Election Day Thoughts on Communicative Branding

Political discourse has a level of intensity and immediacy that’s compelling on multiple levels. As a communication consultant, I tune in to all the debates – regardless of political affiliation. I listen to political ads until I can’t stand another. And, I really do read most of what candidates and special interests send to me. Some I find informative, others strike me as alternately amusing and disturbing.

I tend to get philosophical on Election Day as I mail my ballot. This year, I’m thinking about leadership and the far-reaching implications of the actions of leaders and how, through their words and actions, they communicatively “brand” their candidacy and/or organization. For example, many of us are watching one potential candidate to see whether his response to allegations of past impropriety satisfies potential voters or ends his political aspirations. And, from an organizational standpoint, we are seeing a cross-generational explosion of anger at organizational leaders who don’t stand for the stated values of their organizations.


So, does a politician or an organizational leader have a responsibility to act consistently to the highest values of his/her organization at all times? In my view, yes. The leader is the manifestation of the organization itself. S/he is the physical representation of the values, vision, and mission of the organization. That’s why the law recognizes that leaders (to borrow from one of my favorite attorneys) are held to a “higher standard of care” with regards to their communication and their actions. By their actions, they “bind the organization.” This means that employees, clients, vendors, and suppliers should have a reasonable expectation that the leader speaks for and acts on behalf of the organization. Thus, when a leader behaves poorly, the ramifications for the organization and the leader are, and should be, more severe.


I’ve been teaching courses in anti-harassment and non-discrimination for much of the last six months to meet a core training objective of one of my public clients. So, I’ve been steeped in the stories and experiences people share about their organizational experiences relative to “safe” working environments. Unfortunately, bad behavior exists at all levels of organizations. Sometimes leaders are those behaving poorly and sometimes they unconsciously “endorse” bad behavior by not acting definitively or proactively against it.


As a result, I’m increasingly convinced that we need to strongly remind leaders of their responsibility to embrace their obligation to be better representatives of their organizations’ values – behaviorally, structurally, and communicatively. Leaders need to behave in a way that eliminates even the impression of impropriety – not only because of the legal ramifications, but because others are watching all the time to learn what is – and what is not – appropriate within the organization. A leader who tolerates discrimination, harassment, or unethical business practices negatively brands his organization, regardless of the official written values, vision, or mission of that organization. Thus, leaders not only need to be accountable to the highest standards of behavior, but they need to have a zero tolerance attitude toward inappropriate or unethical behavior by their employees, vendors, and suppliers.


While some might argue that leaders are human, I’d respond that while true, employees and clients have the right to expect more from them. In accepting the mantle of leadership, the individual agrees to be held to the higher standard and should understand that in employees’ eyes – and in the marketplace – s/he “becomes” the organization.


Leaders should actively consider the communicative brand they want for their organizations and then consistently behave in a manner that models the brand and “shouts” to the community and marketplace that “This is what we, as an organization, stand for!” Instead of making the communicative brand happen by chance, organizational leaders should be intentional in its creation: How do we want to be perceived in the marketplace? What actions or behaviors would communicate this? What policies or procedures do we need in place to support the brand?


Politicians and scions of business remind us all too often with their behavior and their words that they are indeed all too human. For me, as a voter and as a citizen, I expect more. With my vote, I have the right to expect leaders who perform with the highest levels of transparency and ethics – all the time, regardless of their party affiliation. And, leaders of organizations large and small, pay attention: any one of us who leads others should hold ourselves to this same high standard. Don’t just write the communicative brand for your organization: teach it, live it, be it.

SMPS Twin Cities, November 16th

On Wednesday, November 16th, Communication Resources President Meg Winch will be speaking from 9am-12pm for the Society for Marketing Professional Services Twin Cities on "Critical Communication for Project Managers: How to Sell and Win Projects through Project Management."
You can register for the event here.

Workshop description:

In today's challenging economy, A/E/C firms frequently search for ways to differentiate themselves from their competition. The most powerful differentiator within these firms, the project manager, relies on the power of their communication skills to delight clients, cultivate relationships, fill new business pipelines, and develop and reinforce the success of their companies. Without strong communication skills, however,project managers become less effective at selling themselvbes on the jon and can weaken their firm's reputation and client base.

