to change to the new style. They spent thousands of dollars on training. It didn't work because of a guardian of corporate culture, a senior manager, took it upon himself to rewrite every "new" proposal back to the style of the 1960's. The last time I checked, they were still losing.

Another example of the importance of organizational culture was the Space Station proposal to NASA by McDonnell Douglas. A colleague and I were hired for two weeks to train 176 engineers and others how to write well so a nine-volume proposal would sound and look alike throughout. It was apparent within the first hour that the company had no coherent process for managing the writing of the many departments involved. Worse, the strategy for winning the bid that had to be integrated into every section was going to be lost after Volume One because there was no knowledge of what it was below the management level.

On our recommendation, McDonnell Douglas made a courageous decision to change the corporate culture about the way writing was managed, and we spent the next two weeks training 176 people to manage the process. This was 2 years before NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP). A year later I was asked to return and to oversee a "trial run." The company took all 176 people off their jobs for two weeks to actually write a mock-up proposal. From that experience, every department and every writer had an opportunity to make the process work. McDonnell Douglas won the bid for $9 billion.

2. Managers do not manage the "process" of writing because they think of writing as an "it." We hear managers say, "I needed it yesterday." or "I need it as soon as possible." They perceive writing as an object.

Problems that arise from the it orientation include 1) shallow insight, 2) compromised thinking and reasoning, 3) lack of logical connections between ideas, 4) abortive or omitted collaboration with others, and 5) time-consuming rewriting and editing by managers to correct the shortcomings that arise from these weaknesses. Writing is a process, and processes need to be managed!

3. True delegation of accountability and ownership rarely occurs. When a manager delegates a writing task with the intention of editing it after it comes back, responsibility and ownership of the work stays with the manager. Many managers believe part of their job is to act as editor-in-chief, and they squander huge amounts of their expensive company time doing the job of secretaries or company editors.

Managers who edit have the illusion that they are doing important and useful work. But their problem is not bad writing from subordinates. It is bad delegation.
When I ask writers in the ranks how writing assignments are delegated to them, this is what I hear:

My manager, on her way out the door, throws stuff on my desk and says, "Take care of this."

My manager believes in progressive revelation. Every time I give him a revision, he reveals more information about the project that I should have had in the first place.

My manager communicates writing assignments on post-it notes.

With managers like these, employees adopt a foxhole mentality. They say

to me, "I just throw some words together and send it in. Why bother making it good. It's just going to be changed anyway." So much for ownership.

4. Managers do not think to negotiate the time it takes to write a document when they delegate the task. A computer programmer asked me how to write faster. "My manager wants me to completely rewrite these 50 pages by Friday. Meantime, I'm supposed to get all my regular work done on time. I'll be working overtime with no pay to get it all done."

When a manager does not consider the amount of time it takes for writing to
get done, writing becomes an unplanned activity sandwiched between ongoing daily duties, meetings, phone calls, email, and a variety of other interruptions. And unplanned activities lower productivity and profitability.

5. Managers are insensitive to the need of writers have for uninterrupted time. Writing is difficult intellectual work. It requires concentration. But interruptions in many organizations are epidemic. They are frequent, uncontrolled, and tolerated.

Overcoming inertia to start writing is hard. Interruptions cause the writer to stop, and afterward, the writer must collect their thoughts, reread what they just wrote, and overcome inertia again. Interruptions can change a 15-minute writing job to a 2-hour marathon of stop-and-start effort.

I was recently working with six managers as they wrote a proposal that was critical to the company's survival. The room was quiet as they were working on how to word their win strategy. A secretary entered the room and interrupted one of the managers with a question about scheduling a not very important meeting. Everyone in the room stopped writing to listen. When the secretary left, the group turned back to their writing. Some began rereading what they had just written. Some stared off into space. Two tinkered with paper clips. Haltingly, they resumed writing. Twenty-five minutes were wasted.

Think of the ramifications for people who work in cubicles!

The Solution

Writing has both an internal and an external manifestation. The internal manifestation is the complex, problem-solving, reiterative process of the writer. The external manifestation is what the manager sees happening. Good managers put steps in place to improve both the internal and external process of writing.

Package the Assignment

Enlightened managers prepare a writing assignment before they delegate. They 1) establish the standards that will be used to review the completed document, and 2) provide the needed tools.

Writers can not read minds. If standards are only in the mind of the manager, the first draft will be changed as the manager applies those standards. Standards are style guides, such as APA or Chicago. English is changing faster now than at any time since the 17th Century, and the "rules," or standards that were taught in the classroom 20 years ago may not apply today. Managers provide writers with tools such as recent-edition dictionaries because meaning, spelling, and technical use of many words is changing. For example, nouns and adjectives are being changed into verbs. A perfect example from an Environmental Impact Statement, "We will tier to the Forest Plan," or "Got milk?"

