Ideas

Category: Interpersonal

  • The (New) Hierarchy of Needs – Part III

    [This is part three of a series on project management that is based upon Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”]

    Constraints

    The next level “encapsulates” mission and objectives within the triple constraint: time – scope – budget.

    When the topic of project management comes up, one of the fundamental concepts is the triple constraint.  Needless to say, truly understanding the triple constraint and having a subsequent dialogue about each constraint is key to the success of the effort.  Interestingly enough, many assumptions are made during this dialogue that can introduce problems down the road.

    For example, instead of asking which constraint is “variable”, it’s sometimes best to ask the question – if we don’t do X, what is the impact?

    • Time – if we can’t finish this by X, what happens?
    • Scope – If we cannot deliver X1, what happens?  What if we deliver X1-Y instead?
    • Budget – If we go over budget, what happens?

    It’s recommended that the PM challenge the constraints as much as possible.

    The customer may say that the effort must be delivered by date X, but if we fast forward to date X and the project isn’t delivered, what is the course of action?  If there isn’t a defined course of action, then that really isn’t a hard and fast constraint.  If there is flexibility, then it’s best to make it apparent.  Use the constraints to your and the team’s benefit.

    Another aspect of this discussion is to think about the triple constraint when things aren’t going well.  If it takes an additional 10 resources to finish the project by time X, will the business still benefit in the long-run?  Scenarios like this should be discussed and planned for in advance so that you have some boundaries that you can work within.

    Storytelling

    The next level focuses on “storytelling” – describing the project lifecycle and the end-goal in such a way that is easily comprehensible by all involved.

    Requirements are typically seen as the central “core” around which all work is driven from.  Regardless of the analysis methodology employed, leveraging “static” requirements as the basis for all work is not ideal.  The reason for this is that people do not think linearly – and traditional requirements gathering is just that.  Since this is materially different from how people think, gaps are likely to arise which can cause downstream problems.  Instead, a recommendation is to employ different “storytelling” methods to describe what the end functionality should look like.

    These “stories” can take multiple forms:

    • writing out in paragraph form what the end functionality looks like.
    • creating individual “stories” that align with each objective.
    • describing the objectives using a mind-map.
    • describing how the project progresses over a period of time.

    Creating a story isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive from creating requirements – but the story can ultimately build a better framework from where the requirements can exist.  Remember, you aren’t here to create “shelf-ware” – you’re here to create documentation that is going to drive action.

    Ultimately, true comprehension comes from natural prose, not bullet points – tell the story first.

  • The (New) Hierarchy of Needs – Part II

    [This is part two of a series on project management that is based upon Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”]

    Having managed projects of various sizes and complexity over the past several years, I was puzzled with the absence of “interpersonal” elements in project management literature given that the team is ultimately at the core of any successful project.  To this end, I formulated a hierarchy of needs that incorporates pure project management concepts along with core interpersonal elements.

    This hierarchy looks like the following:

    • Momentum
    • Problem-Solving
    • Accountability
    • Storytelling
    • Constraints
    • Foundation

    The key behind this structure is that it has a very close relationship to Maslow’s original hierarchy of needs.

    This is important to understand because the “real” goal of any project is to have a team where each individual is striving to be the best.  If each team member can work within an environment or “operating structure” (the layers listed above) such that they are able to realize their full potential (i.e. she/he is involved and engaged) and reach a state of “flow” (self-actualization), the collective team will ultimately build enough positive momentum to virtually guarantee project success.

    Thus, you can see why this hierarchy of needs and the concept (and primary goal) of “self-actualization” is extremely important: if team members are happy, the chances for project success are that much greater.

    Let’s explore this hierarchy in more depth.

    Foundation

    At the bottom of the hierarchy is a fundamental understanding of what the project hopes to accomplish.

    To this end, going through a formal exercise of defining an explicit mission statement and underlying objectives can be extremely beneficial in the long-term.  This may seem unnecessary or even foreign.  But first, what exactly is a mission statement?

