An example is worth a thousand discussions

When communicating, we sometimes forget that having the recipient correctly understand the message is more important than the content or structure of the message itself.  In our zeal to thoroughly document the full background on a decision, change request or other project information, we run the risk of losing our audience.  While we might enjoy the “legal” benefit of being able to point to an obscure passage within a specific PM artifacts to state “I told you it was documented”, this is usually cold comfort for the project and probably us!

The severity of this risk gets worse when the message is directed to multiple recipients as the likelihood of missed details or misinterpretation multiplies.  To reduce the probability of obfuscation realization, you could try some of the following suggestions:

1. Use a picture or example.  You can test the efficiency and effectiveness of the communication by using the elevator pitch test – if you would be unable to convey the information during the course of an elevator ride, there might be a better way to structure the message.

2. Pay attention to the recipients.  Regardless of how your message is delivered, keep an eye for signs of confusion or misinterpretation.  These could include long e-mail discussions between the recipients clarifying content, excessive time spent stating (and restating!) the information, or obvious signs of confused body language.

3. Position the key message(s) first – regardless of the message or the medium, the “call to action” should show up first.  It’s rare to meet a decision maker who has sufficient time to fully read an overly long communique, and you may have limited control over how the message is being reviewed (e.g. digitally spoken in transit from a received e-mail or read on a tablet).

4. Pilot it.  If the outcome of the message is critical, you may wish to have one or two volunteers review the content to help you identify potential points of confusion.

5. Define the expected outcome and let that drive the message.  If a project manager views a status report as being unnecessary bureaucracy, that will likely result in lower attention to detail and quality than if they view it as being a critical tool to drive action.

As senders, we are responsible for successful receipt of the message.  Taking the time to avoid communication confusion is one way to help recipients hold up their side of the bargain!

 

 

Live together, die alone – productivity impacts of distrust

As I wrote in an earlier post, trust is a critical environmental hygiene factor for project success.  We expect a certain level of distrust between organizations that are partnering on a project which provides the rationale for contracts, penalty clauses, service level agreements and other legally binding documentation.  But what happens if the trust issues are within the walls of a single company?

Taken to the extreme, a lack of trust can result in stakeholders actively scheming to sabotage each others work efforts, but some times, the symptoms of this issue remain more subtle and can fester.  In such cases, spectacular project failures are unlikely which is unfortunate as such dire events can act as the catalyst to force executives to take drastic measures to put their company back on the right path.  To use the (morbid) analogy, while occasional shortness of breath or tightness in the chest might provide a warning to check one’s diet or exercise more, a minor heart attack is often the best wake up call for someone who is not practicing a healthy lifestyle.

So what are the warning signs of internal trust issues?

1. Demands for an excessive number of sign offs on minor deliverables

2. An unwillingness or inability to empower proxies when primary decision makers are unavailable

3. Too many participants or “epidemic” invitations (the syndrome in which an original invitee quietly invites other people to participate) at meetings

4. Illogical stalling on decisions or sign offs even when the impact of such stalling tactics represents clear and present danger to project timelines

5. Passive resistance including ignorance of requests for input, meeting invitations or defined rules of engagement

6. Unnecessary escalation of minor issues

While none of these symptoms are fatal, they are the project equivalent to slow boiling a frog.  They reduce job satisfaction for project managers and team members, and further existing “us & them” stereotypes within the organization.