Some people write better in longhand. Some like laptops, and some like the PC. If a writer does best in longhand, the manager should provide the writer with the ability to translate the longhand to the computer, such as a secretary, or copytalk.com. Secretaries are few and far between in modern organizations as managers increasingly expect their employees to do their own secretarial work. But is there anything more pathetic than watching a professional type on a $10 thousand computer with two fingers? A simple keyboarding course would solve the problem.

A quiet place to work is a tool. One strategy is to set aside "quiet time" one morning or afternoon each week during which noise and interruptions are discouraged. Traffic in hallways and between cubicles is curtailed, phone calls are rerouted to message centers, and visitors are asked to wait or come back later.

Finally, the manager creates an assignment sheet that contains specific directions and standards for the task such as 1) purpose of the assignment, 2) audience, 3) scope, 4) format, and 5) deadline. "I needed it yesterday," and "I need it as soon as possible" are not deadlines. Such evasive directions signal a lack of planning, lack of respect, and lack of knowledge about the writing process. A deadline is a day and a time, "I need it by 8 a.m. Tuesday". A reason helps, "I have a 10 a.m. meeting and I need to look it over before I go."

Touch Base as Writing Progresses

Some writers gather the wrong information because they misunderstand the assignment. Some gather too much, some too little. Some discover information that changes the nature of the assignment, as well as the deadline.

The time to adjust the assignment is before it deviates into unacceptable territory.
A simple phone call, a quick meeting, or a short email can inform the manager of any potential problems; in fact, a verbal exchange of ideas helps both the manager and the employee clarify content, as does a review of brainstorming notes, sketches, or new information.

Teach a Time-Efficient Writing Technique

Writers everywhere say to me, "I have to make the first sentence perfect before I write the second sentence, and the first paragraph perfect before I can write the next one." Ouch! Micro editing as the mind is trying to put thoughts together is a vice. It comes from the micro editing that goes on in school when students try to shorten the time required to write a paper by both writing and editing at the same time. In fact, they are two different tasks. Micro editing appears first in English classes where writing habits are formed, and appears next in department where the manager waits for it to appear and then tears it apart.

Sad to say, but many English teachers, and many managers and employees are stuck in the past. When English teachers give students a writing project, they never teach their students how to get ideas out of their heads and down on paper in an efficient manner. In the 1980's the firm I worked for was the first consultant organization in the United States to teach a rapid writing technique to employees in business, industry, and government organizations. I was one of four consultants traveling 48 weeks a year all over the United States and to some foreign countries to teach people how to write quickly and effectively. When I left, the organization had 60 consultants doing the same thing, which is an indication of the recognized need for more efficient writing in organizations everywhere.

"What makes you think you know anything about how I can write better," is a challenge I heard frequently as I challenged the habits and behaviors of employees and their managers. "I've been writing the same way since seventh grade and it's working just fine." Okay, but during WWII the US Army hired the finest English teachers they could find to come up with a technique they could teach recruits in 6 weeks of basic training that would result in fast, efficient writing. Armies run on writing, and personnel were taking hours to turn out documents that should have taken minutes. The result was a technique for rapid writing and editing that was ignored outside the military until the company I worked for adopted it for organizations in general.

I once taught 2,000 engineers at Northup Aviation a 2-day rapid writing course. It took me one year. Most of them were very receptive, but I heard from class after class the same complaint, "This is all very interesting, but you need to be training my managers because they make me do things their way, not the right way." Corporate culture invalidated the training program because managers thought their employees needed the training, not themselves.

Managers need to recognize that writing problems begin with them, and although they teach their staff members rapid writing and editing techniques, they are part of the problem and need to be part of the solution.

Manage Time-Efficient Editing

English teachers and other engaged in teaching writing fail to teach people a strategy of attack for editing documents. Most people adopt some kind of a strategy, such as the micro editing writer mentioned above. Others concentrate on punctuation, spelling, and grammar because experience has taught them that those things will determine acceptance or failure of their document. They leave everything else virtually untouched.

What is universally forgotten is that reading is a visual process, and that people read a page from left to right and from top to bottom. They start reading at the first sentence of the first paragraph. If they do not find information that is important to them by the second sentence, most of them skip to the first sentence of the second paragraph. If they again cannot find a key idea immediately, most skip to the bottom of the page, or turn the page and try again. I am not talking about fiction writing. I am talking about technical writing.

"Wait a minute," people will say. "I have to put down all the facts before I get to the conclusion. And paragraphs have no less than five sentences." Oh my. There go those pesky seventh-grade teachers again.