    “A mission statement is a brief written statement of the purpose of a company or organization. Ideally, a mission statement guides the actions of the organization, spells out its overall goal, provides a sense of direction, and guides decision-making for all levels of management.” – Wikipedia

    In the project management arena, the mission statement is ultimately there to guide the project team and to serve as a “beacon” when things start to become cloudy – “Why are we doing this again?” or “Why is this important to the company / LOB?”  In some circumstances, the explicit definition of a mission statement can start to raise questions across the board where assumptions will start to be challenged.  “Oh, I didn’t know that we are really doing this for LOB A …. if that’s the case, then we need to do X, Y and Z …”

    Once there is agreement on the project mission, it’s only then where you can start to identify core objectives.

    There really shouldn’t be many – three or four.  If you find that you’re heading beyond that, you may start considering ways to break up the project.  Be careful that the customer is not automatically jumping to the requirements definition “phase”.  This is not a requirements gathering exercise – it’s asking “What are you fundamentally trying to accomplish?”  If you’re struggling at this stage, it’s recommended that you remain at this “level” until you and your customer are certain what you’re collectively going to do.

    In some situations where there are multiple organizations involved, it is also valuable to define what each organization/department hopes to gain from their participation.  While this may not directly change things, this level of understanding is helpful when challenges arise – “I see why team A is pushing back on X, because they are really focused on Y …”.  It’s better to know what’s driving behavior now than struggle with it later on.

  • The (New) Hierarchy of Needs – Part I

    “The real goal of any project is to have a team where each individual is striving to be the best.  If each team member can work within an environment or “operating structure”  such that they are able to realize their full potential (i.e. she/he is involved and engaged) and reach a state of “flow” (self-actualization), the collective team will ultimately build enough positive momentum to virtually guarantee project success.” – Adrian Daniels

    A little over a year ago, I wrote an article that discussed how Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs could be employed in other paradigms other than pure survival.  One such paradigm is the use of this hierarchy in project management.

    Project management is a discipline that is more complex than a process or project plan.  Remember, people = complexity.  Understanding what motivates individuals to go “above and beyond”  and mastering team dynamics is what differentiates truly successful projects from average ones.

    The concept that I’ll cover in the next several posts is intended to help project managers and participants really understand the interpersonal aspect to project management.  If you envision project management as a scale, the process and core “plan” are ultimately balanced by the interpersonal / psychological concepts described here.

    As you take a closer look at this project management hierarchy, think about how this structure can be employed in your project(s) (or in ones that you participate in).  Can you employ the entire hierarchy or just elements contained within?  If you were to alter the ordering, what would it look like and why?

    The benefits of using this hierarchy are limitless.  By taking advantage of this paradigm, I am confident that you, your team members and your project will  benefit.

  • Perception = Reality. Really?

    Once you get a label in mind, you don’t notice things that don’t fit within the categories that do make a difference.  But we pay a price for these mental shortcuts.  “The baggage that comes with labeling is the notion of the blunders, really.  It prevents you from seeing what’s clearly before your face; all you’re seeing now is the label.”

    An NBA player is labeled as a low draft pick.  Thanks to our diagnostic bias, it doesn’t matter whether he plays his heart out: he’ll always be viewed as subpar.  Once a professor is described as cold, his personality and teaching ability cease to matter: his students dislike him anyway.  The diagnosis bias causes us to distort or even ignore objective data.

    – Sway, The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior

    Several years ago, I was presented with the argument “perception equals reality”.  At the time, I had to agree – I could not see any way around it.  If people perceive you or something in a certain way, then there is perhaps little you can do to change that initial perception.  In most circumstances, I still believe that this is (unfortunately) true.

    In my last post I introduced the concept of an advancement or development path.  I argue that if you can understand this concept and construct an advancement path focusing on your perception of the world, then you will start to question whether perception is reality and what aspects of your perception require alteration in order to see what truly is.

    Here is an example of what such an advancement path could look like:

    What happens if you are being perceived in a way that is not reflective of reality?  There are really two main options: (with varying degrees in between)

    Option #1: Is there any truth in the perception?  If so, face the perception head on and outline what you will do to correct this initial perception.  Show the advancement pathway to highlight your understanding of the situation and use it as a vehicle for positive change.

