Eight to Late

Introduction

Over the last two decades or so, it has been recognized that creativity and innovation tend to thrive in organisations  where employees have a say in decisions that affect their work.  This has lead to the notion of a post-bureaucratic organisation –  an organisation in which decisions are made collectively through dialogue and consensus, and where  the hierarchy is flat.  Although a number of workgroups within large organizations function this way (and with some success too),  a post-bureaucratic organisation is generally seen as a utopian and academic ideal; one that is  unlikely to work in the real world. Those who manage  organizations, departments or workgroups  are generally uncomfortable with employees working autonomously,  even though this might lead to the generation of novel ideas and products.  This is understandable: it is ultimately the responsibility of managers to ensure that  organisational or departmental goals are achieved. How else to do this but through the time-tested command and control approach to management?

In response to the question posed above, project management is often touted as a means to manage creative and innovative efforts in organisations (see some of the articles in this issue of PM Network, for example).  The claim seems a reasonable one: project management (by definition) provides a means to manage  collective, goal oriented endeavours. Further, many projects – especially those involving  new product or software development – have a creative/innovative component. In practice, though, project management tends to be a bureaucratic affair;  involving plans that must be followed, schedules that must be adhered to and regular progress reports that must be made. Even so (or perhaps, because this is so) many organizations see project management as a means to manage all creative work in a post-bureaucratic setting.  Implicit in this view is the assumption that the implementation of project management processes will  enable managers to control and direct creative work without any adverse side-effects.  An article by Damian Hodgson entitled Project Work: The Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post-Bureaucratic Organisation, explores the tensions and contradictions presented by this notion. Although the article was written a while ago (in 2003), I believe the ideas explored in it are ever more relevant today, particularly in view of the increasing projectisation of organisations and the work carried out within them.  Hence my motivation to  summarise and review  the paper.

Background – setting the stage

To be fair, many organizations recognise that a “light hand on the rudder” is needed in order to encourage creativity and innovation.  In these organisations, project management is often seen as a means to achieve this.  But  how well does it work in practice? Hodgson’s paper aims to provide some insight into this question via a case study of an organization in which a project-based form of management was implemented as a means to balance the  requirements of creativity and control. In his words:

In response to the challenges of the post-bureaucratic form, project management has  been put forward by many as a ‘tried-and-tested’ package of techniques able to cope with discontinuous work, expert labour and continuous and unpredictable change while delivering the levels of reliability and control of the traditional bureaucracy. In this article I explore some of the contradictions and tensions within a department where such a ‘hybrid’ mode of control is implemented, embodying both bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic logics. In particular, I focus upon the discursive tactics employed to sell ‘rebureaucratization’ as ‘debureaucratization’, and the complex employee responses to this initiative. I argue that the tensions evident here cast significant doubt on the feasibility of a seamless integration of bureaucracy and the post-bureaucratic [organization].

The “discursive tactics” that Hodgson mentions to are (seemingly reasonable and rational) arguments that an organization might use to “sell” the idea that the methods and approaches of project management are consistent with the ideals of a post-bureaucratic organization. An example of such an argument goes as follows: project management is routinely used to manage new product development projects, so it is eminently suited to managing creative work (Incidentally,  this isn’t quite right – see this paper review for more on why)

Post bureaucracy vs. bureaucracy

Before moving on, it is worth comparing the characteristics of bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic organizations. Hodgson provides the following comparison, drawn from Hekscher’s work:

Bureacracy	Post-bureaucracy
Consensus through Acquiescence to Authority	Consensus through Institutionalized Dialogue
Influence based on Formal Position	Influence through Persuasion/PersonalQualities
Internal Trust Immaterial	High Need for Internal Trust
Emphasis on Rules and Regulations	Emphasis on Organizational Mission
Information Monopolised at Top of Hierarchy	Strategic Information shared in Organization
Focus on Rules for Conduct	Focus on Principles Guiding Action
Fixed (and Clear) Decision Making Processes	Fluid/Flexible Decision Making Processes
Network of Specialized FunctionalRelationships	Communal Spirit/Friendship Groupings
Hierarchical Appraisal	Open and Visible Peer Review Processes
Definite and Impermeable Boundaries	Open and Permeable Boundaries
Objective Rules to ensure Equity of Treatment	Broad Public Standards of Performance
Expectation of Constancy	Expectation of Change

The aim of the case study is to highlight some of the inconsistencies and contradictions that result from applying a bureaucratic mechanism (project management) to manage the work of a group that was very good at doing creative work, but was used to a more free-wheeling, hands-off management style (i.e. a group which approximates the idealised post-bureaucratic environment described above).

Why project management?

Project management has its roots in classical management (ala Taylor and Fayol), so it is perhaps  surprising that it is considered as a means to manage work in a post-bureaucratic setting. In Hodgson’s words:

I would argue that what distinguishes project management as of particular relevance to 21stcentury organizations is its rediscovery of a very 19th-century preoccupation with comprehensive planning, linked to a belief in the necessity of tight managerial discipline.

