Accept where you are

One of the countless things I love about my wife Maile is that she tends to say really meaningful things without even intending to. She's sort of zen-like like that. We were talking about a few things the other day and she said "well, it's like they say in yoga, first you just have to accept where you are."

Whoa. What?

Apparently in her yoga class, one of the things they teach is that in order to get better at something, the first thing you need to do is accept where you're at. If people can't do a certain pose, bend, stretch, or whatever, the idea certainly isn't to get all frustrated and mad at yourself. Instead, stretch to the point you can get to, and then accept it. There's no good, bad, right or wrong.

That's where you are.

The thing that's cool about this is that it can apply to so many aspects of our lives, whether it be our businesses, jobs, families, or anything else. While maybe obvious for some, this was kind of an epiphany for me and I've really been thinking about it a lot.

Say there's a skill you're working on and you'd like to get better at it. If you're anything like me, you spend a LOT more time looking at how far away you are from where you want to be than you do appreciating where you're at. I don't think this mindset is always bad, because I think it can be really healthy to have goals for ourselves and to want to get better and to improve.

The problem though is that all too often we don't accept where we are at all. We're NEVER satisfied.

And while that mindset may in some ways be the fuel that drives our progress, we should probably be aware that it can blow up in our face if we're not careful.

So something I'm working on right now is accepting where I am.

And interestingly, when I have been able to do this consciously, I'm able to see that I'm actually pretty close to being exactly where I want to be.

Does a PMP certification do more harm than good?

I read once that the average website visitor makes their decision on whether to stay on that website in 4 seconds. That's right FOUR SECONDS.

This has me wondering if putting PMP after ones name is such a good idea anymore - particularly in the world of software development. For those of you that may not know, PMP stands for Project Management Professional, and is a certification provided by the Project Management Institute.

Now, I'm sure most people that have a PMP certification, and certainly the PMI, probably think this is a crazy question. But I think it's something a good project manager should really be wondering about right now.

If a website has four seconds to make an impression - and people are MAKING DECISIONS on whether to buy what you're selling in this four seconds - it seems like we should be paying attention to how that PMP acronym is affecting the decisions of potential buyers as well.

Certainly, there are companies that explicitly state they want project managers with a PMP certification. But I think there are just as many that explicitly don't want someone with this designation - again, especially in the world of software development.

True or not, the perception of someone with the PMP credential is that they like formal processes, don't like to iterate, look at change as something undesirable, and love corporate politics. I'm not saying this is the reality about the PMI - I'm saying there's a very real perception about this.

I no longer put PMP in my signature line, not because I wish I didn't have the designation, but because it's not the first impression I want to make on someone. I'd much rather have someone check out my website, this blog, or really, now that I'm thinking about it, pretty much anything else I've made before I would want them to see a PMP designation.

I haven't decided, but I may even let it expire when it comes up for renewal. I'm not sure.

The one thing I can say for certain is that as the economy continues to shift, as people are going to have to bring more value to a project, and as the role of the project manager continues to evolve, a certification of any kind is not going to be nearly as important as being able to show real things that someone has created.

I don't know if the certification does more harm than good, but the fact that the question needs to be asked is telling.

What's the objective?

Most people think the Iraq war was a miserable failure. It wasn't though - it's probably one of the most successful military campaigns, not to mention social campaigns, ever waged.

Wait? What!?

If you don't agree with me then you probably don't think the objective is what I think it is.

If you think the objective of the Iraq war was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, remove a dictator from power, and return our troops home as quickly as possible, and do so with a minimal loss of civilian life, well then of course, the Iraq war was a miserable failure.

If however you believe as I do, that the objective of the Iraq war was to establish a permanent military presence on massive oil reserves, create a situation whereby a presidential successor wouldn't be able to withdrawal combat forces, and get the American people to buy off on this permanent military presence, regardless of civilian casualties or human rights abuses, then the Iraq war has actually been extraordinarily successful.

We haven't removed all combat troops from Iraq (We've renamed them to "advise and assist" but they're still combat troops) and we never will.

In business, in technology, and on projects, you'll often see people disagreeing over the best way to do something. Problem is, people usually assume that everyone's objective is the same as theirs - and this is usually never the case.