    Option #2: If there is no truth in the perception it’s probably best to figure out how to remove yourself from the situation.  This isn’t to say that expending some effort to correct this initial perception won’t add any benefit, but if the core perception is completely wrong, then it’s likely that it will remain in this state independent of your actions – no matter how admirable they may be.

    One thing to be aware of is the downward spiral of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If the degree of the invalid perception is significant (i.e. you are classified as ‘A’ and you are really ‘Z’), then the sheer disconnect (left unchecked) could result in behavior that becomes aligned with the initial perception – and that’s exactly what you don’t want!

    Understand the model.  Understand what is truly “real”.  Make adjustments for positive change or disconnect from the situation at hand.

  • 365 days

  • The Crystal Ball.

    “Begin with the end in mind” is based on the principle that all things are created twice. There’s a mental or first creation, and a physical or second creation to all things. – Stephen Covey

    One of the many things I’ve learned in project management is that “starting with the end in mind” is one of the best methods to ensuring a successful outcome.  When your team has a clear sense of what need to do from the beginning, task definition and assignment activities come naturally and the team is able to spend more time focusing on the “day-to-day” issues vs. continuously wrestling with an ever-changing scope definition.

    A similar approach can work extremely well when envisioning your future.

    An article in the Futurist magazine entitled “Envisioning your Future: Imagining Ideal Scenarios” suggests that:

    … having a vision is to be an idealist.  This idealism should not be confused with unrealistic ideas; it should be used synonymously with having “a standard of excellence”.  A person that is by nature a visionary looks into the future as though it is filled with possibilities, not probabilities.

    If I look at my future based from who I really am, and document a clear description of what that future looks like, my life starts to become what I’ve created for myself.

    After much thought, I came up with the following personal vision:

    “My vision for the future is comprised of positive experiences that intertwine my ‘personal’ and ‘professional’ lives into a single life structure.  Because of this, the long-held notion of “work-life” balance is lessened, and at its extreme, no longer required.  By thinking strategically, I am able to spend my energy on activities that pay dividends over both the short and long-term.  A continuous and purposeful stream of explicit and implicit challenges allows my mind to expand at an accelerated rate.  With this expansion comes possibilities, and possibilities spark further action towards an ideal state called “Ultima”.  My relationships are continuously expanding, but only at a rate where the relationships themselves are developing at a natural and lasting pace.  My ability to see the unique qualities of each person and strive towards relationships that are, at their core, genuine, helps build strong partnerships that ultimately become central figures in a life structure built around growth, energy, complexity, awareness and intensity.”

    Fortunately, I think this is fairly representative of what I want my future to look like.  The next step is to take this concept and apply it to my design firm.

    What does my business vision look like?  I’ll talk about that in my next post.

  • The Grand Illusion.

    One of the fortunate and unfortunate aspects of experiencing trauma (loss) is that you ultimately seek guidance and a level of understanding on why it occurred and what you should ultimately learn from the experience.  In short, you are looking for answers.

    This, of course, is not surprising.  How often do you hear of people whose life mission becomes centered around the trauma they faced?  A mother’s loss to a drunk driver can redirect her pain into something that can benefit the greater good – e.g. M.A.D.D.  The degree of the trauma can, I think, have a direct impact into the degree of the life change on the other end.

    This is perhaps my last post on the topic of my past relationship to a woman who I believe has borderline personality disorder.  What I thought was true love turned out to be, I think, something else, and this is the hardest part to comprehend and ultimately accept.

    Within this post, I’ll refer to several other sites that I have researched over the past two years to connect the pieces of this complex puzzle. Ultimately, this post symbolizes the need for closure that will never happen in a relationship of this type.  In addition, and perhaps of equal importance, it’s about helping others who have experienced something similar and seek some level of comprehension to make their lives better.

    First, it’s important to understand what borderline personality disorder is.  At its core, it’s an intense fear of abandonment.  This fear is sometimes established at an early age and can be caused by an interruption in one’s normal psychological development.  The loss of a parent is a concrete “seed” that can result in this disorder taking shape.

    Because close relationships, by their very nature, have some degree of risk, relationships with someone who has BPD are very intense and unstable.  To be more specific, because there is risk of abandonment, partners with BPD swing wildly from love to hate and back again.  People with BPD will frantically try to avoid real or imagined abandonment and they will do this by projecting unacceptable or threatening feelings to their partner.  This type of psychological defense mechanism is called “projection”.