This communications workshop focuses on the important art of selling projects on the job, from the pre-sell and marketing processes, through project kick-off, implementation and close-out phases. We'll emphasize how firms can differentiate themselves by improving the communciaiton skills of their most critical resource, the project manager, and how firm management can develop successful, communicative project managers within their company. This seminar is appropriate for project managers, firm principals, and marketing/business development professionals.

Join us!

Mentoring and Melon Balls

My mother made me lunch today; what a treat! There’s nothing like lunch made by Mom – no matter how old I get. She served melon balls for dessert, and I learned something interesting– if you have melon that’s not quite as sweet or fresh as you’d like, soak it for a few minutes in ginger ale before serving. That’s a trick that I’d never heard before – apparently, my grandmother passed this trick along to my mother who by happenstance passed it on to me. Makes me wonder what other interesting and useful, though nonessential tricks I might be missing because I never asked or they just never came up.


While those of you not versed in old kitchen lore may not find this as fascinating as I did, this example should remind us of the knowledge that leaves organizations when we do.

There are countless skills and work processes that less experienced employees would find both interesting and time saving. As we embrace technology and new ways of doing old work, it’s still important to learn from seasoned leaders what means, tactics and methods made them successful at what they do. Think about all the things senior professionals know that remain locked in their heads until they’re asked why or how they do what they do. While it’s certainly important for old dogs to learn new tricks, it doesn’t mean the old tricks might not have some value in the organization. Technology isn’t always the solution to every challenge, nor does it always make our work better, faster, or more efficient. And, sometimes, we need to remember the old ways to make the new ways work better.

This is the primary reason why I recommend in-house training programs that are conceived and implemented by senior leaders of an organization. While learning new things is always important, learning old things in new ways may be more important. For example, while we teach young project managers how to use the latest scheduling software, let’s not forget the art of using logic to set up a schedule using sticky notes on the wall. Or, how about learning customer service from someone who’s done it for 25 years instead of from a highly paid consultant who can teach theory, but not real practice?


While there’s certainly room for skilled, industry-knowledgeable consultants, firms get better value for their training dollar by considering how they use consultants. Hiring consultant trainers for specific programs makes a lot of sense, particularly if those consultants bring industry expertise or innovation to the organization. But, for standard programming or firm-specific knowledge growth, a better use of consultants is to guide the development of in-house programs vs. providing those programs as trainers. In this way, the organization retains the ownership of the curricula while gaining the value of outside expertise. And, the firm’s own leadership can and should then tailor the material, add real-life examples, and perform the actual training.


Long-term leaders are a firm’s most valuable asset; the firm can maximize the value of that asset by transitioning leaders from the boardroom to the classroom. Those responsible for training and development of employees should actively tap into the deep knowledge base of long-term leaders. Interview them to find out what they know and why they do what they do. Take a new look at standard curricula and think about ways to integrate leaders in a more meaningful way into the programs beyond the standard introduction and conclusion. Welcome firm leadership into the classroom with open arms and make it easier for them to participate in both program development and training implementation.


Sometimes, an organization uses outside trainers because leaders feel they are too busy to be actively involved in training. I’d argue that far from these leaders being too busy to spend time in the classroom, there’s nothing more important for them to be doing in the later years of their careers. Candidly, if leaders take what they know with them when they leave, they diminish the long-term sustainability of their organization and lose an opportunity to mentor and grow employees.


Actively integrating leadership into in-house training programs provides the highest value in training design and long-term program consistency. More importantly, it gives senior leaders the opportunity to interact with employees and pass on their knowledge and experience through examples and illustrations. By using outside resources to help guide curriculum development, the firm gains the value of the outside perspective and design based on effective training principles. However, by having internal leadership do the actual training, the firm gains the value of these leaders’ real world experience and the invaluable connection they will build with the next generation of employees.

Presentation Leadership

It’s the busy season for presentation coaching at CRNW, and I’ve been fortunate to work with teams across the industry on mostly winning presentations (the win record is back up there!).  While working with these teams, I’ve been exposed to a broad range of leaders and leadership styles, some dramatically more effective than others.  As a result, I’d like to propose some guidelines for organizational leaders in helping teams get ready for major presentations.

