Improving Accountability through PMO Leadership

So, in my last entry, I waxed ad nauseum about the degraded state of accountability sometimes encountered in various organizations over the years. In keeping with the idiom that you shouldn't bring up an issue unless you have a fix for it, we will wrap this up with some things to consider. But first, since it is always prudent to diagnose before prescribing, I want share my hypothesis as to why accountability can be such a difficult element of management in the technology sector.

Fostering accountability and responsibility sounds good if you say it fast enough, but it's hard to achieve. While corporate communications can soften the beach head with inspirational statements of intent, ultimately all levels of management must agree upon and convey clear standards to their direct reports, and be brave enough to not tolerate the few who choose to disregard them. They must be able to do this consistently, tactfully, and fairly, and be equipped to follow through with appropriate incremental responses when needed. This is where the rubber meets the road to get any traction when changing a culture that suffers from indifference, lack of focus, or just plain lack of supervisory skills. For many IT departments, the latter is often the element most behind the curve, and is a precursor to the others. I have a theory about how this state of affairs could have emerged.

Now let's be honest — most technology workers don't go into IT because they are people persons. I doubt many computer engineering grads found themselves torn between MIS and a major in marketing or psychology, or mulled over used car sales as an alternative career path. Those who gravitate to the IT field tend to do so in large part because they find the unambiguous nature of technology attractive — it either works or it doesn't. Code, routers or servers never argue or talk about their feelings, nor do they judge you. There is no zero-ish or nearly one in a binary world; no muddy grayscale to interpret. Technology represents benign puzzles to be worked out — a virtual world sequel to the age-old man versus machine conundrum. And, far be it from me to propagate geek mythology (we do have a development staff), but I've been around enough tech staff to confirm that there is more than a shred of universal truth to the odd t-shirt collections, hermit-inspired office decor, proclivity towards trekkie tendencies, and similar attributes that most modern tech workers now embrace as a badge of honor. (Remember the gross generalizations I warned of last week? Well, we're here now, in case you weren't sure. The only way I remotely think I can get away with saying all this is to freely confess to using pocket protectors in my early engineering days.) The bottom line is everyone is a type, and most engineers — of any sort — tend to fall into a certain range on the human behavior spectrum that may not exactly coincide with being a prodigy at interpersonal interactions.

Yet historically, as IT organizations grew, many good technicians found themselves being promoted to be workforce leaders by virtue of their technical prowess. Of course, managing the human component is anything but benign or black and white — people do argue, question, and talk about their feelings, change their minds and most certainly judge you. My sense is that the level of subtle human interaction needed to be a good manager tends to push the comfort envelope for a many technologists, and is downright alien to a few. OK, so get to the point, right? Leadership is a skill that must be cultivated through learning and practice just like any other specialized capability, rather than expected as a result of bestowing a role and title. Unless taught necessary skills, given the proper tools, and properly coached, no one should be shocked nor surprised if some IT managers perceive themselves as lead techs rather than managers, and act accordingly.

Let me quickly say that I'm not talking about being a disciplinarian; that is a small and seldom used part of leadership. Nor am I confining this observation to first line mangers; it's gone on long enough that many tech leads went on to be department heads and CIO's. It's about all levels of management recognizing that enabling their direct staff to succeed is their number one priority, and that takes on many different forms. First is recognizing that you have a mandate and responsibility to ensure your staff is used as effectively as possible. A leader has to be comfortable with the idea that it's OK to direct people to what they need to be doing; no one else is going to do that. Being a good communicator and listener, as well as anticipating how messages will be received are all important if you are to be successful with that.

Setting up individuals and teams with viable goals is another great example. Only when managers work together with staff to lay out objectives that are reasonable and achievable can they then have any hope of holding them accountable to them. This is in part why taking a resource-centric approach to work management is so important. For instance, if a manager allows 120 hours worth of work on someone's plate for the week, not only did they just abdicate their primary duty to help them succeed, they ensured that person's failure. Furthermore, there is no way to come back later and complain if what was really needed didn't get accomplished.

The PMO and its stake in leadership and accountability

The PMO itself has little or no direct influence over the general workforce. It is highly reliant on group and department managers, directors and executives to be effective workforce leaders. The PMO is there to help good leaders be better, more effective and efficient, and do so as a cohesive team. The PMO *cannot* compensate for a lack of leadership on its own.

Accordingly, if you find yourself as a PMO manager in an organization where some of this discourse rings more true than you would like, here are but a few of many things you can and should consider. I'm sure readers can offer their own favorite ideas as well, and I invite you to share them.

Take ownership for leadership improvements

If a sober assessment of your state of accountability makes it apparent that this is the root cause to some of the symptoms you just can't seem to get straightened out, or it becomes a roadblock to meeting your charter, talk with your sponsor and show some initiative in this arena. Lay out a few things you can do to help, such as the items that follow.

Sponsor leadership development

While focus is intrinsically placed on maintaining technical skills with specialized training programs, developing effective leadership is every bit as important to achieving the overall mission. Too few technology organizations have a formal mechanism in place to train managers how to manage people. While this initiative might ideally come from the executive team or HR, there is no reason why the PMO can't help get the ball rolling. I have to give a facility I used to work at a huge amount of credit for recognizing they had some opportunities in this area, and then spending the necessary time, money and energy to develop and hone leadership and communications skills. It went a long way towards defining a new culture, set of standards and expectations we held in common.

Establish compliance measures

You can't manage what you aren't measuring — this is as true for accountability and process adherence as it is for system up time. Develop organizational and process compliance metrics as an integral part of your overall reporting package. Sometimes organizations aren't aware of accountability issues because no one is shedding light on them. One of the neatest things I like about our new Business Process Manager is its capabilities to report whether or not process checkpoints were done, and keep a record as to who, what and why.

Invite peer comparison

One of the most powerful tools I've ever used to help shift culture and foster compliance is team-level reports. Our PMO published 3-to-4 page reports every two weeks on how each group was doing to get their workload and workforce under control, levels of reporting compliance and meeting milestones. At the bottom of each cover page was the summary resource histogram graphic for that group, in vivid color. I distinctly recall laying these out down the board room table. It was pretty obvious which managers were taking the time to provide direction, balance workload and manage priorities, and who wasn't. Sometimes it became apparent that problems were rooted at the senior manager level when their direct reports showed common issues. At least as powerful an incentive is suffering comparison to your peers, especially when you end up on the low end. The goal isn't to humiliate, but to illustrate that certain managers are outside of the new norm — it is a highly effective source of motivation. All of this served to elicit appropriate tactical responses to move things along, whether it was additional assistance, training, coaching, re-education camps (kidding), or whatever.

OK, I think it's safe to say I have plundered this particular port of call of all its booty. Given that everything else hinges on the level of tolerance your organization displays for personal accountability and compliance, it is a great improvement initiative to consider for your portfolio sooner rather than later. Trust me, if you cannot set basic standards and hold yourself and the organization accountable to them, no software can save you. It can help you with it, but it can't do it for you.

Next Port of Call: Reining In — Adjusting processes and expectations to fit your culture