With the way people really read a document in mind, it is clear that the most important ideas need to be up and left on the page, at the top of the page, at the beginning of paragraphs, and in headings and other devices that make the key ideas stand out. The body of the text may be technically perfect, but if the main ideas are buried, the writing will fail to communicate with the hurried reader, and people in organizations do not have time on their hands and are not reading for pleasure!

Finally, peer review, if introduced well and managed well, can save a manager time, but the ground rules must be clearly set to protect writers from overzealous critique and irrelevant micro editing. Lastly, managers frequently do not think to provide positive rewards for good writing. Such rewards are energizing, motivating, and encourage writers to continuously improve. A simple "Good job!" can go a very long way to improve morale and productivity.

Summary

When managers pre-package the assignment, delegate carefully, teach their employees how to write and edit quickly and effectively, they have little to do when the documents reach them except sign and send. Writers have ownership and accountability. They take pride in their work.

Writing should be recognized as a process, and managers should be as interested in managing the writing tasks of their employees as they are managing the annual budget. Ineffective writing among employees has to be cured from the top down, not from the bottom up. Bad writing is a management problem, and only management can affect a permanent, workable solution.

The Value of Managing Performance

Importance in Management

John Kotter describes management as consisting of planning; organising and resourcing; review and control; and communication. All of these activities are heavily influenced and informed by performance management.

Performance management is an absolutely essential business management process and an important tool for people managers to use in meeting their business objectives:

· Organisations are increasingly realising that it is often not the quality of their strategy but their employees' ability to implement it that will make the difference. Bossidy and Charan define this ability to execute as 'the missing link between aspirations and results'.

· In addition, in order to maximise an organisation's potential for achieving its strategy, it is essential that the organisation both creates and develops the capability of its people. Improved business performance can really only be achieved through effective people management.

The purpose of Performance Management is, therefore, to increase the effectiveness of people at work in order to improve business performance.

Achieving this improvement in performance should be the number one priority for any line manager. A manager can achieve high performance much more easily by working through their team, rather than concentrating on their own day-to-day tasks.

By managing their people effectively, managers gain greater productivity from all those in their team. This means less time concentrating on the things that go wrong, and more time on looking ahead to advance their team's capabilities and improve both their own and their team's value to the organisation.

This is why Jack Welch at GE used to spend more than fifty per cent of his time on people issues.

Bureaucracy is History

In practice, many managers concentrate on their own responsibilities and on their own technical / functional expertise, fitting in people management around this. Management becomes an add-on when it should be the central focus of their job.

So why is performance management often pushed to the side in this way?

A common reason seems to be that performance management is often associated with paperwork, bureaucracy and difficult conversations. This is largely due to the way the process has developed over time.

Up until the early 1990s, performance management was seen largely as an appraisal scheme for determining performance related pay increases. People may have used it for setting objectives at the start of the year and were then appraised against their achievement of these objectives at the end of the year. The results of this appraisal would determine pay and promotion.

The whole process would have been fairly static with people only really looking at their objectives at the start or end of the year. Some more enlightened organisations may have had more regular reviews, however, common practice was still rather event driven.

Since there was little ongoing conversation, the end of year rating would often come as a surprise. This would lead onto long debates about evidence, judgement and subjectivity and an overall deterioration in the line manager / employee relationship.

Overall, performance management was rather monolithic, it was owned by HR, viewed as being something you had to do to get paid and certainly not something that was not seen as having real business value.

Requirements for Effectiveness

Performance management is now usually seen as a process, rather than an event, with individuals and line managers much more likely to use the process regularly. When used like this, performance management is much more of a monitoring process that helps individuals and line managers take stock of where they are and plan what they need to do to achieve the right results. Performance management processes are also more likely to be used to engage and enhance individual, team and organisational performance.

This has been helped by a number of things:

· Clarity in performance objectives: whether through the use of scorecards (key performance measures spread over four or more quadrants, for example, people, finance, customer and process) or through Key Performance Indicators, the setting of performance standards is essential. Every member of staff should be clear about their role, what they are expected to do and the level of performance they need to attain. Only when individuals can clearly see how their efforts contribute to the achievement of the organisation's overall objectives can they fully focus on moving the organisation forward. Individuals appreciate this clarity, become more motivated about what they need to do as a result and are encouraged to develop their capability to achieve as much as they can. Any performance management process needs to ensure that this strand is put in place.

· Performance assessment and feedback: naturally enough it is not sufficient just to make it clear to people what they need to do. Effective assessment of performance at regular and appropriate times is also essential. The role of the line manager in this is crucial as they must provide the appropriate guidance, feedback and support to help their staff understand how they are doing; suggest ways of doing things better and to really focus their interactions on increasing effectiveness. Any assessment process must be simple, easy to operate and allow the interactions between the line manager and their reports to be the main focus.