Ownership. I believe that the Principal in Charge (PIC) for the job should be the principal in charge of the presentation.  This means making sure the team starts preparation early – even before the short-list is announced (yes, if you think highly enough of your qualifications to submit, you should think positively enough to start earlier on the presentation).  Savvy leaders don’t transfer the ownership of the pursuit to the Marketing Department, nor conversely, do they micro-manage busy coordinators.  The best leaders stay actively involved, partnering with Marketing in the development of key messages and in motivating/scheduling team members. 

Too often I work with principals who are too busy to work with their teams throughout the pursuit process, providing a “vanilla” introduction and/or conclusion to the presentation, losing the opportunity to really connect with the team and add the value of their experience and knowledge.  Conversely, on the most memorable and successful pursuits in which I’ve been involved, the principals were integrally involved with every decision, not taking control, but really co-coaching by helping refine messaging and motivating team members with their passion for excellent communication with the client.

Practice. Firm principals need to be at every practice, communicating the importance of rehearsal and their commitment to the presentation.  This does mean that those of us who coach need to be sensitive to schedules and minimize the time it takes to get ready for a presentation. But, having the PIC actively engaged in even the more mundane periods of rehearsal can be extremely motivating to the rest of the team – and results in a more coordinated, cohesive presentation before the selection committee.

I’ve been fortunate to work with engaged principals who support their teams in presentations with the knowledge and comfort that comes from rehearsal.  And, I’ve also seen the reverse - principals who take over the presentation because they didn’t know the outline or the logic and didn’t trust their team members to perform.

Because of the criticality of their role to the final success of an interview, I expect the leadership of the team to be ready to present well at rehearsals.  If as a coach I have to spend the majority of my time working with the principal and not the technical members of the team, we lose time and focus.  Principals need to have done their homework, practiced off-line, and come to the rehearsal ready with their material so they have the time and the focus to help the rest of the team.

Grace. Effective leaders bring a sense of “grace” to interview preparation.  In other words, they help even the worst speaker look good by helping with both coaching and the final delivery.  They know that the success of the presentation is dependent upon the skills of the entire team, not just themselves.  As a result, they know each team member’s strengths and weaknesses and they work to help build comfort, not criticize.

Principals who are actively engaged early with presentation strategy tend to avoid last-minute changes and destructive criticism.  Those who come in at the last minute harm their teams by providing late feedback and attempts to rewrite others’ content.  As teams get closer to the actual interview, they need the full support of their leaders.  And, technical professionals in particular don’t do well with late changes or global criticism.

Courage. Finally, effective leaders have courage to try new things in an interview to differentiate their firms and their teams.  They listen well and they engage both coaching resources and their own Marketing professionals to find ways to present differently. And, they are willing to do whatever it takes to help their teams win, even if it puts their comfort in the process at risk.  For example, I recently got to work with a firm principal who was a very poor speaker himself.  He was willing to make an example of himself, trying new ways to rehearse and present that he’d never used before.  Ultimately, he gave the best presentation of his career, winning a strategic project for his firm.  Had this leader not had the courage to risk embarrassment in front of his colleagues or had been too afraid to ask for help, that presentation could have turned out much less positively.

Unfortunately, no one has found the exact formula for a winning interview, but, there are some commonalities to winning interviews. One such commonality is that in my experience, without exception, winning teams have a leader who believes in the project, the team, and the interview preparation process. And, s/he is committed to making the effort it takes and exhibiting the leadership the team needs to win.

Maintaining the Value of Teamwork through Effective Partnering

Across the country, team members spend countless hours in mandated and voluntary early-project partnering efforts. As a facilitator for the past 25 years, I have to report honestly that the results of these efforts have been decidedly mixed: some teams reap the benefits of stronger team relationships and the ability to work through inevitable conflict, while others perpetuate negative zero-sum behavior that benefits no one, least of which the project. While certainly the quality of partnering efforts can explain some of the difference in post-partnering behavior and more can be explained by the values/vision of the team members themselves, I believe that the long-term benefits of partnering can be strengthened by teams who take initiative to manage partnering as a core project activity throughout the project’s duration.

Maintaining partnering should be part of the project management plan for any project, with the project manager taking ownership for ongoing team relationship maintenance and facilitation. While larger or more complex projects may require the talents of an outside facilitator to maintain objectivity and focus, most project managers can use their strong talents in communication and leadership to maintain the focus on partnership and teamwork. I recommend two key strategies to maximize the value of partnering: establishing partnering metrics during the partnering session and making partnering a regular agenda item for every OAC (Owner, Architect, Contractor) meeting.