Project management tools and techniques support managerial discipline by providing means to decompose the project into manageable bits – by using a WBS say – and then assigning these bits to individuals (or small teams). The work assigned can then be tracked and controlled tightly – which is a good thing.  If the matter rested there it wouldn’t be too bad, but very often management also prescibes how the work should be done. This level of control results in a loss of autonomy (and motivation)  for team members whose job it is to do the work. The loss of motivation can have negative effects, especially in projects with a large creative component.  To counter this criticism, in recent years project management has started to focus on the creative aspects of projects – what’s needed to motivate teams, how to foster creativity (in new product development work, say) etc. As Hodgson puts it,

The linking of project management and change management has increased project management’s influence across industries, such that now the largest professional organization in project management includes special interest groups in areas as diverse as healthcare, retail, media, marketing, and hospitality. As a consequence the last decade has been a time of particularly rapid expansion for project management, as issues of change, knowledge management, and constant innovation emerged as central themes in popular management discourse.

So, project management offers two (seemingly contradictory) benefits: the ability to maintain tight control of work and the ability to foster innovation and creativity:

…project management can be seen as an essentially bureaucratic system of control, based on the principles of visibility, predictability and accountability, and operationalized through the adherence to formalized procedure and constant written reporting mechanisms. At the same time, however, project management draws upon the rhetoric of empowerment, autonomy and self-reliance central… In principle, then, project management offers a system which attempts to integrate bureaucratic control and a form of responsible autonomy more in keeping with the interdisciplinary, knowledge-intensive nature of much project work in teams.

Seen in this light, it is perhaps not so surprising that project management is viewed as a means to manage creative work.

The case study

With the above background done, I now move on to a discussion of the case study.  In Hodgson’s words, the study:

…focused upon  a telephone bank in northern England which I have referred to under the pseudonym Buzzbank. In the late 1980s, Buzzbank had been set up by a major UK bank, which I will call TN Banking, and represented one of several success stories in the retail banking sector over this period. Through reduced overheads and the extensive use of new technology in the form of sophisticated marketing techniques and call-centre technology, Buzzbank had expanded rapidly in terms of market share and turnover, developing into a key component of TN Banking’s global operations. My interest in particular centred on Buzzbank senior management’s identification of project management as the prime ‘critical success factor’ for the organization; the development of project management expertise throughout the organization was seen as a key priority to maintain performance into the next decade. To an extent, the project teams researched could scarcely be more ‘cutting edge’, representing highly-trained ‘knowledge workers’ developing innovative high technology applications and solutions in a new sector of an enormously profitable industry

Hodgson conducted interviews and observed operations within the IT department of Buzzbank over a period of two years. During this period, the organization was implementing a “strategic plan” aimed at formalizing innovation and creative work using project management processes. The idea, in the words of a couple of senior IT managers was to “bring a level of discipline” and “bring an idea of professional structuring” to the work of the highly successful unit. The structuring and discipline was to be achieved by implementing project management processes.

The main rationale used to sell project management to the Buzzbank IT team is a familiar one: the need to ensure predictability and repeatability of work done whilst ensuring that innovation and creativity would not be impeded. Another justification offered by management was that the size of the organization (which had grown considerably in the years prior to the implementation of the strategic plan) meant that  the existing “ad-hoc” work culture would no longer be successful. That is,  the size of the organization necessitated a degree of formalization,  ergo bureaucratic procedures had to be put in place. This was rationalised  (by senior management) as a natural and inevitable consequence of growth:

…The organization was therefore portrayed by senior management in IT as approaching its ‘next stage of evolution’. The immediate benefit of such a metaphor for those members of senior management charged with rebureaucratizing the organization is that it carries a very strong sense of inevitability. As such, it casts opposition to such changes as irrational and futile, standing in the way of natural ‘evolution’.

Further, managers in the organization dubbed any employee resistance as “natural growing pains” – like those of an adolescent, say. Cast in this light, dissenting viewpoints were portrayed as natural and unavoidable – and possibly even necessary – but ultimately without any validity.

Another interesting aspect that Hodgson highlights is the way in which old practices (the successful but “bad” ones) were subsumed in the new (formal) framework. For example, in the old world, employees were given the freedom to experiment, and many considered this as a strength not a weakness. In the new world, however, such a practice was seen as a threat; it was considered more important to capture how to do things correctly so that things became repeatable (ala best practice) and experimentation would not be necessary. As one manager put it:

If we capture how we do things right, at least it makes things repeatable, and we can record the improvement required when things don’t go right, which doesn’t happen in a rapidly-expanding, gung-ho environment.

Hodgson notes that the terms rapidly-expanding and gung-ho, which are used in a negative sense, could just as well be cast in positive terms such as  flexible, proactive etc. The point being that management framed the existing situation in terms that made the implementation of the new procedures seem like a logical and reasonable next step. The processes were touted as a means to achieve change (i.e. be flexible), but in a controlled way. So, management went to great lengths to avoid use of terms that would be perceived as being negative – for example, the term “structure” was used instead of “bureaucracy” or “formalization.” In this way, management attempted to assimilate the existing values of Buzzbank into the strategic plan.