Do you think there are so many C-Sections in this country because American women have suddenly become unable to give birth? Or is it possible the Doctor's objectives (don't get sued) aren't quite in alignment with the mothers?

Was the objective of the democratic party for the last two year to make major change? Or was it to make a little bit of change while continuing to serve the same masters that both parties serve?

Next time you find yourself trying figure out how to best lead a team of people, complete a project, or simply to make a point, take a step back to figure out what the objective actually is.

You might still be frustrated, but at least you'll be seeing things clearly.

The ship of life

I think looking at our lives as ships - yes, physical ships - can help us make the decisions that are most likely to make us happy. And likewise, it can steer us clear from making decisions that might make us miserable for a while.

A cruise ship for example, is a pretty awesome sight. To see up close something that is essentially a skyscraper floating on water is something to behold. There's all the food you could eat, a climbing wall, 15 bars, swimming pools, stages, room for thousands of people, and on and on and on.

In fact, I'd love to have a cruise ship, wouldn't you?

But wait, what if you want to go water skiing? Or what if you don't want to depend on carbon fuel? Or what if you want to be able to travel inconspicuously? Or what if you don't want to have a staff of 300 people to manage?

Hmm. Maybe I don't want that ship after all.

Okay, how about a speed-boat? That's a great ship! It's quick, nimble, pretty unremarkable so you can travel in secret, doesn't require a crew, and you can water ski behind it. Awesome!

But wait, what if you want to have a party on your ship? Damn, maybe that speed-boat isn't right either.

Most of us were raised that what was right was to get an education, get a job, get more education, buy a house, buy a bigger house, by a bigger house again, by a bigger car, make a bigger garage on our bigger house so we can fit our bigger car in it, and on and on and on.

And if you have a business we're taught to scale, get bigger, get faster, become more efficient, make more money, work on your business - not in it - make more money, make more money, make more money, and make more money.

But what if you don't want that ship? What if you don't want the burden of employing people? Or what if you don't mind having employees, but you don't want to hire someone to do the one thing that you're great at?

Or what if you're more concerned with how you're business can give you more time with your family instead of how it can get you a fancier watch or a faster car?

My point is that our lives, and our businesses, are like ships. There are trade-offs. Get one thing, give up another.

Are you getting what you want? Are you giving up something you need?

Life is a ship. Spend some time thinking about which kind you want to build.

The problem with managing by influence

One of the most common things you hear HR professionals and middle managers talk about is the concept of "managing by influence". I despise this notion, and think it's an old, outdated, and harmful concept in today's business world.

This isn;t to say that leadership doesn't matter. It is of course as vital now as it ever was before. And good leaders can indeed get people to perform at levels they might not otherwise have performed at. Great coaches, teachers, and orators can certainly influence people, but it's a by-product of their leadership.

I'm talking about the idea that if someone performs poorly, it's the failure of someone to properly influence them that's the problem. Under this notion, it's not George Bush's fault that we went to war in Iraq, it's the fault of the war protester for failing to influence him.

Absurd.

Martin Luther King wasn't a failure because there are still racists. Al Gore isn't a failure because we don't have more electric cars. And Ghandi wasn't a failure because there are still wars. Yet they all failed to influence thousands (or more) of people. An HR professional very well might have told each of them to spend some time trying to influence the people they'd never reach - all the while ignoring those that were seeking their leadership.

The same holds true in business and on projects.

Daniel Pink teaches us in "Drive" that what motivates people in today's economy isn't money, or carrot's and sticks, but is instead the freedom to do our jobs and our creative work in a time, place, and way that we want. People need enough direction to understand what needs to be done - and then they need managers to get the hell out of their way.

What's even more dangerous about believing in the power of "managing by influence" though, is that while a manager is busy trying to influence a poor performer, those that excel are being held back. I have worked on dozens of projects in a variety of organizations - from fortune 500 companies, to medium sized companies, to those that have just a few employees - and the single biggest frustration of people who were awesome, was management's inability or unwillingness to remove the people that were holding them back.

It's time for less management by influence and time for more more rewards for performance.

(And if you think reward means money, you still don't get it.)