I’ve written about team metrics before, so let me extend that “conversation”. We know from performance management literature that accountability is easier when we set measurable targets; this works for both individual employees and teams. The challenge comes in creating measurable targets in an inherently subjective area such as teamwork. However, when I ask team members to help develop partnership metrics during partnering meetings, I’m seeing remarkable similarities, indicating that team members do indeed know what teamwork looks like and how it influences project outcomes.


At the start of a project partnering session, I ask team members, “As the project progresses, how will we know partnering is working?” As a result of the ensuing discussion, common partnering metrics include the following:

• Speed of decision-making


• Speed of dispute resolution


• Number of disputes requiring escalation


• Perceived effectiveness of communication across team members


• Number of unanticipated changes


• Perception of value of project changes


• Maintenance of user experience/expectations


These are just a few of the items team members have developed across partnering sessions; many more relate specifically to the characteristics of the particular projects. Importantly, for teams that use metrics as part of their overall project management process, these items are measured at regular intervals with data collected from all team members, making them true measures of team performance, not any particular entity. For teams using a longer set of project partnering metrics, I recommend bundling the measures into clearly defined categories such as Communication, Decision-Making, Project Management, Technology, and User Experience to facilitate clearer, more streamlined conversation about performance.

Project managers (or any person in a leadership role) can use the partnering measures to drive conversation about partnering at monthly OAC and regular team meetings. However, to be effective, ground rules for this discussion need to be carefully articulated and enforced by the team. The conversation is about team vs. individual performance, and solutions need to be team-based vs. focused on any individual or entity. If partnering is on the agenda for every meeting, with a standard amount of time allotted to discussion, team members build comfort discussing teamwork and recommendations for improving it throughout the duration of the project. Further, by having a regular conversation about partnering and partnership, team members are more likely to remain vigilant about keeping the partnering agreements they made at the beginning of the project.

At key points in the project’s schedule, the entire team can reconvene to reinvigorate partnership, using the established measures to objectively reassess and then discuss how the team is doing relative to maintaining teamwork. For identified challenge areas, the team can discuss possible changes or interventions. This mid-project focus on partnering has three distinct benefits: it communicates that the leadership team values teamwork; it involves the entire team in the maintenance of teamwork and the use of teaming to resolve issues; and it socializes new team members to the team’s values relative to partnering and teamwork.

Ultimately, while my industry colleagues and I do a good job helping teams start projects off strongly with well-planned and facilitated partnering sessions, this is not enough to help a team maintain partnering behaviors throughout the project’s duration. Project teams – and project managers – who believe in the value of partnering, take ownership for the process, use measurement to drive accountability, and continue the partnering efforts all the way to successful project completion. Project managers who take ownership for partnering communicate to their teams that partnership has value and that the team can – and will – use partnering values to resolve issues and add value to the entire team.

Managing Stage Fright through Effective Presentation Design

In this economy when firms must count on higher performance from speakers in short-list interviews, technical professionals are finding it increasingly difficult to manage the stage fright that comes with this industry-required ritual.  Unfortunately, stage fright in a short-list presentation, or any high-stakes presentation for that matter, is normal and expected, even for those of us who present regularly.  Due to the importance of the outcome and the challenge of the assignment, it’s perfectly logical to experience some level of fear.  And for some, this fear can become debilitating.

Early in my career, I ascribed to the common misconception that stage fright is “stage energy” and can make a speaker livelier and more engaging. As I get older, more experienced, and perhaps more jaded, I think stage fright, no matter how we package it, is never a good thing.  Stage fright results in a full compliment of really nasty psychological and physiological outcomes, none of which do great things for a speaker’s content or delivery.   Particularly among technical professionals, managing stage fright is unfortunately not as simple as deep breathing (though that helps), positive self talk, or using planned movement.  Managing stage fright starts with how technical professionals prepare for presentations, not in terms of the time they devote to the process, but more broadly in the entire methodology many use to get ready.  From a content standpoint, many speakers develop content by starting at the introduction and writing until they reach the conclusion.  I’ve described this to many as the “Snoopy Effect.”  As Peanuts’ fans will attest, Snoopy has been writing a novel for the past 70 years. Despite having conquered the typing challenge (on a manual typewriter no less!), Snoopy still can’t get past the introduction, “It was a dark and stormy night...”  Despite the compelling nature of the introduction, that dog can’t write beyond his first three lines because simply, he doesn’t know what happens next.  Unlike Snoopy, presenters need to work from the inside of their presentation out vs. starting at the beginning and working to the end.  In other words, if I have purpose for speaking (and every good speaker has one), what are the key content blocks that will support the purpose?  By developing content blocks of information, and then organizing them in a logical manner, a speaker can create a roadmap for the presentation.   In addition to the benefits of clearer organization, speakers can learn the stopping points along the “road” from introduction to conclusion. For many professionals, stage fright means fear of “forgetting what I’m going to say next.”  As a result, having a clear roadmap can be priceless. For example: If my purpose is to clarify my team’s unique process for public involvement, I might employ a simple topical outline with three topics in chronological order.