So, how well did it work? Here’s what Hodgson says about the end result:

The impression given [by senior management] was that of an organizational change which was inevitable, which gave rise to some understandable but irrational resistance, and which had now been effectively completed, for the good of the organization as a whole.

On the other hand, the impression Hodgson got from speaking to lower level employees was very different:

However, in the time spent by myself in the organization, the tone and target of much of the humour, as well as much stronger reactions, appeared to throw doubt on the extent to which this discourse had permeated among the general employees, particularly within the IT department. Humour was commonplace in the everyday banter both within teams and between teams in the IT division at Buzzbank, and the increasing levels of bureaucratization was the butt of most of the humour, particularly at the lower levels of the hierarchy. The main experience of project management as reported by many  Buzzbank employees was one of intensified bureaucratic surveillance…

A key example is the reaction of employees to managerial jargon that was used in company circulars and literature intended to promote the strategic plan.

Typically, comments were provoked by the circulation of literature on the strategic plan, and again, excerpts of the document were read out by members of staff, adding ironic comments to underline the gap between the document and their experience of life and work in the department.

Hodgson notes that employees often appeared to comply with the new regulations, but not in the way intended by management:

At other times, the employees appeared to comply with the formal requirements of the new system, in terms of filling in the necessary forms, reporting in at given times, completing the necessary work-logs and so on. Even here, despite the relative sophistication of senior management’s re-articulation of key discourses, compliance on the part of Buzzbank employees in many cases bore all the hallmarks of instrumental behaviour, accompanied by insubordinate statements and humour ranging from the cynical to the confrontational. At other times, assurances were given to senior management and immediately contravened, fictionalized accounts of project activities were submitted late, or else procedures were observed meticulously to the detriment of deadlines and other constraints. The emergent organizational order was a precarious negotiation between alienated compliance and an autonomous disregard for bureaucratic demands…

In short: there was a clear gap between the perceptions of management and employees as to the success of the newly implemented processes.

It is clear that Buzzbank managers saw  project management as  a means to control and direct creative / innovative work in a way that would have no negative effect on employee morale and motivation.   The challenge, of course, lay in achieving employee buy-in.  Management used many creative (!) tactics to “sell” project management to staff. These included:

1. References to a “natural process of evolution” and the consequent “growing pains” that the organization would experience. This made the pain of the change natural and inevitable, but necessary in the interest of future gain.
2. Manipulation of terminology to make the changes seem more palatable – e.g. using the word “structure” instead of “formalization” or “bureaucracy”.
3. Co-opting terminology of post-bureaucratic organizations into literature designed to promote the new structure. For example, claiming that project management processes would enable the organization to be even more responsive to change (i.e. flexible), through change management processes.

From employees’ perspective, such techniques were plainly seen for what they were: methods to “sell the unsellable”. The negative reactions of employees were manifested through sarcastic humour and (often minor) acts of insubordination. The case study thus highlights the difficulties in using project management as a means to control work in a post-bureaucratic work environment.

Wrapping-up: reflections and summary

Hodgson sees the case study as exemplifying the problem of control vs. autonomy in emerging post-bureaucratic organizations:  managers view project management as a means to address the risks inherent in post-bureaucratic work, whereas employees view it as a unnecessary and unjustified imposition. Management was looking for the “best of both worlds”, a hybrid model that incorporated the best elements of a post bureaucratic model and a traditional command and control approach. The case study casts doubt on whether such a hybrid is possible solely through the implementation standard project management techniques and processes. It does so by exposing some of the tensions and differences in perceptions that can occur when such a model is implemented.

So where does this leave managers? Is there a way to manage creative work without destroying employee morale and motivation?

Looking over the complaints of the Buzzbank employees, it is clear that most of the problems arose from the loss of autonomy that they had enjoyed prior to the implementation of the new processes. This being the case, any measure to increase autonomy should improve the situation. A couple of possibilities come to mind – both of which I have discussed in earlier pieces. These are:

1. Empower employees to make decisions that affect their work. This means allowing them the freedom to decide the best approach to solving problems (within limits specified by organisational and resource constraints).
2. In situations where (1) isn’t possible, one could use collaborative techniques such as dialogue mapping to achieve employee buy-in. Of course, management has to be prepared to engage in true dialogue, and be willing to act upon (reasonable) suggestions made by employees.

The key message is simple and obvious: the more of say employees have in making work-related decisions, the more engaged and motivated they’ll be. This is not just a warm and fuzzy notion, but one that is backed up by research on motivation (see this paper review, for example). Yes, this does mean letting go of the “reins of control” to an extent but it is clear, as highlighted by Hodgson’s work, that holding the reins tightly might cause more problems that it solves. What’s called for, above all, is a degree of flexibility:  use project management processes by all means, but be open to employee input as to what’s working well and what’s not.