    Not surprisingly, projection can do much damage to the relationship over time.  The main reason for this is that the person on the other side of BPD will be unable to bear the burden of their issues as well as their partner’s, and the relationship ultimately collapses.

    In looking back at the relationship, I equate my experience with a bell curve – with time on the X-axis and the question “Am I the true cause of these problems?” factor on the Y-axis.  In the early stages of the relationship, you will naturally look past the obvious problems / conflict.  However, as the relationship progresses,  you will begin questioning what is happening.  After a certain amount of time, you will start to think that maybe you are the problem – graphically you are at the top of the bell curve.  It was during this period where I started to focus on issues that I was bringing into the relationship and started to think about what I wanted from my life.  After about a year, I moved past the apex and back to where I originally started – “Why is this happening?”

    Unfortunately, and ironically, it’s around this time where your original goal in providing a sense of security and comfort to your partner is turned completely upside down.  You are now the source of your partner’s abandonment fears.  You become the problem.

    At this point, it should be clear that a relationship of this type is very damaging to all involved – particularly to the “non-BPD” partner.  Your belief in yourself, your ability to make good decisions, and your belief in a true partnership are all significantly damaged and take a considerable time to return to some level of “normalcy”.

    It is, however, important to convey the numerous positive outcomes this experience has brought into my life:

    – Expanded self-awareness
    – Increased assertiveness
    – Enhanced communication and articulation
    – Accelerated maturation in personal and professional lives
    – Positive career direction
    – Increased tolerance for independence
    – Accelerated creative exploration via photography, industrial design, writing
    – Launched new business

    I started this blog in November of 2008 as a vehicle towards understanding something that, at the time, was incomprehensible. This post is a symbol of a journey that I didn’t expect to take.

    And that is the tragedy of it all.

    Appendix: Web Sites

    While there are a multitude of web sites providing information about this disorder, there are a few that are extremely beneficial:

    Appendix: Common Themes / Quotes
    (from a few of the sites listed above)

    “We are initially drawn into a borderline relationship by the charm and glamour of extreme idealization about who we are and whom or what it is we represent that is presented to us – we are split white. This circumstance feeds our ego and makes us feel safe, wanted and loved.”

    “When it’s good, it’s really good. You think you have found the one you are going to be with forever.  But it doesn’t stay good for long. Something happens to change the tide. That is what is sad for all involved with this disorder. For the person with BPD, it can’t be easy to live like that. And for the person who loves them. You’re left with WTH is going on?”

    “If you’re with someone or love someone with bpd and they are not getting help, then be very very careful with your decisions. Enjoy the good times but also know that tomorrow it may change. Be ready and have your boundaries”.

    “The borderline’s insecurities and feeling of inadequacy are never sated, so they continue to project these insecurities onto their Non partner with accusations, explosions about certain occurrences, and the like. They will start fights about, well, you don’t know. In the end, you will end up feeling like you are always rebuilding the relationship and starting from ground zero with regards to trust, respect and all the foundational elements and building blocks of a solid relationship.”

    “… I miss the person I thought [s]he was.”

  • Altitude Sickness.

    In November of 2006, I decided to climb Mt.Rainier.

    Given that I have never climbed a mountain, my first and only concern was ensuring that I was physically strong enough to reach the summit.  Thus, over the subsequent six months I practiced climbing stairs in local arenas, walked for miles in the darkness of winter, and eventually walked thirteen miles with a loaded backpack with forty pounds of weight.  In May of 2007, feeling confident in my physical ability, I packed my gear and headed to Seattle, Washington where I was to meet up with other climbers at the Alpine Ascents office.

    I arrived fairly early to the planning session, and given the few climbers who were already there, the relative “intimacy” of the environment helped boost my confidence and comfort level.  Interestingly enough, this level of comfort remained fairly static until three new team members arrived fairly late in the session.  In retrospect, the combination of their collective personality along with the seeming “collapse” of the team dynamic led to a rather abrupt decline in self-confidence.