1. We engage our entire team in the identification of stakeholders.
2. We will use social media to engage difficult to reach stakeholders and bring them in to the project "conversation."
3. We will document all stakeholder processes to provide a clear record of decisions to guide the project.
   

Note that this outline focuses on three critical areas of public involvement (bolded text) in a three-part outline that a speaker can further develop.  More importantly from a stage fright management standpoint, the speaker knows s/he has three main points or stopping points in the presentation and is able to “chunk” the presentation into three smaller units, making each easier to remember and easier to present.

What if I now took this outline and created an organized “content matrix”?  This might enable a nervous speaker to have an even clearer roadmap for moving through the content of the presentation. 

For example, “unpacking” just the first of the three points from my outline:

WHAT we are going to do:	WHY it’s important	HOW we are going to do it	PROOF that we can do it
Stakeholder identification	• Multiple and diverse stakeholder groups • Risk from missing one key stakeholder group (Use City of XX example)	1. Engage our entire team – lots of community relationships 2. Work with client organization to find common groups 3. Use existing groups to identify others 4. Reach out using a variety of venues	City of XX Master Planning Process  • Same project type with similar schedule • Same project team • XX Public meeting story

Now the presentation gets much easier to develop – and much easier to present.  Using both the Y axis of the matrix (flow of the presentation from beginning to end) and the X axis (the flow of each sub point in the presentation), speakers can learn the pattern of the presentation and can be more comfortable as they move through the content.  Plus, they can speak more conversationally because they aren’t learning lines; they are learning logically sequenced blocks of content that can be delivered more extemporaneously.

Content design alone can’t eliminate stage fright, but it’s an important first step for most technically oriented speakers.  By effectively mapping content, speakers gain control of their presentations and reduce the risk of forgetting important points or going off-track.  By taking the fear of forgetting off the table, these speakers are better able to focus on a more engaging delivery during the actual presentation. Next week I’ll write about managing stage fright through more effective rehearsal and delivery.  However, for me and my teams, managing stage fright starts well before the first rehearsal with content that makes logical sense and is easy to follow.

Assumptions and Questions

Every time I gratefully receive a vegetarian meal, I’m also amazed at the assumptions people make about us non-meat eaters.  Vegetarian meals are generally full of healthy foods, which are nice, but they generally don’t include great desserts.  I’m currently sitting on an airplane, watching my fellow passengers enjoy chocolate cake, while I snack on healthy fruit.  Folks, just because I don’t eat meat, doesn’t mean I’m not a committed fan of chocolate cake – or chocolate in any form for that matter.  To keep me from falling in a sugar-seeking frenzy on the cake of my seatmate, let me instead write about the topic of assumptions.

As business development professionals, it’s important to carefully avoid assumptions and ask good questions from our clients about their projects and about their needs and expectations for design/construction professionals.  For example, is it true that budget conscious clients want cheap solutions or that they don’t want to spend money?  No; they just need clear justification for expenditures and may, in fact, prefer a more expensive alternative.  Do bureaucratic clients always take more time to make decisions?  No; they just need to have timeframes and the cost of late decision-making explained to them.  Do all clients hate change orders?  No; most clients just hate to be surprised with change orders.

Before meeting with any client, I recommend to my own clients that they create interview guides to direct questioning and make sure they’re really probing for important information.  An interview guide is not a formula for a conversation. Rather, a guide is just what it sounds like – a “map” that helps conversation flow in a productive direction.

