Skip to main content

Project Team morale and how it is affected by YOUR leadership style.

If I asked what qualifies someone to lead an IT Project you might immediately think of literal qualifications; a degree, a PRINCE2 practitioner certificate, DSDM certification. You might think of the practical skills needed to achieve Project Management tasks; the ability to plan, management of RAID/CARDI items, stakeholder communication.

All of these things are vital to managing a project, but as we're often reminded:

Management ≠ Leadership

And projects need leaders.  Why?  Because people need leaders.  Humans are pack orientated creatures and we are most comfortable within a structure that supports and guides us.  Within a project the same is true.  The 'doers' usually thrive within a supporting structure that takes care of their (professional) needs and protects them from attack.  Without Developers and Testers the rest of the project team is just a lot of expensive* flesh.

In a mature and capable project team there is a certain joy to be had in stepping back and watching the group self-govern.  If you listen carefully you can hear the sound of control freaks and micro-managers breathing erratically into paper bags at this suggestion.  Hyperventilating at the very idea of the team being able to function without them at the helm.  Why?  Either fear that they are unnecessary and their role is heading for a 'restructure' or misguided belief that they are at the centre of everything the team achieves.  An unfortunate side effect of this sort of thinking is seeing other leaders as a threat and therefore trying to prevent others from leading.
Anything...  
At all... 
Ever...

The Project must be under control ≠ The PM must control everything

We've all met that PM who has a burning need to see every email, run every meeting, send every report, facilitate every workshop and be part of every decision.  They think they've learned to delegate because they've asked a Business Analyst to take minutes and circulate them to the team. **

So scared of letting go that they don't stop to consider if they are even the best person to lead a task.  And that by always taking control, other , very capable, but less forceful, members of the team may be holding back or feeling suffocated.

Unless you work in an organisation that has put an enormous amount of time and effort into recruiting the absolute dregs (or the resourcing team hates you and has given you a group of idle, low performers) then there's probably talent lurking within the team.  By encouraging individuals to lead on their areas of expertise you will improve morale within the team, get better outcomes for your project and show the world that you are actually a balanced and confident individual.

It will make the team structure more solidly bonded whilst freeing up some PM effort to focus on the big things.

It will NOT take anything away from you as a leader as long as you remember when to step up.  Deal with the flak from above, don't throw anyone under the bus and attack blockers like a Yorkshireman at a free bar ***.

Get every possible bit of benefit you can from the talent in your team.  They make you look good to the boss, the project will deliver in a more stable manner and morale will be higher.

And if you are that PM who just can't let go?  Everyone has noticed, nobody is that happy about it and you could probably be happier at work.  Give it a try.****



* Expensive in that there is cost but no benefit.  In a working project team we're actually great value.
** If you've never witnessed a BA lose their mind mid-workshop and scream "I'm a BA not your f*%*ing PA you patronising *^&%", you've never lived.
*** If you're concerned that this borders on racist, don't fret, I'm a native.
**** Caveat - If you're team are a genuine group of mouth-breathing neanderthals who can't be trusted to brush their own hair, there's a possibility you're clinging to the reins for good reason.  Good luck.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The case for Project Management in Agile?

OK, I know how most of the Agile community feels about Project Managers: Process over People Meetings Documentation Urrgh... But however you name the role (Agile Delivery, Scrum Master, Project Manager) and whoever does it  - someone needs to help the team to: Plan Track Deliver Communicate Being a group of incredibly talented engineers does not give a team the right to ignore 3.5 of these. All too often, engineers want to dive in to designing and building great software, but see planning as a hassle, tracking as a waste of time (or an abuse of their rights), communication as an alien concept and delivery (the fun bit) as something that will be done when it's done. It may be popular to talk about being a 'self-organising team' and railing against any form of 'order' being imposed.  But why is that order being imposed?  Maybe it's to deal with the chaos that your s-o-t has failed to deal with so far. As organisations scale and the senior leadership gets further a...

Agile Armchair Generals

If you're an Agile practitioner of any sort you will understand what I mean by Armchair Generals (if not, it may be an idea to check if you are one..). Apropos of nothing an email arrives that questions the management of your project in terms of whether it is properly 'Agile'. Feedback is, of course, a great tool.  But it must always be understood within the context of the person providing it. So when the email lands questioning the type of contingency you've built into your project or the depth of analysis performed on your requirements set, ask yourself: 1. Has the questioner spotted something you and the team have missed? It happens.  That's why independent reviews can be helpful. 2. Has the questioner misunderstood something about your project?  If so, maybe your communications weren't quite clear enough or they've missed something - it happens, we're all busy. If the questioner has understood the topic correctly and is simply disagreeing ...