    During the van ride to the mountain, I also noticed that I was becoming somewhat withdrawn from the group.  Being consciously aware of this, I took steps to “return” to my original self and was able to gradually interact with other team members without any problems.  However, it was at the first camp (Camp Muir – elevation 10,188 feet) where things started to become much more challenging for me.  Granted, the physical undertaking to climb ten-thousand feet was both physically and mentally draining, but the real struggle involved not my legs or body, but my mind.  Even though I was with approximately ten other climbers, I felt extremely isolated and alone.

    It was only after the climb where I reflected why my primary barrier to reaching the summit on Rainier was not physical, but mental.

    A person’s mental state is influenced by a wide range of factors – energy level, family history, personal experiences, etc. – but at it’s core is one’s personality.  Everyone knows fundamentally who they are, but exploring the underlying facets through a formal personality test can further expand one’s awareness of their modes of operation and what they can do to bridge connections with others.  A common and fairly reliable test is known as Myers Briggs, or as it is more commonly known – the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

    When I first took the MBTI back in 2000, I was amazed with the results – the correlation to my true personality was striking.  At the time, the test told me that I was of personality type “ISTJ“, which can be explained via the following descriptions:

    • Ways of Gaining Energy: Introversion – You focus on your inner world and get energy through reflecting on information, ideas and concepts.
    • Ways of Taking in Information: Sensing – You notice and trust facts, details and present realities.
    • Ways of Making Decisions: Thinking – You make decisions using logical, objective analysis.
    • Ways of Living in the World: Judging – You prefer to be organized and orderly and to make decisions quickly.

    Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I decided to take the MBTI a second time.  This time my results were actually much different – I was now of personality type “INFP” (Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, Perceiving).  Interestingly enough, this change in type felt right.

    While there is a free test available online, the benefit of taking the official test is that you are provided with an eighteen-page report that provides in-depth analysis of the key facets of your personality as well as tangible suggestions on how to improve your communication style, ability to manage change and conflict, and ability to make decisions.

    Not surprisingly, the introversion element of my personality was a key determinant in my discomfort on Rainier.  Fortunately, I can interact with strangers without any difficulty and engage them in decent conversation, but if I don’t have the ability to (eventually) form any true connections with the people I am with, I am going to start to withdraw.  The fact that I was unable to step away from the group on Rainier to replenish my sense of “self” made it all that much more challenging.

    I used to think that my inability to rapidly “connect” with strangers was a deficiency that needed to be overcome.  After much self-reflection and research, I no longer believe this.  To be sure, if I felt this was a genuine barrier that needed to be overcome, then I would take immediate steps to expand my personality “container” to better adapt in these types of situations.  However, it’s important to recognize that all personalities are created equal and trying to “fix” a personality trait because it doesn’t “fit” isn’t necessarily the right thing to do.  A personality isn’t something that needs to be “fixed”.

    What is the lesson here?  When faced with new challenges, having inventory of your values, strengths and weaknesses are useful tools, but the true foundation of understanding is a keen awareness of your own personality.  If you take steps to explore your personality through formal or freely available personality tests, explore related literature about your personality type, and integrate the suggestions and information into your mode of operation, you will find that your sense of self will be that much greater and you’ll have an enhanced ability to deal with conflict, make important decisions, and communicate with others who have personality types different from your own.

  • Contrast Ratio.

    While the year is not yet over, 2009 has ultimately been a lesson in contrast.  In 2006 I went into a relationship with unique optimism, hope and love (marriage) to end up with feelings of terminal loss, distrust and despair (death).  Fortunately this experience has served as a catalyst to help me advance to a new level of consciousness and awareness.

    While the phrase “experience” leaves considerable room for any sort of time measurement, for reasons of simplicity let’s assume there is a measurable start and end to the experience at hand.  For those who go into a situation that turns out similar to their original expectations, one can leave the experience with a sense of increased confidence in her/his ability to predict an outcome.  If these experiences repeat themselves – i.e. one is able to repeatedly predict an outcome – their confidence can grow.  In essence, these “positive” experiences begin to build a self-fulfilling prophecy where predictability and success go hand in hand.  After all, if I can look into the future, by default I have greater “control” over that future and my own destiny.