To sum up:  Hodgson’s case study suggests that inflexible project management based approaches to managing creative work  may not work as well as advertised by purveyors of frameworks and methodologies. As an alternative,  it might be worth taking a step towards the utopian ideal of a post-bureaucratic organisation  by using techniques that encourage employee input in organisational decision making.

Introduction

One consequence of the increasing awareness of knowledge as an organisational asset is that many organisations have launched projects aimed at managing knowledge.  Unfortunately, a large number of these efforts focus entirely on technical solutions, neglecting the need for employee participation. The latter is important; as  stated in this paper, published a decade ago, “Knowledge transfer is about connection not collection, and that connection ultimately depends on choice made by individuals…”  This suggests that participant motivation is a key success factor for knowledge management initiatives. A recent paper entitled, Considering Participant Motivation in Knowledge Management Projects, by Allen Whittom and Marie-Christine Roy looks at theories of motivation from the context of knowledge management projects. This post is a summary and annotated review of the paper.

Many researchers claim that the failure rate of knowledge management projects is high, but there seems to be some confusion as to just how high the figure is (see this paper, for example). In the introduction to their paper, Whittom and Roy claim that the failure rate may be higher than 80% – but they offer no proof. Still, with many independent researchers quoting figures ranging from 50 to 80%, one can take it as established that it is a matter that merits investigation. Accordingly, many researchers have looked at causes of failure of knowledge management projects (see this paper or this one).  Some specifically identify lack of participant motivation as a cause of failure (see this paper or this one). Whittom and Roy claim that despite the work done thus far, knowledge management research does not provide any suggestions as to how motivation is to be managed in such projects. Their aim, therefore, is to:

1. Present concepts from theories of  motivation that are relevant to knowledge management projects.
2. Propose ways in which project managers can foster participant motivation in a way that is consistent with business objectives.

These points are covered in the next two sections. The final section presents some concluding remarks.

 Theoretical Overview                                    

 Motivation and Knowledge Transfer

The authors define motivation as the underlying reason(s) for a person’s actions. Motivation is usually classified as extrinsic or intrinsic depending on whether its source is external or internal to the individual. People who are extrinsically motivated are driven by rewards such as bonuses or promotions. Typically such individuals work for rewards. On the other hand intrinsically motivated individuals are self-driven, and need little supervision. Their enthusiasm, however, depends on whether or not their personal goals are congruent with the task at hand. This is important: their aims and objectives may not always be aligned with business goals. Further, intrinsically motivated individuals perform creative or complex tasks better than others, but this type of motivation varies greatly from one person to another and cannot be controlled by management. See my post on motivation in project management for a comprehensive discussion on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

The authors then discuss the link between motivation and the willingness to share knowledge. Knowledge falls into two categories: tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is hard to codify and communicate (e.g. a skill, such as riding a bicycle) whereas explicit knowledge can be formalised and transmitted (e.g. how to open a bank account). Tacit knowledge is in “people’s heads” and is consequently harder to capture. More often than not, though, it turns out to be more valuable than explicit knowledge. In their paper entitled, Motivation, Knowledge Transfer and Organisational Forms,  Osterloh and Frey state that, “…Intrinsic motivation is crucial when tacit knowledge in and between teams must be transferred…” Following this work, Gartner researchers Morello and Caldwell proposed a model in which intrinsic motivation drives the creation and sharing of tacit knowledge which in turn drives the dissemination and use of tacit knowledge in the organisation (I couldn’t find a publicly available copy of their work – but there is an illustration of the model in  Figure 1 Whittom and Roy’s paper).  

The message from motivation research is clear: intrinsic motivation is critical to the success of knowledge management projects.

Rewards and Recognition

Rewards and recognition are “levers of motivation”: they can be used to enhance and direct employee motivation towards achieving organisational goals. Reward systems are aimed at aligning individual efforts with organisational objectives. Recognition systems, on the other hand,  are designed to express public appreciation for high standards of achievement or competence. These may be set  according to criteria that diverge from preset objectives (as an example – a public thanks for a job well done can be made irrespective of whether the job is in line with company objectives)

Rewards can be extrinsic (not related to the task) or intrinsic (related to the task) and material or non-material.  Extrinsic rewards are typically material – i.e. they involve giving the recipient something tangible. Financial incentives are the most common form of extrinsic rewards because they are easily administered through the pay system.  Extrinsic rewards can also be non-financial (gift certificates or a meal at a nice restaurant, for example). For the same investment, non-financial rewards are found to have a more lasting effect than financial ones. This makes sense: people are more likely to remember a memorable meal than a few hundred dollar raise; the latter is sometimes forgotten as soon as it comes into effect. A downside of financial rewards is that they are easily forgotten and may actually decrease intrinsic motivation (see this paper by David Beswick). Another is that they may encourage sub-standard work, particularly in cases where benchmarks are based on volume rather than quality of output.

Extrinsic rewards can also be non-material – promotions and training opportunities, for example (see this paper by Wolfgang Semar for more on non-material, extrinsic rewards).

