Putting profesional into "Professional Services" - Part 1. The Conversation

Professional did you say? Project Managers, Programmers, Business analysts? The rest of the pack of running wolves that make up the IT Industry?
Says who?

The late evening sunset chat

So we are sitting in the evening talking about this and that, and the conversation turns to doctors, lawyers and other professionals. The sun is slipping down and that’s OK, because generally that’s about the time that the kids have been tucked away and the non-PC stuff will soon come out: deep glasses with the remains of red wine make way for whiskey glasses, cigars and Port.

Professionals they are not, says Sarah. She has survived a greedy surgeons grasp, largely because her husband Tim insisted on a second opinion. And a third, who confirmed number 2's. Yes, says Keith. We nearly ended up paying for our attorney’s summer vacation. One by one the stories pop up, everyone has one, even if it is only second or third hand.

The Salesman

Several days later I am sitting in an office. A mid thirties man is giving me the Consultants con. Suited and tied, cuff linked and silver tongued. He’s from a big consulting firm, and they have just pitched for, and won, the outsourcing for entire IT department for the large firm my little one consult to. We are a professional company, he says. We won’t steal your staff, or terminate your contract. After all (and he gives a little chuckle) we are all in this together: not enough qualified people out there, after all: must work with folk like you.

He is lying through his gold plated teeth, of course. My ears prick up “We are a Professional organization” he’s saying, and before he can complete the sentence I butt in “what do you mean by that? Professional, that is. What does it mean, you’re ‘Professional’ ... ” I leave the dots hanging in the air. Last Sunday’s conversation has intervened between us, its there now, in the back of my head.
He’s nonplussed, but recovers himself quickly. Giving me a hard, careful look now, he repeats sections (no doubt memorized by heart) from the Corporate Brochure, while looking over my casual outfit, chinos and checked shirt. I can see that he does not rate me. I fleetingly regret not having come in more formally dressed, and I think to myself “We’re a damn sight more professional than your lot, Mr, with or without the fancy words.”

It’s the service that counts. After all, we sell “Professional Services” don’t we?
But while he didn't answer the question to my satisfaction, I didn’t have the answer myself. Well, not off pat, in any case. It needed some thinking.
That was some months ago: and having been on the mission, I think I might be able to answer the question. Its in part 2 of this mini series :) Part 3 is a manifesto to live by Of course, as in so many of these things, there is also a back story.

The Back Story.

Back in the early noughties, two things were going on. Someone I knew well had started a home cell to help the people in her church whose relationships were collapsing (or had collapsed), and concurrently I had been challenged by an MBA undergrad to justify the title of “Professional” when applied to non-professional disciplines, and in particular the IT discipline.

To answer the students was one challenge, to find some literature to help my sister was another. As so often happens, these two things coalesced and gave me the answers that I was struggling to articulate.
I was able to have a conversation with the undergrad while at the same time providing some guidancee to the home cell leader.

Coupled to my own experiences in life and work, a number of things informed my determination of what it meant, in practice and in theory, to be taken to be a professional in those other disciplines. They are, or were, the unwritten background to it all.

Chief amongst them work I was doing on the Theory of Constraints, Dr Edward Deming’s work on Systemic improvement, process control and quality and a book - “Ethics and Spiritual Care: A Guide for Pastors and Spiritual Directors” by Karen Lebacqz, Joseph D. Driskill. In the work place you may well know much more about than I do; but the book is a mandatory read if you are interested/concerned about the role of ethics in daily life (or you know someone who works in the space of spiritual guidance/leadership). you can get the value you need by turning the words towards yourself, and not as it's intended, as a primer to help others.

My Advice to Allan

Charting a way forward from the open door trap
So what should Allan do about his predicament?

• Is it all Doom and Gloom, or
• does he have any positives?
• Should he up and leave? (There's that should word again! . . . I'll talk to it one of these days) and
• if not, how does he behave going forward?
  
• and what about the company? What's all of this doing to the organization itself?

