Gentle Hands
Happy is said to be the family which can eat onions together. They are, for the time being, separate, from the world, and have a harmony of aspiration. — Charles Dudley Warner
Quick, do you want to be seen as a compassionate organization or a tough as nails, take no prisoners type of organization?
If your company is like most, your mission statement and set of corporate approved values portray your company as being very compassionate. The picture painted is that people who work at your organization are more like family members than employees. The family will take care of itself and protect itself from all those not part of the family. While these words sound very “Mafia-esque” the messaging demonstrates that your organization is a great place to work. Not just good, but great. People considering working for your company will see that this is a great place to work and jump at the chance to work for you. A close friend of mine some time ago decided to join a firm in part based on the values statement proudly displayed on the wall which listed “Have Fun!” as one if its core values.
The hard truth in all of this is that organizations are not filled with smiles and giggles. There are problems. Some will be relatively small. Some will be large. Occasionally the problems will be very large. I know of no organization that isn’t riddled with issues to deal with. The real set of issues will vary from company to company, but they are there.
Addressing these problems requires people to make hard decisions, feelings to get hurt, people to lose some of their freedoms, and in some cases new people to replace other people. All very “un-family-like”. All necessary. All justified in the name of business.
An example which I often come across is in setting up Program Management Offices (PMOs). There are many types of PMOs with charters reflecting the purpose of the function. On the softer side, charters may sound more like showcasing successful model projects, portfolio management services, or centralization of project management. On the harder side of the scale charters may reflect accountability for all project delivery, or essentially being the IT police. When asked at the outset of the engagement almost everyone will point to one of the softer charters for the PMO. Everyone typically wants to show their values – at least on the surface. After discussing each option in some depth and using an objective diagnostic tool to help drive to the most appropriate type of PMO for the organization the arrow usually ends up pointing to a much harder tone and charter for PMO. This shows that they are trying to deal with real problems, and dealing with real problems is messy.
People want to be seen in the most positive light – not with how they deal with the hard issues they face everyday. This necessary incongruency is a problem that is difficult to reconcile. Where does your organization view itself? How does it practice what it preaches? There may be some incongruency between these two. Most importantly, how does the incongruency get reconciled?
