To see ourselves as other see us – Robbie Burns 1786 (part one)
People’s perceptions of what they do are often at odds with their actual behaviour; in psychology the subject of cognitive dissonance, reality not corresponding to expectations, is a rich vein of study and one classic response to cognitive dissonance is rationalisation. Fitting retrospective rationales to actions that would otherwise be inexplicable is therefore a common human behaviour. This has been mirrored as a recurrent theme in reviewing the last Centre of Excellence (CofEe) Club’s group exercise outputs. What has been remarkable is the extent to which people lack clarity or objectivity in their analysis and thinking about the position in which they find themselves and then how consciously they determine the trajectory and speed at which they think they should manage change to a different position.
A telling example of this emerged from one workshop/survey, in which people were asked to assess how effective their organisation’s PMOs were at adding value to the organisation. So, in the survey we posed two questions that achieved a paradoxical response. The first question asked whether the PMO provided added value through advising senior management of project management capability – the answer saw 92% of respondents answering that they added significant value through this service with over 25% of responses being in the 90%+ bracket; an unequivocal perception that they really did add value. Two questions later the group were asked whether they maintained any record of capability or experience of the project delivery community; the unequivocal response was no, they didn’t. In a complete reversal of the previous question 87% said they certainly didn’t add value in this way with 50%+ of the respondents sitting in the lowest 10 percentile. In simple terms this means the group appear to be emphatically saying “we add value by advising the senior management on capability whilst having absolutely no record of capability on which to base our advice”.
Unsurprisingly (given the preponderance of PMO officers and managers in the audience) the high level conclusion was that they added significant value. Of course the cynic might say that this is obvious – everyone likes to think that they are adding value so will ascribe anything positive that they do as ‘value adding’. But, of course, this is not true; by definition maintaining the status quo or avoiding a risk cannot add value. It is valuable, in that it maintains an income stream or prevents undesirable outcomes but it does not add value in the sense that we are already enjoying that income stream or level of security and the work doesn’t add to it. Here’s the cognitive dissonance – “if I am doing something that is valuable, which wasn’t being done before, I rationalise that as adding value”. The fact that I am not able to add value is simply overlooked.
This is more than a semantic debate or sleight of hand trickery. Control and administration type PMOs (those that predominated in the other surveys’ conclusions) are inherently low value add. Guidance and partner type PMOs are genuinely value adding in a strategic guidance and cost avoidance capacity. To be misguided about which type your organisation’s PMO actually is prevents the planning and execution that allows PMOs to move to the position that they wish to occupy. In short if you already believe you are in the guidance camp (despite the direct response to questions demonstrating that you can’t possibly be) there is little to motivate or manage the necessary change that would make the reality match the belief.
One of the services that CITI has successfully worked through with a number of PMOs is a straightforward quality and service type analysis of the current position. This is frequently enhanced by strategic modelling of how the organisation might move to a more desirable position than the one that emerges from the initial analysis. Please speak to us on 01980 283600 or contact Richard Bateman rbateman@citi.co.uk if you want to know more about the PMO profiling and planning processes.
PAshton
Latest posts by PAshton (see all)
- Bulletin – September 2015 - September 16, 2015
- Nick Dobson - September 15, 2015
- CITI introductory video - September 15, 2015