Intrinsic rewards generally pertain to the satisfaction derived from performing a task. The moral satisfaction arising from a job done well is also a form of intrinsic reward. It should be clear that these rewards work only for intrinsically motivated individuals. Intrinsic rewards are invariably non-material and they cannot be controlled by management.  However, awareness of factors influencing intrinsic motivation  can help managers create the right environment for intrinsically motivated individuals.  Kenneth Thomas, in his book entitled, Intrinsic Motivation at Work – Building Energy and Commitment, identifies four psychological factors that can influence intrinsic motivation. They are:

1. Feelings of accomplishment: These can be enhanced by devising interesting work tasks and aligning them with employee interests.
2. Feelings of autonomy: These can be enhanced by empowering employees with responsibility and authority to do their work.
3. Feelings of competence: These can be enhanced by offering employees opportunities to demonstrate and enhance their expertise.
4. Feelings of progress: These can be enhanced by fostering a collaborative atmosphere in which project successes are celebrated.

 These factors are (to an extent) under management control. If nothing else, it is worth being aware of them so that one can avoid doing things that might reduce intrinsic motivation.

Motivation crowding and psychological contracts

 The authors then examine the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation in the context of knowledge management projects (Recall that intrinsic motivation was seen to be a key success factor in knowledge management projects).  They use motivation crowding theory to frame their discussion. Crowding theory suggests that intrinsic motivation can be enhanced (“crowded-in”) or undermined (or “crowded-out”) by external rewards.

To understand motivation crowding, one has to look at how extrinsic (or external) rewards work. Basically there are two ways in which an extrinsic reward can be perceived. To quote from the paper,

External interventions, such as rewards, may influence this perception either through information or control. If people see a reward as being related to their competence (information), intrinsic motivation for the task will be encouraged or maintained. On the other hand, if they see a reward as a way to control their performance or autonomy, intrinsic motivation would be decreased.

Extrinsic rewards can have a positive or negative effect on information and control. This is best understood through an example: consider a company that announces cash incentives for the top three contributors to a knowledge database. This reward has a positive control aspect (i.e. encourages participation) but a negative information aspect (i.e. no check on quality of contributions). Consequently, the reward encourages high volume of contributions with no regard to quality. This situation typically undermines or “crowds-out” intrinsic motivation. Note that motivation “crowding out” is sometimes referred to as motivation eviction in the literature.

Crowding-out is also seen in recurring tasks. For example, if a monetary incentive is offered for a task, there will be an expectation that the incentive be offered the next time around. On the other hand, non-monetary interventions such as increased employee involvement and autonomy in project decision making can “crowd-in” or enhance intrinsic motivation.

These effects are intuitively quite obvious, but it’s interesting to see them from a social science / economics point of view. If you’d like to find out more, I highly recommend the paper, Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence, by Bruno Frey and Reto Jegen.

The take home lesson from the above is that intrinsic motivation can sometimes be negatively affected by external rewards. Manager, beware.

Whittom and Roy also discuss the notion of psychological contracts between the employer and employee. These contracts, distinct from formal employment contracts, refer to the unstated (but implied) informal, mutual obligations pertaining to respect, autonomy, work ethic, fairness etc. An employee’s intrinsic motivation can be greatly reduced if he or she perceives that the contract has been breached. For example, if an employee’s regarding improvements to a knowledge database are ignored, she might feel undervalued. In her eyes, management (and hence the organisation) has lost credibility, and the psychological contract has been violated. In psychological contract theory, personal relationships are seen to be  an important driver of intrinsic motivation: people are more likely to enjoy working in teams in which they have good relations with team members.

Discussion

Practices to foster intrinsic motivation

One conclusion from the aforementioned theories is that intrinsic motivation is essential for the transfer of tacit knowledge. Accordingly, the authors suggest the following practices to maintain and enhance intrinsic motivation of employees involved in knowledge management projects: 

1. Avoid the use of monetary rewards. Instead, use non-monetary rewards that recognize competence. Monetary rewards may also encourage the transfer of unimportant knowledge.
2. Involve employees in the formulation of project objectives.
3. Encourage team work and team bonding. A good team dynamic encourages the sharing of tacit knowledge. The technique of dialogue mapping facilitates the sharing and capture of knowledge in a team environment.
4. Emphasise how the employee might benefit from the project – this is the old WIIFM factor. This needs to be done in a way that shows how the benefit is integrated into the organisation’s culture – i.e. the benefit must be a realistic and believable one, else the employee will see right through it.
5. Good communication between management and employees. This one is a “usual suspect” that comes up in virtually all best practice recommendations. Unfortunately it is seldom done right.

