The Volkswagen emissions scandal figures prominently in the Catalog of Catastrophe that the International Project Leadership Academy has compiled of the most spectacular project management failures in the last 10 years.
The revelation that such a revered and trusted brand had taken previously inconceivable steps to deceive both regulators and the public in the name of profit margins was a shock to the world.
We all agree that decision-making is a critical component in any business. Informed and timely decision-making is a goal we all aspire to improve on. So what happens when responsibilities and ultimate accountability are not clearly defined?
We have found that every team is made up of two broad types of people– the Idea Makers and the Doers. If you’ve ever taken a Myers Briggs test, you might know these two groups as Judgers (J) and Perceivers (P).
The concept of tying compensation to accountability seems simple enough on the surface. However, making it real is way harder than it looks. And the biggest challenge is deciding what to measure performance against.
First, let’s agree that meetings are a reliable and efficient way to get teams aligned behind a common objective or goal. Let’s also agree that, if not carefully managed, meetings can quickly unravel into a massive waste of time.
The annual performance review is an excruciating ritual that has been around for a really long time, but, in 2017, it’s just not cool anymore.
It is a 20th century model that just doesn’t work for the 21st century. Managers see them as time consuming and not always reflecting employees’ real contributions. Employees, especially millennials, can find them demeaning and unfair.
But how can we provide the feedback that is essential to an employee’s growth without a review? And how can management gather and organize information on employee performance to use in human resources decisions?
The Harvard Business Review recently released an article outlining how to identify high-potential employees.
Every manager has faced the disappointment of assigning a task to a team member and finding out that the task was ignored or slipped through the cracks.
Expanding the scope of a project is not a bad thing when properly managed. in fact, changing requirements, constraints, needs, context, or priorities in a project is more norm than rarity.
But a problem arises when change creeps into a project unnoticed. When project sponsors, project managers and team members realize that they are working on a bigger and more ambitious project than originally planned, and that they have begun to miss deadlines consistently and to exceed budgets, it’s probably too late.
Have you ever found yourself in meetings where the same issues and action items seem to get discussed over and over?
If the mechanics of documenting action items, defining a due date, and assigning it to somebody are in place then, why don’t things get done? Why do we need to talk about them again at subsequent meetings? There are actually some very simple steps you can take to make sure that your meetings stay on track.
