To see ourselves as other see us – Robbie Burns 1786 (part two)
As is nearly always the case, some very interesting observations arose from a recent workshop conducted at one of CITI’s periodic Coffee Club meetings. The fundamental question was; are PMOs seen as allies or adversaries? Five discrete sub-questions, which could be scored along a continuum between these two poles, were posed to a group of approximately thirty PMO practitioners. As we’d devised the workshops we couldn’t help conjecturing that this was a question that was likely to divide the audience; that is to say we anticipated a concentration of ‘votes’ to be cast at the ends of the scale. It was therefore a bit more than ‘curious’ that practically no votes fell in the lower or upper twenty five percentile for any of the questions. Put plainly, the PMO practitioners do not seem to believe that they are regarded as either friend or foe; their view of their position is more neutral.
Now neutral is an interesting word. One might contend that an ambivalent perception of the PMO (what, in essence was recorded) means that they are striking a sound balance between amiable cooperation and implied or explicit threat. On the one hand, is there anything wrong with occupying the moderate, middle-ground? Yet on the other hand it was Oscar Wilde who said “Indifference is the revenge the world takes on mediocrities.” George Bernard-Shaw was, as ever, a little more direct and forceful “The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity.”
That a community doesn’t regard you as an ally is a possible indicator that they are unlikely to seek positive assistance from you – human’s typically seeking and acting on the advice of a friend or a professional that they hold in high esteem. Professionalism is not incongruent with neutrality, indeed you expect the physician to have no opinion one way or the other about either you or your condition when you present to them; however, if they haven’t taken a stance and formed an opinion by the time you part you will be distinctly worried. In short, we react to friends and foes. Friends are a force for the good and we will seek them out. Foes are a force for the bad and we’ll either engage in fight or flight (depending on our relative strengths and attitudes).
So here’s another question, what is our reaction to neutrality? Typically it is either indifference or grudging compliance with an irksome overhead. Is there a danger that as PMOs we delude ourselves that a steady, middle of the road approach, balancing the demands of management for control against the demands of the delivery community for support, is actually the best way of adding value to the organisation?
Friends or foes you are not indifferent to because, one way or another, they allow or compel you to do things; neutrals have no effect on you in either direction and are likely be treated as either invisible or obstacles to be got around. Perhaps we should review and work on our relationship with our user communities. In the end if both communities (management and delivery) see you as allies you are onto a winner, if one sees you as an ally and the other an enemy well, you are at least getting some reaction and being paid attention to. The worst situation of all is if you are seen to be neither because you run a significant risk of indifference.
If you’d like to know more about the behaviours of allies and adversaries in a PMO context and how to look out for the warning signs, or survey your user community to gain a keener appreciation of your current position, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us on 01980 283600 or contact Richard Bateman rbateman@citi.co.uk.
PAshton
Latest posts by PAshton (see all)
- Bulletin – September 2015 - September 16, 2015
- Nick Dobson - September 15, 2015
- CITI introductory video - September 15, 2015