Top-Ranked University
Charter Member and Only University on
the PMI® Corporate Council
Boston University
(BU), which was
founded in 1839, is U.S. News &
World Report ranked and is the
fourth-largest private university in the
United States. As a charter member of
the Project Management Institute's (PMI®)
Registered Education Providers, BU is
the only university represented on PMI's
Corporate Advisory Council. BU has
trained more than 120,000 business
professionals with practical, hands-on
training in the area of project
management. Boston University
offers a curriculum that meets the
standards set by the PMI Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®).
REQUEST MORE INFORMATION
Influence Of
The Responsive Project Manager
The responsive
project manager tends to succeed by building bonds of respect and trust with
those around him/her. Staff respond positively to responsive managers;
they work more diligently, work to help the manager and the
organization succeed, and will go the extra mile when necessary. That
is because responsive managers act consistent with the principle that
their jobs are to help their staff do their jobs. So, a basic
inter-dependence emerges based on behaviors that show concern,
respect and trust.
Responsive
project managers also influence those above them in the hierarchy. Because
responsive managers have the ability to read and act upon the needs of
their "bosses", they are perceived as helpful and reliable,
or in a simple way, very useful. This allows them to get the
"ear" of people above them in the system, and further helps
get things done when needed.
Contrast this
with the limited influence of the un-responsive manager. The
unresponsive manager is restricted in influence because those around
him/her do not respect or trust them to look out for their welfare.
Influence is more limited to the use of power coming from the formal
position, and fear, a motivational component that is hard to sustain
over time. Unresponsive project managers tend to be perceived as
self-interested, or at best uninterested in the needs of those around
them. They also tend to be perceived by those above them as less
reliable and less useful due to their focus on empire building,
organization protection, and self-interest, rather than getting done
what needs to be done.
How Do They Do
It?
Responsive
project managers apply a number of specific skills and abilities to the task
(as outlined generally in The Responsiveness Paradigm article). Above
all, they appear to be "with it". With it-ness
has a number of
components. First withit managers are able to put aside their concerns
to listen to (and appear to listen to) those around them. As a result,
they know what is going on, and know what is both said, and said
between the lines. They have the knack of appearing to know what
people need even if those needs are not expressed directly.
However, knowing
what is going on, and identifying the needs of those around them is
not sufficient. The responsive manager also acts upon that knowledge,
attempting to help fulfil the needs of employees, superiors, etc.
Responsive managers wield influence to solve problems for those around
them, often before even being asked.
Here's an
example:
I was
responsible for automating an office system in a government
department. As happens sometimes, the Management Information Systems
people were not keen on our going our own way on the project, despite
the fact that they had indicated they could not do it for us in the
near future. As a result their cooperation (needed for the project)
was patchy. As team leader, I faced a number of roadblocks, despite
the fact that our Assistant Deputy Minister wanted to see this project
come to fruition. I regularly reported back to our Director, outlining
progress and roadblocks. Every time I communicated roadblocks to the
Director, they were removed within a short time, despite the fact that
I did not request direct action. In addition, the Director advised and counselled me on how to deal with the "systems people" so I
could have maximum impact. Despite the roadblocks, the project was
completed on time and was very successful, much to the chagrin of some
of the systems people, who I think were hoping we would fail.
This is a simple
story, but one full of meaning. In this situation the Director was
able to identify the project leader's needs with respect to the
project, listening carefully, and identifying actions she could take
to "smooth the path". Not only was the Director able to
remove obstacles and fulfil the need of the project leader, but the
Director responded on a deeper level, helping to teach the Project
Leader methods of becoming more effective, fulfilling yet another
need. All of this was assumed to be the proper role of the Director,
and was done without expressing all of the needs specifically or
explicitly.
We can contrast
this with the unresponsiveness of the MIS people. They lectured, they
fussed, they predicted dire consequences, rather than offering
consistent, responsive help. They focused not on responding to the
needs of their clients, but on some other factors having to do with
control, and their own needs. Eventually, their lack of responsiveness
resulted in the very thing they did not want; loss of control of the
project. As a result of this project their overall status in the
organization suffered, simply because at both an organization and
individual level they were seen as barriers, rather than useful.
Let's look at
one more example.
An employee had
been working for a government branch for about a year, having moved to
the city as a new resident. In a casual conversation, the supervisor
noted that the employee wasn't looking at his best, and asked how he
was feeling. The employee explained that he hadn't been feeling well
lately, and sounded very tired and overwhelmed. The supervisor
determined that the staff member didn't have a local family doctor,
asked if he would like the supervisor to arrange an appointment, and
proceeded to do so immediately. The problem turned out to be a minor
one.
In this example
we see again the ideas of "withitness" and responsiveness.
The supervisor was able to identify that the staff member was in need
of some help, despite the fact that the staff member did not state
this explicitly. Note that the supervisor didn't pressure the staff
member to go to the doctor, but identified needs, checked them out,
and then acted upon them. In this case, help consisted of direct,
helpful action.
Conclusion
These two
examples are the stuff of loyalty and commitment. They are remembered
years and years after the fact, and continue to extend the influence
of managers. In this sense responsiveness is a critical component of
project management success, because it allows managers and supervisors to get
things done, for the benefit of all players.
In the limited
space we have, we have attempted to give you a feel of what
responsiveness means. You might want to extend your own understanding
by considering some of the following questions.
1. If you are a
project manager or project supervisor, how can you modify your own behaviors so that
you become and are perceived as more responsive by a) your staff, b)
your boss and c) your customers?
2. Again, if you
are a manager or supervisor what is your definition of the
"responsive employee"? Can you identify your "favorite
employees", and consider how they are responsive to you? Our bet
is you will find that your most valued employees are responsive.
3. If you are
non-management, what would you need to do to be perceived as more
responsive by the people around you?
To
discover the answers request free details from the
Boston University
Online Boston Univ. Project
Management Certificate Programs