Contextual recommendations based on knowledge and motivation types 

Theories of motivation indicate that, as far as motivation for knowledge sharing is concerned, one size does not fit all. The particular strategy used depends on the nature of the knowledge that is being captured (tacit or explicit), participants’ motivational drivers (intrinsic or extrinsic) and organizational resources. Based on this, the authors discuss the following contexts

1.  Tacit knowledge management / intrinsic motivation: This is an ideal situation. Here the manager’s role is to support participants in achieving project objectives rather than to influence their behaviour through rewards. Extrinsic rewards should be avoided because participants are intrinsically motivated.
2. Tacit knowledge management / extrinsic motivation: From the preceding discussion of motivation theories, it is clear that this is not a good situation. However, all is not lost. A manager can develop knowledge management strategies based on structured training, discussion groups etc. to help codify and transfer tacit knowledge. These strategies should highlight the project benefits (for the employee and the organisation). Further, extrinsic rewards can be offered, but their “crowding-out” effect over time should be kept in mind.
3. Explicit knowledge / intrinsic motivation:  Here the knowledge management aspect is easier because the knowledge is explicit. Typically, once the objectives are identified, it is clear how knowledge should be captured and organized. Obviously, structured training and tools such as Wikis and databases can help facilitate knowledge transfer. Further, these will be more effective than case (2) above, because the participants are intrinsically motivated.. Recommendations, as far as rewards are concerned are the same as in the first case.
4. Explicit knowledge / extrinsic motivation: For knowledge management the same considerations apply as in case (3). However, these strategies will be less effective because employees are extrinsically motivated. For rewards management, the considerations of case (2) apply.

As discussed above, the motivation strategy should be determined by whether the team members are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. Unfortunately, though, the strategy often dictated by the culture of the organization – the manager may have little say in determining it. The authors do not discuss what a manager might do in such a situation.

Conclusion

 The paper presents no new data or analysis of existing data. As such it must be evaluated on the basis of new concepts and theoretical constructs that it presents. From this perspective  there’s little that’s new in this paper.   That said, project managers leading knowledge management projects might find the paper a worthwhile read because of  its coverage of motivation theories (crowding theory and psychological contracts, in particular). 

Let me end with an extrapolation of the above discussion to software projects. The holy grail of knowledge management initiatives is to capture tacit knowledge. By definition, this knowledge is difficult to codify.  One sees something similar in requirements gathering for application software. The analyst needs to capture all the explicit and tacit process knowledge that’s in users’ heads. The former is easy to capture; the latter isn’t. As a result requirements usually do not capture tacit process knowledge. This is one aspect of what Brooks referred to as the essential problem of software design – figuring out what the software really needs to do (see this post for more on Brooks’ argument). Well designed software embodies both kinds of knowledge, so software projects are knowledge management projects in a sense.  As far as motivation is concerned, therefore,  the theories and conclusions sketched above should apply to software projects.  An intrinsically motivated development team will  improve the chances of success greatly;  a trite statement perhaps, but one that may resonate with those who have had the privilege of working with such teams.

Organisational culture is defined by the values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organisation. These values and norms, in turn, influence how  people interact with each other and with outsiders. That’s well and good, but how does one determine an an organisation’s culture? How does one find out if the culture good (i.e. would one like to work there) or bad (would one not)? In my opinion, this is best evaluated by looking at how people react in certain work situations.  What follows is a quick quiz to test an organisation’s culture based on this principle.  Note that it can also be applied to projects – as projects are temporary organisations. Typically project and team cultures simply reflect those of the organisations in which they exist. However, there can be differences: a good project or team leader can (to an extent) shield his or her team from the effects of a toxic organisational culture. But that’s fodder for another post.  For now, let’s get on with the quiz.

A tip before starting: don’t over-think your answers; your initial response is probably the most accurate one.

Ready? Right, here we go…the sixty-second quiz on your workplace culture:

a)  You make a mistake that no one notices. What do you do:

1. Keep quiet about it and hopes it remains unnoticed.
2. Own up because it is OK to make mistakes around here.
3. Dream up a scheme to pin it someone else, preferably a rival for a promotion.

b)  You have an idea that might lead to a new product. You

1. Use workmates and manager as a sounding board for whether it is any good.
2. Start to work it through yourself to see if it is any good. 
3. Forget about it

c) You have an idea which involves collaborating with someone from another department. You

1. Approach the person directly.
2. Go through the proper channels – approach your manager who approaches their manager and so on.
3. Forget about it: inter-departmental politics would get in the way.

d) People at an organisation-wide event (company day or a project team day out, for example):

1. Stick with folks from their departments. 
2. Mingle, and look like they’re enjoying it. 
3. Look like they want to be elsewhere. In fact many of them are – they’ve called in sick.

e) A project has gone horribly wrong. Do people

1. Look for a scapegoat. 
2.  Say, “I had nothing to do with it.” 
3. Work together to fix it.

f)  Someone from another department approaches you for assistance relating to your area of expertise. Do you

1. Help them right away, or as soon as you can. 
2. Ask them to speak to your manager first. 
3. Fob them off – you’re way too overworked and don’t really feel like doing a whit of work more than you absolutely have to.

g)  What do people in your organisation do when they are annoyed by some aspect of their job? (Note: see this post for more on this question)