    If, however, the experiences in which I partake have a different outcome than originally foreseen, then I may find myself taking part in an alternative self-fulfilling prophecy where “failure” and “unpredictability” are the norm.  In essence, I am losing the ability to predict the future and thus my feeling of “control” over my own destiny can and will likely erode.

    Of course, what I am describing here are macro views and do not address the numerous nuances that can affect either scenario.  For example, one “bad” (or “good”) outcome does not necessarily mean that all subsequent outcomes will share a similar fate.  In addition, my ability to learn and adjust after each situation can significantly affect future experiences and their eventual outcomes.  While a continuous string of failures will eventually have a negative impact on one’s self-confidence, failure of any frequency or magnitude can be a powerful catalyst for action and innovation.

    The ultimate goal is to find a balance between predictability and unpredictability, the latter of which resulting in some form of “lesson” that maintains this equilibrium.

    So, what does an experience entail and how does one build the skills to achieve positive and more predictable outcomes?

    An experience has a beginning, a “core” and an end.  A determination of whether the experience is going as originally planned or is deviating “off course” can occur in any of the three phases.  At a fundamental level, the basis of an experience is time.

    While one can argue that there isn’t a “right” or “wrong” path for a given experience, at a basic level you have a sense of where you want that experience to go.  For example, if a relationship is showing signs of erosion, not doing anything may eventually lead to its failure.  Thus, making corrections to the experience “course” to enable its long-term success may be right thing to do.

    Whether to begin a new experience depends a lot upon your values and your goals.  While this decision is usually subconscious, if you don’t have a clear sense of either, your experience will be somewhat random. However, if your goal is to experience things with purpose, then your ability to choose experiences that provide a foundation for the “predictability/unpredictability balance” will become that much greater.

    Let’s assume that you have chosen an experience with purpose – you are now operating within the experience “core”.  Your next logical goal is to participate in the most meaningful and positive way that you can – i.e. striving to reach a “self-actualization” phase of consciousness and operation.  In order to achieve this state of being, you need to pay close attention to the “hierarchy of needs” structure – not only in its original definition but one that is applicable to the experience at hand.

    Focusing on the concept of self-actualization – and the supporting hierarchy – are both important because they can determine the quality and duration of the experience.

    For example, in attempting to reach self-actualization, the mind becomes overly concerned with reaching that pinnacle, and virtually ignores everything else.  When layers of the hierarchy become eroded, and you no longer have the direction that your goals were providing, your reality crashes to the ground.  It’s similar to climbing a mountain, reaching the apex, and then realizing that you are out of oxygen (i.e. your support structure).  How are you going to get down?

    The aspect that is central to avoiding this dilemma is time.  Time is the only thing that is constant through your journey across the hierarchy.  It’s the measurement that you need to be focused on to ensure your long-term “survival”.  What is happening in the “core” of the experience?  Is the hierarchy “intact”?  If it is not, what are you doing to ensure its overall stability?

    If you are able to identify with these questions and answer them objectively, the quality of the experience for not only you, but others that may be involved in that experience, will be that much greater.  At a basic level, it’s synonymous with an individual vs. team mindset – focusing on the former is appropriate, but not focusing on the latter is not.

    It’s worth noting that simply because you believe an experience is worth the investment doesn’t mean that the operating environment will work in your favor.  Forces can work with or against you in all phases of the experience.  Being able to clearly recognize these forces and how they impact your experience (and your hierarchy of needs) is another valuable skill.

    Making a decision whether the experience needs to “end” depends a lot on the experience itself.  Taking inventory of whether the experience is obligatory or optional, and/or if it continues to align with your values and goals are both excellent barometers to appropriately close or abruptly terminate the experience.  Delaying a decision to bring closure to an experience can ultimately erode aspects of the hierarchy of needs without it being obvious that you are doing so.

    What’s the lesson here?  In order to benefit from any experience, you need to have a clear understanding of what you value, what you want to achieve and what you desire.  Once you have this level of understanding, your ability to benefit from and self-actualize within the experience is dependent upon your awareness of the experience itself.  It is this level of awareness and the resulting decisions which will pave the way towards experiences that ultimately build self-confidence through a unique balance of predictable and unpredictable outcomes.

    While you don’t have control over the future, you do have some level of control over your own destiny.