Lets take these one at a time, and look at the advice I gave him.
What are his positives?Well, to begin with he has a case for constructive or wrongful dismissal in the future. Clearly, the employer has caused a number of unfair conditions to arise:

• He has been disintermediated in his functional role
• Time has passed to such an extent that he can no longer be held solely accountable for any further collapse in morale (if there was a morale problem!)
• Senior Management have behaved negligently towards its shareholders by allowing the situation to persist

The first two bullets are clearly prejudicial to him and if he ever is dismissed or disciplined on their account he will have a strong case to make against the company. He is fortunate in that he knows that the situation is unfolding, so he can do some things to protect himself from downstream troubles:

1. Keep a daily Journal
2. Maintain his professional conduct and behave scrupulously fairly to everyone in the team
3. Be fully transparent in all his dealings with the team and the client

Go or Stay?
Now that's a contextual question. To quote the shyster lawyer "it all depends".
My answer is Stay if a suitable combination of the following apply:

• he is persuaded in his own mind that he has retained the goodwill of the key influencers in the team
• its not personal (i.e. the attack is on the team, and he is merely the quickest target to bring the team down)
• he can continue to fulfill his role without damaging his cv
• he can maintain his personal integrity and keep his sense of injustice in check
• there is no succession plan to hand over his duties (start immediately to set that to rights!)
• he is approaching a milestone that will allow him to disengage gracefully

Otherwise, get out as fast and as gracefully as possible. Without recriminations. This is a time to resign without apology or explanation: serve notice and go. Its a small world out there, and one doesn't want to get into a "he said, I said, they did, I did" discussion.

How to behave if one stays
Over and above the three points above ~

1. Try to avoid one on one situations. That way one won't land in the "he said/she said" situations.
2. Do NOT try to double guess who your accuser is. There lies a pathway to madness which will surely undo one. Let go of all personal feelings in this matter. In many cases, people who push back hard are merely behaving in accordance with their natures: its not personal. It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that people who don't share one's opinions are necessarily working for one's downfall. "If you can't let go of your paranoia, then get out of the situation".
3. Observe my Grandmother's first Rule: "If it's not written down, it don't even exist". Confirm everything within the team in writing. This is a great rule to keep in any situation. Sometime in the future I will blog it.
4. Build a succession plan. Plan to get out of the project, by empowering Junior Management and handing over duties.
5. Build a collaborative structure. This is a great time to build a collaborative work structure, its the best defense against team mates who wish to undermine Management or the team. Its also the best defense if the project is under attack, rather than the individual.

And what about the Organization?
Well, now, the cliched quote goes that a fish rots from its head, not its tail. But, as Joseph Wambaugh noted, "the whole fish still goes bad". So this is a company that is headed in directions that no sane person would want to stay with. It appoints Managers, and then acts in ways that disempower them. It allows Kafkaesque situations to arise. It encourages a playground attitude. It's Senior Management is clearly immature and naive.

My long term advice to Allan is: Sooner or later, leave. You deserve better.

Trapped in an open door

or, how to turn your a Project into a Soapie

How an open door policy became a trap door for Middle Managers


Consider the plight of my friend Allan. He's a program manager with a bunch of people reporting to him. Up till now he has thought of them as "his team": and in fact, all things considered, they are.

His Manager is Bob, who reports to the Head Honcho Chris. You see, reporting and escalation should be as simple as ABC.
Except it isn't. We have to deal with that "should" word here.
Lets Pick two team members: Tom and Jerry.
Tom does not like the way Allan handled an incident that involved Jerry.

Several months later, he decides to escalate his concern.
Because all Managers have an open door policy, he goes straight to the Boss Chris.
Chris Listens, and goes to Bob. The conversation goes something like this:
Chris: "Someone has complained to me about Allan. He is not happy that Jerry's incident was handled right" Bob: "Ok, tell me who complained and I will set up a round table" Chris: "I can't. Then I would compromise the open door policy" Bob: "So what do you want me to do? I don't know who complained, I don't know what the complaint was, and Tom himself is OK with the outcome." Chris: "I am concerned about the Morale of the team ..."

So Bob Speaks to Allan, but since they don't know what to fix, or who to fix it with, Allan is told to "be more aware".

Thereafter, once a month, Chris confronts Bob with a demand to know "What you are doing about the morale issue". Discussions take place about how Allan behaved in this context or that context, but (of course) no-one discusses the substance with Allan, who continues to Manage with the cloud over his head, and the awareness that a "case" is open (and building) against him.
Kafka could not have scripted it better.
What has the Team learned from this?
Of course, the bush telegraph gets a hold of this. As the months go past, and nothing happens, beyond the obvious discomfort of the PMs, the team learns one important lesson:

We can make any accusation we like, and it won't be tested,
if we claim that it is done:
"in confidence, in the best interests of the Team/Company,
or if we might be "picked on" afterwards.

Which, dear friends, is a central theme for the plot of any Soapie ever written ...

As for Allan, he's looking for a new Assignment: and so would I.