1. They complain about it. 
2. They ignore it.
3. They fix it.

h) The atmosphere in cross-departmental meetings in your organisation is generally:

1.  Cordial.
2. Tense 
3. Neutral

i) An impossible deadline looms. In order to meet it you

1. Work overtime because you have to. 
2. Work overtime because you want to. 
3. This question is inapplicable – you never have impossible deadlines.

j)  You’ve done something brilliant that saves the organisation a packet. Your manager:

1. Acknowledges your efforts publicly. 
2. Acknowledges your efforts privately. 
3. Grabs the glory.

k) You’ve worked overtime on a project and its all come good. You get 

1. A pat on the back. 
2. A pat on the back and something tangible (a bonus, a meal or at least a movie voucher) 
3.  Nothing (We pay you a salary, don’t we?)

l)  You’re feeling under the weather, but are not really sick (Put it this way: no doctor would give you a certificate). However, you honestly don’t think you can make it through the work day.  What do you do?

1. Thank God and take the day off.
2. Go to work because you want to. 
3. Go to work because you have to.

Score:

The score for each response is the number  in brackets against the choice you made.

a. 1 (5)  2(10)  3(0)
b. 1(10) 2(5) 3(0)
c. 1(10) 2(5) 3(0)
d. 1(5) 2(10) 3(0)
e. 1(0) 2(5) 3(10)
f.  1(10) 2(5) 3(0)
g. 1(0) 2(5) 3(10)
h. 1(10) 2(0) 3(5)
i.  1(0) 2(5) 3(10)
j.  1(10) 2(5) 3(0)
k. 1(5) 2(10) 3(0)
l.  1(0) 2(10) 3(5)

What does your score mean?

> 100 :  Does your organisation have any vacancies for a PM/dev manager? 

80-95 :  I bet you enjoy working here.

60-75: Still on the right side of the divide, but things do get unpleasant occasionally

40 -55: Things could be a lot worse – but, they could also be better.

20-35: Things are a lot worse

< 20: Workplace hell?

A good organisational culture is one which encourages and enables people to do the right thing  without coercion or fear of consequences.  What’s right?  Most people just know what is right and what’s not, without having to be told.   I can think of no better way to end this post than by quoting from the start of Robert Pirsig’s classic,  Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

And what is good, Phædrus,
And what is not good…
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

Many organisations measure  performance – of people, projects processes or whatever - using  quantitative metrics, or KPIs as they are often called.  Some examples of these include: calls answered / hour (for a person working in a contact centre); % complete (for a project task) and  orders processed / hour (for an order handling process). The rationale for measuring performance quantitatively is rooted in Taylorism or scientific management. The early successes of Taylorism in improving efficiencies on the shopfloor lead to its adoption in other areas of management. The scientific approach to management underlies the assumption that metrics are a Good Thing,  echoing the words of the 19th century master physicist, Lord Kelvin:

When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science.

This is a fine sentiment for science: precise measurement is a keystone of physics and other natural sciences. So much so, that some scientists spend a large part of their professional lives refining and perfecting certain measurements. However, it can be misleading and sometimes downright counterproductive to attempt such quantification in management.  This post explains  why I think so.

Firstly, there are basically two categories of things (indicators, characteristics or whatever) that management attempts to quantify when defining performance metrics– tangible (such as number of calls per unit time) and intangible (for example, employee performance on a five point scale). Although people attach numerical scores to both kinds of things, I’m sure most people would agree that any quantification of employee performance is way more subjective than number of calls per unit time. Now, it is possible to reduce this subjectivity by associating the intangible characteristic to a tangible one – for example, employee performance can be tied to sales (for a sales rep), r number of projects successfully completed (for a project manager) or customer satisfaction as measured by surveys (for a customer service representative).  However, all such attempts result in a limited view of the characteristic being measured.  Such associated tangible metrics cannot measure all aspects of the intangible metric in question. In the case at hand – employee performance -   factors such as enthusiasm, motivation, doing things beyond the call of duty etc., all of which are important aspects of employee performance, remain unmeasurable. So as a first point we have the following: attaching a numerical score to intangible quantities is fraught with subjectivity and ambiguity.

But even measures of tangible characteristics can have issues. An example that comes to mind is the infamous % complete metric for tasks in a project management. Many project managers record a progress by noting that a task – say data migration – is 70% complete. But, what does this figure mean? Does it mean that 70% of the data has been migrated (and what does that mean anyway?), or is it that 70% of the total effort required (as measured against days allocated to the task) has been expended. Most often, the figure quoted has no explanation as to what it means – and everyone interprets it in a way that best suits their agenda. My point here is: a well designed metric should include an unambiguous statement as to what is being measured,  how it is to be measured and how it is to be interpreted. Many seemingly well defined metrics do not satisfy this criterion – the % complete metric being a sterling example. These give the illusion of precision, which can be more harmful than having no measurement at all. My second point is thus summarised as follows: it is hard to design unambiguous metrics, even for tangible performance characteristics. Of course, speaking of the % complete metric, many project managers now understand its shortcomings and use an “all or nothing” approach – a task is either 0% complete (not started or in progress) or 100% complete (truly complete).