An effective conversation guide starts with project-related topics of interest such as budget, schedule, or project history.  It should also include process-related topics such as working relationships with consultants or communication preferences.  And, it should include personal-related topics such as role on the project or personal interests as they relate to project performance.  By including a full compliment of topics, the BD professional can learn extensive amounts of information in a shorter amount of time.  I recommend conversation guides be pre-written, first by topic and then by question.  More experienced business developers can prompt themselves with topic areas; less experienced professionals may find that writing questions out helps them keep questions open-ended and information generating.

A good business development interviewer doesn’t make assumptions about what s/he hears; rather, s/he starts with open-ended questions to get the client talking and then hones in on areas of interest through increasingly specific probing questions. And, good probing questions require active listening skills, not simply moving on to the next question on the list.

For example:

·        Business Developer:  “Ms. Jones, what has led your organization to the point of needing new space?"

·        Client:  “We’ve experience tremendous growth as a result of our new product line, which is something we really didn’t expect and it’s created some significant space challenges.”

·        Business Developer:  “Can you tell me about those space challenges?”

·        Client:  “Our new space requirements are really specific; we just can’t seem to do what we need to in the existing space.  As a result, we think it’s a good time to be thinking about a new building.”

·        Business Developer:  “What is specific about your space requirements?”

·        Client:  “We need large, open laboratory spaces that accommodate teams of researchers working collaboratively in a well-ventilated environment.”

·        Business Developer:  “Why a new building vs. other options for this type of space?”

·        Client:  ”We’ve always wanted our own building to make a real statement for our company in the downtown core. This seems to be a catalyst for making that happen; our management has reached that ‘tipping’ point that they’re ready to act.”

Interesting conversation, one that could still lead in many different directions; I’d love to see this one evolve.  Instead of spending time talking about his/her firm, this hypothetical business developer comes to the conversation with a genuine interest in the client and the project.  S/he asks a first open-ended question about the client’s needs (product needs).  S/he listens carefully to the answer and follows up with increasingly specific questions designed to clarify the client’s real project needs.  In four questions, s/he’s found out that the client wants a specific type of space, that the organization wants a statement building in downtown, and that they need space quickly to accommodate unexpected growth.  Were I the principal of the design or construction firm pursuing this client, this would indeed be valuable information.

The takeaway (and they did take away the remains of the chocolate cake) from this is that business developers need to think carefully about what they need or desire to know about projects and clients.  And, they need to plan conversations to cover a broad range of topics – product, process, and personally related – quickly.  Finally, they need to really listen and use probing questions to clarify what the client is saying to get at the information that helps us win projects by being able to address the client’s real needs, expectations, and aspirations.

So, on behalf of my seatmate, thanks for keeping my mind occupied while she finished her cake.  And, good luck to all the dedicated business developers who take the initiative to learn the depth of information it takes to win in our increasingly competitive design/construction environment.

“Selling” the Joint Venture

Joint venturing on projects is common practice in the A/E/C industry to add capacity, strength, or portfolio to a project pursuit.  In some cases, firms joint venture at the suggestion of the potential client, but most of the time, they do so to increase their competitive advantage.  Having been a party to creating presentations for multiple JV teams, let me add my voice to the discussion of how to successfully joint venture on a project.  Regardless of financial arrangements between firms, real management structure, communication flow, and all the other things firm leadership must consider in a joint venture, I’m primarily concerned with how we sell the JV to the potential client to give the team the maximum chance of winning the pursuit.

In my experience, most JVs aren’t successful in the pursuit – not because the JV wasn’t a good idea, but because in the push to meet all parties’ needs in the venture, the needs of the potential client and the project were forgotten. If the firm leadership hasn’t carefully considered how the JV is going to work for the client and project, I find it’s almost impossible to win with  the JV team.  In many cases, firms push for a  “balanced” JV relationship, making sure no one firm is slighted in the arrangement. Too often, this results in double staffing:  two project executives, two project managers, two technical leads or split design responsibilities, etc.  Looking at this from a client perspective, not only is it difficult to identify a single point of contact, the client sees a team that’s overstaffed and appears very expensive.

On one hugely successful pursuit, I had the honor of working with a JV team that got it right.  This team’s leadership put their collective egos aside and thought about what it would take to win the project and create comfort for the owner in the organization of the team.  The client was presented with one project executive, one senior project manager, one project architect, one design lead, and a clearly defined set of technical experts.  Roles and responsibilities were clearly presented in the proposal and the team did not waffle on roles and responsibilities in the interview.  Interview time was used to explain how the team would approach the client’s work, not on explaining the organization or giving talk time to multiple project managers or designers.