    (While I’ve used my career and relationship as a basis for the “experience” definition, it’s important to recognize that the use of this phrase is applicable for all experiences regardless of classification.)

  • The Fog of War.

    In one of my earlier posts, I introduced the concept of “situational awareness” – a concept critical to pilots, and anyone else who needs to maintain focus and concentration in the midst of “chaos”.

    As alluded to in the post, when problems start to develop such that one’s situational awareness is compromised, one is left “defenseless” for a certain time period until situational awareness is restored.  While there are many times when situational awareness is restored, there are times when regaining situational awareness is impossible.

    Due to its military applicability, this period of ambiguity is commonly known as “the fog of war”.

    In Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink“, he calls special attention to a military leader by the name of Paul Van Riper.  Given his extensive military leadership experience, he was asked to participate in a highly complex military strategy scenario to determine its viability in the “real world”.  Upon receiving his “objective” and gaining an understanding of this new “leadership strategy”, he decided to forgo the instructions provided him and instead lead as he had done in past combat situations.  Leading his team in this manner allowed him to stay focused on the objective without getting bogged down in unnecessary “tiered” and complex leadership strategies.  Interestingly enough, the high-tech strategic principles employed by his adversary found themselves lacking situational awareness and ultimately within a “fog of war” of their own creation.

    This concept, in my view, has applicability outside the military realm as well.

    In the workplace, the likelihood that such a “fog” will exist depends upon leadership capability, organizational structure and communication pathways.  As with the military equivalent, and taking a cue from the associated Wikipedia entry, this “fog” can exist at multiple levels:

    • Strategic
    • Management
    • Operational
    • Tactical

    One major cause for the “fog of war” condition is a breakdown that spans these four levels of authority.  It’s similar to the “operator game” where disconnects in communication increase as the number of connection points increases (i.e. the original meaning gets lost in translation).

    While communication breakdowns are natural and perhaps unavoidable in the larger sense, as you increase the frequency and magnitude of “direction setting”, resources “on the ground” will begin to lose a sense for their own judgment and will eventually become incapable of action if and when these directional communications cease.  Thus, one way to combat this problem is to do as Paul Van Riper did – provide general direction and guidance, but leave the “real” decision-making to those held accountable for doing the work.

    This problem also finds its way in interpersonal relationships.  A good example of when the “fog of war” can introduce itself is within the “pursuer / distancer” pattern.

    In most normal circumstances, a relationship typically starts on a level playing field.  However, as each partner gains more knowledge of the other, each partner may end up playing either the “pursuer” or “distancer” role.  The pursuer is someone who wants to talk often about the relationship and will want to spend more time together, while the”distancer” will want to talk about practical issues and spend more time individually.  As this cycle continues and escalates, the pursuing partner will eventually be seen in a negative light – i.e. as someone who accuses and complains.  Not surprisingly, the distancing partner will also be seen in negative light – i.e. she/he does not “care” about the relationship and is generally aloof.  In many circumstances, these beliefs are rarely valid – i.e. both parties usually have a joint interest in the relationship as a whole.  However, the “fog of war” ultimately causes a lack of situational awareness and the relationship suffers unnecessarily.  If both partners regain situational awareness, breaking free from this “fog” is possible (at least in the short-term until more sufficient dialogue takes place).

    How does one maintain enough situational awareness to avoid the “fog of war” or to at least “regain” awareness more rapidly?

    At a basic level, I think the key to avoiding the “fog of war” (or minimizing one’s stay) is for all parties to understand it in principle.  Having awareness that such a “fog” is possible will empower each participant and will enable them to slow things down and take inventory of what is really happening.

    At a more advanced level, this collective awareness is ultimately realized through a “shared mental model”.  In essence, such a model provides the team (or partners) with a common set of discrete operating principles that enable them to maintain focus and to realize when the other has lost situational awareness.  It boils down to understanding 1) the task and team goals, 2) their individual tasks and 3) team member goals and responsibilities.  Via this shared mental model, there is a greater likelihood that at least one team member will maintain situational awareness.  This very possibility is the key to preventing others from entering the “fog of war” and to quickly pull them out of an existing “fog”.

    References: