Consistent and Prompt Response Methodology

A large part of a PM’s work (statistically – 70% to 90%) is communicating. A great PM is one who is timely and consistent is sending out communications, especially responses. With project communications increasingly tending towards email rather than other forms, responding to mails has become an important communication need.

This blog focusses on managing responses to the multitude of e-mails which flood our inboxes – being “ADEPT” at prioritizing responses, personal reminder systems and email content.

“Communications’ Management” – a dedicated knowledge area as per the PMBOK® covers:

Communications are of several types and occur over various methods as illustrated below.

Why Email Responses are so Important:

In a project situation whether the Program Manager is an informal leader – not the driver of the project but surely a navigator, a PM’s communications are more in reaction to issues opened by others. Responses take the bulk of the communication time rather than announcements and initiation of communication threads.

For a good PM, it is necessary to ensure response are sent to e-mails either by oneself or the right person. Several misunderstandings occur just because no one responded on time and in the right manner. Setting a predictable level of timeliness and consistence in responses will establish the PM’s role and involvement. Stakeholders get the assurance of predictability when they know their issues will be responded to – the PM is wonderfully poised to establish this trust and that is a great value add to the execution team.

Below are some aspects about the response mechanism a PM could adopt. (I bet you didn’t know you’d need a process to ensure responses when you became a PM. 😊)

Prioritizing Responses: What to respond to is always a good question to ask oneself. Outlined below is a mechanism I use.

Personal Reminder System: Leaving aside the immediate responses, one challenge is to track the other messages to ensure responses are given. A Personal Reminder System to ensure responses aren’t missed. Some methods I use are below:

1. Unread mails: Leaving messages unread helps remind me that the communication thread is yet to be closed. I don’t mark a message as “read”, unless I know I have responded and there is nothing more for me to do on that topic. Every day, I have a look at the unread messages and ensure responses are sent out. I also make sure I maintain less than 100 unread messages. When the count exceeds, it does become overwhelming. But that’s the time I remember that I need to clear up clutter and close open threads.
2. Outlook reminders / other tools: For some responses that need action and closure a few weeks down the line, I set a reminder in my outlook calendar. At times I add to to-do list in my Stick Notes or an AR in my project trackers. These are immensely helpful for recurring tasks too.

Concluding a Conversation:

A communication thread must be given a conclusion. Several times, we see the opening of an email thread, addition of people to the thread, a whole bunch of people writing into it, ideas flying, till finally a meeting is called, which is attended by a limited audience who decide on a course of action but don’t let others know. This is a typical example of an open communication thread. Isn’t it basic courtesy to ensure that all those who got involved be given an update on what is happening? A good PM ought to ensure that a thread is closed conclusively – it builds great trust on the working and involvement of the PM in the project.

The Right Audience, the Right Subject Line:

While sending a response is important, doing everything to ensure that the response is read is extremely important. A response ought to be for the right audience. Often, we may be tempted to reduce our work by doing a “Reply All”. This is a put-off both for the recipients and the original sender too (who expected the response). When a receiver sees a message copied to a lot of people, it acts as a put-off to start with. Such responses reduce the PMs impact in the long run.

It would be prudent to reduce the audience to those relevant and required and avoid sending out bulk communications except when an announcement or a general pass-down or AR needs to be communicated.

Changing the subject line to make it relevant also helps catch the recipient / s attention. A subject line could include the project, issue, action required and / or intended audience to make it relevant.

Declutter:

A clean place is a conducive work environment. The same goes for digital space. To be able to prioritize, keeping a clean inbox is extremely helpful. Some useful tools to for this purpose include:

Content of a response:

A little about the message itself – a good message should be framed with a few important facets in mind:

1. Greeting line and people addressed: To ensure a mail is read, it is a good practice to start with the names of the people or the group to whom the mail is addressed to. This is small yet impactful practice to ensure a mail is read.
2. Intent: An email could be to convey an action request, status, issue, information. The way a response is drafted would depend on the intent. It helps to mention the intent early in the message.
3. Issue: Explaining an issue as part of a communication can be tricky. With reduced attentions spans, it is a good practice to use short and simple sentences. Breaking up the entire statement into bullet points helps. Good formatting brings clarity to the flow of the content. It is good to start with a summary and provide details as Annexures or attachments.
4. Level of detail required: Knowing how much detail should go into a message is an art. It is easy to be lost in details with the result that the recipient/s doesn’t really get the crux of the matter. And every communication has a crux – an intent, the core part. A PM’s communication skill comes in ensuring the crux is delivered to the recipient.  A good PM makes it easy for the audience to understand the issue or action and delve into the details only as much as required.
5. Actions to be taken: This is a very important part. ARs ought to be either at the beginning (preferably) or end. Interspersing ARs into the issue description can often lead to the recipients missing them out.
6. Questions versus statements: It has become common practice to write questions into emails. Too many question marks in an email can make the reader feel he or she is getting grilled. It is safer to write statements than questions and use proper punctuation. Some tips here.

Listen, Read, Reflect:

Before delivering a response, it is a good habit to read the message, think over a few times. Put yourself in the recipient’s shoes. Consider their knowledge level, involvement in the issues, relevance to the communication. A good message ought to have just about the content required to progress.

The Desired Result:

A responsive PM ensures:

1. Communications are timely.
2. Messages are clear.
3. Nothing is missed.
4. Messages are understood and acted upon by the recipients.

To repeat the crux of this blog –

• It is essential for a PM as an informal leader is to establish trust.
• One key element for this is to ensure timely and relevant responses.
• A PM ought to have a methodology for himself / herself to ensure Promptness and Consistency in his/her responses.

Here are some short videos that would be useful:

1. Clear Communication
2. Actionable messages

Servant Leadership

About 4 years back, I didn’t know this term existed. It is an intriguing term as Leadership is generally associated with a superior position and a larger-than-the-team role.

When I donned the Program Manager role managing multiple teams and serving several customers, I realized that my role in ensuring organizational success would be relatively indirect compared to that of the engineers who worked in my programs. So rather than monitoring their work, I focused on whether they are enabled sufficiently.

And then, a colleague mentioned this concept of “Servant Leadership”, and it struck a chord.

Yes, the term sounds not-too-pleasant. But then as Subhashpeare said, “What’s in a name? What you call a leader by any other name would do just the same work”. 😂. (For those who don’t know – the original is by Shakespeare – “What’s in a name. That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”)

Formally, servant leadership can be defined as “A leadership philosophy in which the goal of the leader is to serve.” In our context, it translates to enabling our teams. Assuming that we have the right skilled engineers to carry out the job, the leader’s role changes from directing to facilitating which can include the below aspects:

The concept isn’t entirely new. A Google search reveals that famous personalities like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were exemplary servant leaders. In the business context corporates like Marriott International and Starbucks have adopted servant leadership (more here).

My key realization while adopting this method for my role is that a Leader exists only when there is a team. By himself / herself, a leader has no existence. It’s the team first, leader next. Adapting this philosophy, Servant leadership is an obvious choice.

With this motivation to adopt servant leadership in my work, I found success in several areas:

Practiced well, team members don’t see the servant leader as a threat but as a friend. The practice of servant leadership also reflects in improvements in the below areas:

The challenge about servant leadership is the relinquishment of the personal ego and false pride. One who adopts this style has a LOT of personal change coming up. This is both a professional and a personal journey – leading to fulfillment in both aspects. It is definitely a challenge in a professional environment, especially striking the right balance between personal ambition and team’s victories.

But rest assured, the rewards of adopting servant leadership and proven and worth the effort. It has helped teams and organizations win and craft their success stories. Teams recognize and value servant leaders much more than authoritative ones – Hitler is rarely remembered for the right reasons 😊 but those I referred to earlier are still revered.

As with any management method, this is not a one-shoe-fits-all leadership method. Servant leadership is effective in building up a team and sustaining it. But a good leader must be able to change as per the project’s situation demands. A key aspect is being able to still be assertive when the demand arises to rally the team for a sprint to the goal where other methods may be more effective.

PS: Please don’t mind the cartoons. For sure, don’t try to make sense of them in relation to the context. 😆

Let People Have Their “Work Mind Space”

Every individual has some strengths and some not-so-strong areas. This is a known fact. Yet this well-known fact is scarcely used, especially in the professional area.

Most people in a work environment tend to think that they need to showcase themselves in every area of work all the time. People feel that they must show that they know everything, that they can do everything. Despite all the talk of working as a team, employees end up stepping on each other’s toes while attempting to showcase themselves. The concept of teamwork goes for a toss. So does the idea of respecting and playing on team members’ strengths.

It is important to identify others’ strengths (along with those of oneself) and let others do their job well. In other words, it is important to let others have their space – to let them do what they excel at.

This is what I call “Work Mind Space.” While at work, everyone needs mind space to think, plan, organize and finally act.

“Work Mind Space” starts with time for thinking. Well thought of action is generally more effective than something done in a spurt of thought. It is necessary to give people time for assimilating their thoughts and plans.

This comes as a luxury in most work situations. At work, one is generally expected to be and look busy all the time. Except those is swanky offices who can afford not to keep doing some activity all the time, people are expected (or at least they think so) to be always engaged in something which looks like they are working and are busy.

As a consequence, co-workers disregard the need to allow each other their “Work Mind Space”. Expectations are set wrong, people aren’t given proper time to do their jobs, strengths aren’t encouraged, talents aren’t identified. All in all, the person who could have done the job well ends up doing something else and the not-so-competent people end up doing a mediocre if not shabby job.

Identifying, encouraging, promoting and advertising the strengths of co-workers can help improve team effectiveness substantially.

A few points to note about allowing co-workers to have their “Work Mind Space”:

• People work at different paces.
• People have different strategies to approach a task.
• Being good at something does not mean being fast. Someone may be good at something (and it is generally the case), because he or she does a thorough job and that takes time.
• Process-driven approach is not a replacement for skills. Just because there is defined process does not mean anyone can do the job with equal effectiveness.
• It is necessary to let people think before they act, and this should be encouraged.
• Healthy discussions with focus on the goal help bring out the best in people.

Letting someone do what they excel in builds trust and mutual respect in the long term. While at work, personal relations play a large part in setting the environment and improving efficiency. Allowing “Work Mind Space”, would go a long way in building an environment of trust and bonhomie which ought to result in better individual motivation and effectiveness and team success.

“They Must Give” to “I Must Take” – Data Collection Paradigm Shift for Managers

Data is essential for decisions. With information technology defining the way business is done, data has become of paramount importance. Good leaders have stressed the need for having as much data as possible in place before taking decisions.

Data collection, however, isn’t easy unless it comes in directly from machines. Collecting data which humans need to provide is a challenge for even the best managers. A multitude of people are reluctant to share data. Some reasons would be:

• Knowing they yield control if they possess critical data.
• Lack of confidence that the data is correct.
• Wanting to present a good situation while the data reflects a bad one.
• Ignorance of or nonchalance to the fact that providing data is essential and helps their managers.
• Prioritizing other work which are felt to be core responsibility while providing data is perceived as a secondary task, sometimes a burden

Whatever the reason, not getting data affects the ability to decide the right course of action. It could end up in wrong decisions or a stalemate.

So, what can a manager do?

My thoughts are that it starts with an attitude. A manager needs to be firm not to allow non-availability of data become an excuse. Once firm in the belief that data is needed, the drive to ensure availability comes automatically.

Rather than using an authoritative stance that data “should be given” by team members, the manager could adopt a “must be collected” approach. With the responsibility shift to oneself, the drive to act and avoid failure is stronger. As a leader, it’s up to a manager to take on the responsibility of having data with him or her rather that blaming the team for not providing data.

Easier said than done!

Getting out data isn’t the easiest job. I have tried the below methods to aid me in this work, and mostly been successful:

• Having a meeting (short one) purely to assimilate data. Just sending out an e-mail or making a call doesn’t help. It is best to “sit down” with the concerned person and work together to collect the data and put it in an understandable and presentable form.
• Working with the person on the final presentation of the data. This gives the person a feel of how his or her inputs would be used. The next time, the person would know the importance of his or her inputs. Over a period, the sensitivity to provide data on time is improved.
• Sharing and explaining the need for that data. A lot of times, a manager just asks without explaining why. When the “why” is conveyed, the response can be expected to be more prompt.
• Making it a habit. Rather than making ad-hoc requests, it is good to make a regular reporting pattern. People get used to this. Making several ad-hoc requests would end up irritating team members.
• Being thankful. When someone takes the time out to provide data, it is a good practice to thank the person. It may have been his or her job, but the fact that he or she has helped the manager do his or her job needs recognition. This goes a long way in building a good working relation.

Whatever the method, the bottom line is changing one’s attitude from “they must give” to “I must take” can completely transform a manager’s performance.

Treat Vendors Well – they are Humans too

I’ve been on the vendor company side of business all through my career. Here, by vendor, I’m referring to a company that provides a customised service, product, design or installation – not an off-the-shelf product. The companies I’ve worked with have been suppliers or contractors to small, middle and large organizations – the whole gamut. I’ve been on the customer side too in some instances but my exposure there has been limited.

I thought that the industry I used to work earlier in, was the only industry that was highly demanding on its vendors – to the extent of being unfair and inhuman sometimes. By inhuman my reference is not to physical abuse but rather the excessive mental pressure being inflicted on vendors. I moved through two other industries and found that I was wrong. It isn’t the industry which matters – it’s the people. People in this country (India) are largely alike in this context. Every company, almost every manager I have seen comes with typically the same mind-set – “squeeze the vendor”.

It seems to be ingrained in the Indian style of working. It is expected that a vendor:

• Outdoes the contractual obligations
• Gets paid lesser or just about whatever is agreed upon
• And still takes the blame for failures

Vendors’ representatives are expected to respond at lightning speeds, while customers can talk of stalled decisions due to processes and internal issues. Vendors’ execution teams are expected to work extra hours, slog it out and push themselves beyond professional limits. Vendors’ teams are even expected to make the customers’ team do their jobs. Yet the customer, in most cases doesn’t even say an encouraging word to the vendor team. In over a hundred managers, there is just one who understands the need to encourage and motivate vendors, just one who understands that vendors aren’t motivated just by the money they earn, they get motivated when they are treated as equals.

I have had much better experiences working with people abroad. They seem to have a more humane and professional approach to vendor management. They understand issues in the project and truly treat vendors as partners or extended hands.

The problem I’m referring to is something I encounter with Indian managers only. I’d really like to advocate better treatment to vendors by way of:

• Respecting them as humans first.
• Understanding that they are also employees and have a right to all employee rights and benefits as anyone else.
• Realizing that vendors excel when motivated by encouraging words and equal treatment.
• Appreciating that vendors are essential to the business and a happy vendor can do wonders.

Vendor development should not be just about processes but ought to also include a human touch to motivate, encourage and take along the employees in the vendor company.

A good vendor can transform business operations for customer and can, in instances, be relied upon more than a company’s own employees to deliver excellent results.

The “I Want to Control” Syndrome

One of the interesting truths I learnt recently while doing my training for PMP® certification is that “Human Resources cannot be controlled”.

Yet managers believe they can do so. Humans in general, and leads or managers in particular come with this feeling that they must and can “Control” everything. Everything and everyone must work as they wish. A command from them MUST be implemented. They need to have control. This briefly explains the “I Want to Control” syndrome, as I have called it. The “I Want to Control” syndrome causes in a person, the desire to control both man and machines. Machines, of course, are relatively simple prey to the inflicted person. But people are a different ball game altogether.

People aren’t machines. In my opinion, this is an essential understanding for a manager. Managing work and managing people go hand in hand. Hence people management is a key factor for a manager’s success in delivering results. An obvious yet important understanding is that; people don’t work and respond to situations based on algorithms (at least none have been clearly defined so far by the existing branches of science). People react to situations based on past experiences, current situations, their moods and so many other variables. The same person could react differently on separate occasion to a similar issue. If there is anything most unpredictable in a work environment – it’s people.

A lot of managers – especially the new generation ones think that they can manage (read control) people with authority. Personally, I believe in the line “Power is powerful as long as you don’t use it” (I forget who wrote this by my acknowledgements to him/her). When it comes to getting people to do something, power and authority are only the last-resort mechanisms, which may, for a while force someone to act in a particular way. In the long term however, repeated use of authority can end up in putting off people and losing them. Still, most humans in general (and managers in particular) addicted to the “I Want to Control” syndrome think that power and authority are their tools.

I wonder where people get the idea from, that others will do their bidding if and only if forced to. If one asks oneself whether he or she would do something just because he or she is forced to; or because he or she is likely to lose out for not doing it – the answer is most likely NO. People hate to be forced around, people dislike being pushed around or bullied. Countries have fought against the use of force to gain independence, social changes have worked and are working towards enabling free thought and action. And yet, humans have an inherent tendency to force other humans.

In the context of managers, I find this syndrome very prevalent. Juniors are told they HAVE TO comply with a certain line of action else lose their position or role. When addressing team members, a manager emphasizes several times the need to adhere strictly to operational methods. This all stems from the “I Want to Control” syndrome.

I’m not saying that managers must not be in control. The question is what must one control and can that control really be exercised. The subject of controlling machines is not the topic of my writing here. It’s about people and whether people can be controlled. Well my answers:

• Yes – for short durations using authority
• No – in the long term

The long term answer is to win over people, share the common vision, and create an environment conducive for people to enjoy their work and deliver based on their understanding of their roles and responsibilities rather than imposition.

More on this later. (I dislike posts which run into multiple pages).

Effective Communication – the Receiver’s Side

I heard in a talk sometime back that the Sanskrit word for communication is “Samvaad”. When broken up it would mean something like this: “Sam – together, Vaad – talk”. Please excuse me on not being entirely accurate in the etymology, but the intent I’d like to convey is that communication is a process that needs to be done “together”. It involves two or more people. It is not a one person process. For this sake of simplicity, I’ve used communications between two persons in this article to illustrate my thoughts.

Communication between two people is complete only when one conveys and the other understands. While there is a great stress laid on the role of the person who has to convey (whom I’ll call the “transmitter” in this article), the process is incomplete without the involvement of the person to whom something is being conveyed (I’ll call this person the “receiver”). The goal of communications is achieved when both the transmitter and the receiver understand the “object of communication” in the same way.

I’ve tried to follow this formula when it comes to achieving effective communication:

• Transmitter transmits
• Receiver questions
• Transmitter answers
• Transmitter questions
• Receiver answers
• Receiver re-transmits

In the above formula, there is a back and forth exchange of thoughts, ideas and words. To put it in other words the message is passed on, questioned and clarified, verified and then re-transmitted. As one can see, half the steps are to be taken by the transmitter and the other half by the receiver.

The receiver must ask questions in order to ensure that any possible understanding gaps are closed. This involves thought from the receiver on the object of communications. Questions cannot be generated without thought being applied to the object. This is an active role which a receiver must play to ensure effective communications.

The ability to reply to the transmitter’s questions is a test of the accuracy of the receiver’s understanding. Random questions from the transmitter can ensure more thought goes in from the receiver’s side. The necessity to articulate requires the receiver to consolidate his or her thoughts and understanding of the object of communication in an organized and meaningful manner.

A retransmission helps clear all doubts. In a normal conversation, the receiver would not remember the transmitter’s words by heart. The receiver would use his or her own words to express thoughts framed in his or her mind. The transmitter can then judge from the relevance of the articulation of the receiver, the accuracy of understanding.

Now, this seems fine in theory but even before one can ask me, I ask myself – “Is it practical and implementable?” Any such technique is generally not to be implemented as something to be strictly adhered to by the letter. It can be implemented in spirit, not in sequence (at all times). It would be funny if two people were to sequence their conversation in the above manner. What would work is an awareness of both the persons involved, of these steps. They could see if the major aspects of the communication are put through these steps. The formula is more for awareness rather than a sequential checklist.

Writing without CCs

There was a time when sending out a letter was indeed a big job – writing with a pen and paper, ensuring the right address, posting the letter with almost no way to ensure if it reached and then an undefined wait for a response. Written communication, then, was very well thought of, clear, elaborate, well-articulated, having consideration for the other’s thoughts and feelings, as error-proof as it could be.

Then came e-mail and things changed.

It’s become easier today to write than to speak. Writing e-mails has substituted a lot of oral communication. One doesn’t have to write formally any more. Delivery of the message is assured instantly and there is a proof of communication which doesn’t exist in oral communications. But as it goes with everything else, there is always a flip side.

Writing has become casual and error-prone.

• There is hardly any protocol being followed – gone are the days when one used to think of what would be the appropriate starting Salutation and Complimentary Close.
• Typos are an acceptable menace now, especially if the writing is from a mobile device.

Anyway, that’s part of our communication style now and things must change. But what’s, in my opinion, more a matter of concern is the intent behind the writing and the thought behind it rather than the format.

I observe people in the professional world writing a mail to someone and putting in several people in the CC list. While the simple intent is generally to pass on information to several people at one time, some things which a CC could imply (though not necessarily always) include:

• An escalation – if someone more senior than the addressee has been copied.
• A bypass of authority – if someone junior has been copied; implying direct instructions to the junior
• A refusal to take responsibility – when several people are mentioned in the “To” line with no clear addressee
• A transfer of responsibility – when the e-mail just conveys some information without an action item

There can be more such. The crux of the matter is that adding people in to CC list doesn’t simply imply that the writer is passing on information to all concerned. It can and on several occasions is construed by the readers is ways which can make working together difficult.

I’m an advocate of more formal writing – writing in which:

• The intent is clear
• Information is recorded
• Action item are mentioned, and
• Is addressed only to whom it is relevant.

It makes writing slightly harder, but precise and meaningful. Writing without CCs or rather the appropriate CCs is an art, a well thought of management process, a well-structured adherence to protocol. A loosely structured CC list can do a lot of harm. I had a colleague come running to me one for sending him a message CCed to our boss. I’ve come across people not responding because they didn’t know whom the e-mail was intended to as all the mail IDs were in the “To” list. I’ve found it useful to send an e-mail to its intended addressee and later send it as an “FYI” to people who need to know the matter rather than sending it with a CC list.

Its’ good to give the CC list a careful thought before sending out an e-mail with due consideration of its positive and negative effects, its impact on the people reading it and the possibility of it being ignored.

Reaching Goals (An Attitude)

Everyone has goals at almost every point of time – in profession, with family, on a personal front, with friends. It’s very natural that we set a goal and work towards it. If we don’t have a goal, we may not reach anywhere at all. We would move but would end up at an unknown situation without knowing where or how to go next.  So, a goal is definitely required in order to set a direction for our thoughts and actions. But do we reach the goal always? How can we reach a goal? What if we do not reach – how we react then?

First – how do we reach the goal?

To answer this, one needs to think on what it would take to actually reach the goal, let’s say, a promotion at work. Consider what needs to happen for a promotion; (some possibilities are listed below):

• One’s performance which should be in tune with the needs of the higher role
• Visibility of one’s performance in the appraiser’s eyes
• The appraiser’s opinion
• The organization’s overall performance
• Competition
• Availability of a position

How many of these factors are really in a person’s control?

Apart from one’s own performance and steps to improve visibility, almost nothing else. Most of the factors are dependent on someone or something else. One may be able to perform and create visibility, but what the appraiser actually forms as an opinion is at his or her discretion. One can try to influence it, but there are no guaranteed ways to achieve the required result. One may perform great, but if the other functions haven’t done too well and the organization isn’t doing great, the promotion may be a more distant dream. Other’s performance, especially peers and seniors is hardly in one’s control and hence competition is beyond one’s control.

In effect, all that one can do is plan his or her own actions and execute them out – and, wait for something to happen. Modern day management may not agree entirely with this and would like to put up several strategies for keeping things under control. I would still opine that the fact is that one can think, plan, act – yet not control. One may chose a place to live, but the neighbors’ are really not under control, one may chose a job, but not all his colleagues, one may chose a spouse, but the in-laws come in free.

When all one can do is think and act, then how does one achieve the target?

Very simply – by just thinking and acting and forgetting the target while acting. Great attachment to the target invariably puts on pressure to achieve, pressure leads to stress, which dilutes thought. A little pressure is fine at times but continued pressure would only end up in creating distress.

Now this is a bit tricky, one sets a target and forgets it, which seems contradictory.

Setting a target is essential and the more serious one is about achieving the target, the better chances of really reaching there. But remembering the target or rather getting under pressure to achieve the target while acting will cause loss of focus on action. When one make a sales pitch, the thought that the year’s target is yet unfulfilled will weigh down enthusiasm and create desperation. When one codes software, the pressure to achieve completion within a deadline invariably causes haste which induces bugs. An artist creates fine works when he has no deadline, but when there is pressure to deliver, the lack in quality of work and creative inputs becomes visible.

I’d like to conclude by stating that, yes, this is a philosophical approach to achieving results:

Do your work and let the result be as it comes.

My experience tells me that this approach actually helps achieve more, and coming to the second aspect of this article – manage failure. When the result doesn’t come in as targeted, over attachment to the result while acting causes disappointment (in the lightest sense). Loss of motivation, depression, negativity towards others involved, bitterness towards people and other emotions that pull down positive actions could set in leading to more failures.

So, set a target, work towards it in full earnest but remember, reaching it not entirely in your control. So if you achieve, don’t be too happy and if you fail, don’t be sad at all. Enjoy your work, take pleasure and pride in your actions and put in your fullest.

Ask and you shall NOT get

At work, as a manager, as a team leader, we see people doing special feats sometimes, achieving something extraordinary and going out of the way to perform, putting extra efforts and ultimately achieving success.

I’ve classified such performers into 2 types:

1. Those who first evaluate what they would get in return for the extra effort.
2. Those who put in the effort by virtue of self-drive and look for the benefits later.

Consider the first type: in a work place environment, why should anyone do something without knowing what would be the reward? Why should an employee go out of his way to achieve if he/she is not sure of getting a special reward? Several people think this way. This type of people make sure that the result is first clear: an extra effort is to result in a raise, an incentive, an award, a party; something which becomes the motivation for putting in the extra effort. Nothing wrong of course in demanding some motivation before putting in that extra work.

But consider how you, as a manager or team leader, would feel if you are dealing with such a person, if you first have to commit the returns and then get a job done. A bargain must be made and a deal sealed for something that needs to be done in the best interest of the work. You could say to yourself – “That’s how things are, that’s the way this guy is” and move on, but does it give a really good feeling?

Hold on this question for some time while we look a little further!

Now, consider another person who comes up and does the job first. The employee goes out of the way to achieve a deadline – and does not expect that a return be decided before hand or even given to him/her. As his manager or team leader, would you feel good and obliged to show your appreciation by doing something in return? Most of the time the answer would be – “Yes”! That’s typically how a manager or team leader would feel.

In a gist, what matters actually is one’s self drive to achieve and do well, not what one bargains for as a result. Most times, people who bargain for their reward before the effort may get their way once or twice but not always. They forget that there are also others who put their work before the reward, who would get ahead faster and happier.

Those who ask may not be the people who get.

If you have to choose a way to success and happiness, you need to make this choice: Either work for rewards from others or work for your satisfaction. I prefer the second way, it generally yields success and in the least definitely makes me feel happy.