Another danger of quantification of performance is highlighted by Eliyahu Goldratt in his book The Haystack Syndrome. To quote from the book:

…Tell me how you measure me and I will tell you how I will behave. If you measure me in an illogical way…do not complain about illogical behaviour…

A case in point is the customer contact centre employee who is measured by calls handled per hour. The employee knows he has to maximise calls taken, so he ends up trying to keep conversations short – even if it means upsetting customers. By trying to improve call throughput, the company ends up reducing quality of service. Fortunately, some service companies are beginning to understand this – read about Repco’s experience in this article from MIS Australia, for example. The take-home point here is: performance measurements that focus on the wrong metric have the potential to distort employee behaviour to the detriment of  the organisation.

Finally, metrics that rely on human judgements are subject to cognitive bias. Specifically, it is well known that biases such as anchoring and framing can play a big role in determining the response received to a question such as, “How would you rate X’s performance on a scale of 1 to 5 (best performance being 5)?” In earlier posts, I’ve written about the role of cognitive biases in project task estimation and project management research. The effect of these biases on performance metrics can be summarised as follows: since many performance metrics rely on subjective judgements made by humans, these metrics are subject to cognitive biases. It is difficult, if not impossible, to correct for these biases.

To conclude: it is difficult to design performance metrics that are unambiguous, unbiased and do not distort behaviour. Use them if you must – or are required to do so by your organisation – but design and interpret them with care because, if used unthinkingly, they can cause terminal damage to employee morale.

Why do people postpone important tasks?  Research by Sean McCrea and his colleagues may provide a partial answer. Theyfound that people tend to procrastinate when asked to perform tasks that are defined in  abstract terms. What this means is best explained through one of their experiments: half of a group of students were asked to describe how they would carry out a mundane task such as opening a bank account, and the other half  were  asked to describe reasons why one might do that task  – i.e. why one might want to open a bank account.  The first task is straightforward, and needs little thought  prior to execution. The second one is more abstract; some deliberation is required before doing it.  Even though all participants were offered a small (but interesting enough) sum of money if they completed the task within three weeks, it was found that most of those who were given the concrete task completed it on time  whereas more than half those assigned the abstract task failed to complete it.  The researchers use the concept of psychological distance to describe this behaviour. Psychological distance in this context is a measure of the closeness (or remoteness) a person feels to a task, abstract tasks being more “distant” in this sense than concrete ones.

Reading about this reminded me of an incident that occurred many years ago, just after I’d made a career switch from academic research to business consulting. One of the partners in the firm I was working for had asked me to write a project proposal for a new client. He assumed I knew what was needed, and offered no guidance. I had a half-hearted try at it, but couldn’t make much headway.  Like the stereotypical student, I then put it off for several days. The day before the deadline, fearing the consequences of inaction,  I got down to it.  I spoke to a few colleagues to make the task clearer, spent some thinking it through then, finally, wrote (and rewrote) the proposal well into the night.

Seen in the light of Dr. McCrea’s research, my procrastination was simply a normal human reaction to an abstract task. Once I was able to define the task better – with the help of my colleagues and some thought – my reasons for procrastination vanished, and with it my mental block.

I see this operate in my current job too. I work with a small group of developers who tackle a wide range of projects ranging from enterprisey stuff (such as the implementation of CRM systems), to the development of  niche applications used by a handful of people. The small size of our group means that everyone has to do a bit of everything – design, coding, testing, maintenance, support and (unfortunately) … documentation. Now, in keeping with the stereotypical developer, most of the mob detest doing documentation.  ”I’d rather do maintenance coding,” said one. When asked why, he replied that it took him a lot more effort to write than it did to do design or coding work.   Of course, this is not to say that cutting coding is easy, but that developers  (or the ones I work with, at any rate)  find it less remote psychologically – and hence easier –  than writing.  So, when required to do documentation, they typically put it off if as much as possible.

The relationship between task abstraction and procrastination indicates how  managers can help reduce the  tendency to procrastinate.  The basic idea is to reduce task abstraction, and hence reduce the psychological remoteness an assignee feels in relation to a task. For example, when asking a coder to write documentation, it might help to provide a template with headings and sub-headings, or make suggestions on what should and should not be included in the documentation. Anything that makes the task less abstract will help counter procrastination.

Tasks can be made more concrete in a number of ways. Some suggestions:

• Outline  steps  required to perform the task.
• Providing more detail about the task.
• Narrow the task down to specifics.
• Provide examples or templates of how the task might be done.

Of course, not all procrastination can be attributed to task abstraction. Folks put off tasks for all kinds of reasons – and sometimes even for no reason at all.  However, speaking from personal experience,  Dr. McCrea’s work does ring true:  I didn’t do some of the things I had to do simply because they weren’t clear enough to me – like that project plan I was supposed to have started on a week ago.  But advice is easier given than taken. With only a gentle pang of guilt, I put it off until tomorrow.