· Joint review: the use of a performance management process is much more about joint responsibility now that it once was. Line managers and individuals have to use the process together, each with their own responsibilities, in order that they get the most out of it. In this respect it is more like a performance contract between the individual and the line manager, with both signing up to helping the other achieve the right results and develop in the right ways.

· The use of multi-rater feedback: multi-rater feedback has become a much more common part of the performance management process. This provides much greater levels of information and objectivity to the review process, enabling individuals to be more open to development opportunities. It also provides upward feedback and as such allows leadership teams to be much more aware of their areas of development.

· Employee engagement: performance management meetings are one of the key 'moments of truth' where a line manager can show appreciation of a person's contribution, identify their career and engagement drivers, and find ways to motivate the individual to perform, grow and stay within the organisation. Even when giving constructive criticism, when done when, performance management meetings should be positive and engaging events.

· The development focus: people have seen that development is an essential element of driving up individual performance. Competence frameworks have often been used to assess the level of capability an individual has and identify where they need development. The individual can then undertake some form of development to reduce their capability gap. This focused development can then be seen to directly help the individual perform better in their role and thus increase their contribution to overall organisational performance.

· Flexible and pragmatic approach: the processes that are used today are much better able to cope with different needs, requirements and abilities. When building performance management processes the accent needs to be on simplicity, usability and flexibility. This ensures that the process can be used, helps individuals understand what they need to do and how they need to do it (i.e., what are the right behaviours they need to demonstrate) and focuses the organisation on a performance culture. Once again the new performance management is not about control it is about enablement and whatever process is designed, this must be its key aim.

· The use of systems and technology: technology can be an enormous help to making a performance process useable and attractive. With the growth of Intranets, a simple solution can be produced that makes the individuals objectives or performance criteria much more accessible. Individuals can be encouraged to look at the system on a more regular basis and see performance management as a continuous process.

· This is not a HR owned process: one of the more potent changes has been that forward thinking HR practitioners have understood that they do not own the performance management process. They need to be responsible for creating, embedding and supporting the process but they do not own it; the business does. If performance management is to be a tool to enhance business performance (through enhancing individuals and their development) then the business needs to own it. HR has used this shift as a means of helping HR business partners achieve their objectives. This is a fundamental change that has helped in the understanding of the value of performance management and has significantly increased its usage.

Line Manager Capability

A critical role here is that the line manager is a 'coach'; someone who helps an individual achieve to their potential and contribute to the overall success of the organisation.

Many performance management processes fall down in this area if the development of the coaching skills is not done and if line mangers are not clear that this is their role.

An emphasis on the education and development of the line manager should therefore be a significant element of any implementation of performance management.

The Business Benefits

When done well, performance management provides substantial benefits to an organisation. These benefits include:

For the organisation:

· Alignment of objectives

· Motivation of employees

· Support for core values

· Improvement in training and development

· Development as a learning organisation

· Focus on continuous improvement

· Basis for career development

· Retention of skilled employees

· Support for culture change.

For line managers:

· Clarification of expected performance and behaviour

· Support for leadership, motivation and team building

· Basis for helping under performers

· May be used to develop or coach individuals

· Improving relationships with team members

· Basis for non-financial reward, including recognition and development.

For individuals:

· Greater clarity of roles and objectives

· Encouragement and support to perform well

· Provision of guidance in developing abilities

· Improving relationship with their line manager

· Clarity over contribution to organisational performance

· An objective and fair basis for assessing performance.

These benefits are significant. In the private sector, a study by Morgan and Schiemann found that organisations using people measures to help manage their business had a five-year return on investment of 146 per cent, compared to 97 per cent in other organisations, and a one-year return on assets of 4.6 per cent compared to 1.9 per cent in other organisations.

In the public sector, effective performance management helps organisations achieve their key performance outcomes, meet the needs of stakeholders and develop operational excellence in providing their services.

Line managers should not view performance management as a chore - it is the key to their own effectiveness and to that of their employing organisations.

Jon Ingham
Executive Consultant
Strategic Dynamics Consultancy Services

Jon Ingham graduated from Imperial College, London in 1987 and joined Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) as a systems development consultant. After ten years in IT, change and then HR consulting, John joined Ernst & Young as an HR Director, working firstly in the UK, and then, based in Moscow, covering the former USSR.

Jon is now a Director in Human Capital Consulting with Buck Consultants, part of ACS, one of the leading business process and HR outsourcing firms. Jon also consults independently through Strategic Dynamics, and as an associate of Learning Light. In all of these roles, Jon focuses on helping business that already have sound approaches to people management gain further improvements in the capabilities and engagement of their people, and the effectiveness of their organisations.