Conversely, on a recent JV design/build pursuit, we had to bring almost 20 people to the interview:  two designers, two project managers, project executives from each firm, etc.  The firms’ leadership was so busy worrying about not offending each other, making sure each firm had equal talk time that they forgot that they had to win the job first.  As a coach, I found it difficult to focus the team on relevant differentiating content because team members weren’t coordinated in their approach or their relationships.

If a team can’t put corporate politics aside and come together in a united proposal and presentation, it’s pretty clear the client is going to have problems with this team as they deliver the project.  Surprisingly,  I’ve found that most potential clients don’t actually mind a JV – in fact, they can see that partnering on projects can bring the best expertise to technical and community challenges. But, these clients need to see a real partnership and teaming arrangement from the beginning in order for them to have comfort in the team organization.

The most important discussion the leadership of a potential JV should have – once they’ve figured out they want to pursue a project together – is what the organization chart should look like.  Independent of percentages and final division of the work, what does the potential client need to see relative to leadership and organization?  How can the team look streamlined and well organized?  The “math” is pretty simple:   If the combined firms don’t figure this out and communicate it clearly in the proposal,  they lose. 

Joint venture partners need to consider the logic of the project, not the logic of how they will divide up the work.  Organization charts need to make sense – to the team and most importantly, to the client.  We should never have two project managers.  We might see deputy project managers responsible for specific scopes of work, but there should be a single point of contact for the client. Similarly, we should never see two lead designers.  There should be one unifying design vision for the project even if specialty designers will handle specific portions of the project.  And, there’s no reason for two project executives.  Owners can still get the combined resources of both firms with one executive speaking on behalf of the joint venture.  From my perspective, if firm leadership doesn’t trust their partner to speak on their behalf, there’s a bigger problem at play than who has what title on the organization chart.

At the end of the day, from a marketing perspective,  the best joint venture relationships are seamless:  The client doesn’t see different firms. The client sees the best technical and management experience brought to bear to resolve project challenges and create project excellence.

Delivery Matters

I’ve been flying far too frequently these days.  On the up side, it means reconnecting with family, friends, and clients from around the country.  On the down side, it means listening to the airline safety announcement over and over – to the point where I can recite it verbatim.  Nonetheless, as a presentation coach, I find myself really listening to the safety instructions, wanting to give the flight attendant an audience to which s/he can deliver this most important presentation. 

This morning, I observed a delivery style that occurs far too frequently on airplanes and in many other types of critical presentations. The flight attendant rattled through her information so quickly, I doubt anyone really heard her, to the point of slurring and missing words.  She used no inflection, delivering her monologue in a monotone, devoid of emotion or interest.  Her demonstration of the safety equipment was lackluster at best, disconnected from the speed-speak flow of the words.  I found myself thinking from the perspective of a first time flyer who really needed to know this information.  “Should I put my oxygen mask on first, or should I help the person next to me?  Where are those exits again?  What if the exit door is behind me? Will anything direct me to the nearest exit? What about the unlikely event of a water landing?”  Though I’ve heard the instructions hundreds of times, I know that in the event of an airline incident in which I were called upon to act on those instructions, only the ceaseless repetition of the instructions would enable me to act.  I fly ten or more times each month; I’m betting most of my fellow passengers don’t have the benefit of hearing the message that frequently and may have to rely on the instructions they heard this morning.

How many presentations in our industry do we deliver like this flight attendant?  I believe that in many cases, the most boring content in presentations is often the most important, despite the fact that many audience members have heard it before.  For example, in short-list interviews, I’ve seen project management presentations that had selectors on the edge of their chairs, and I’ve seen similar presentations that put audience members to sleep.  I’ve witnessed safety meetings where team members were engaged and asking questions; I’ve also seen the same content delivered to an audience whose sole interest was getting out on the jobsite vs. hearing the information.  What’s the difference?

The major difference between a great presentation of common content and a bad presentation of the same content lies in delivery.  A great speaker takes the content and personalizes it: There’s nothing more important than delivering this particular message to this audience.  Great speakers know that even the best content is not enough to make a great presentation; great presentations take passionate, appropriate delivery combined with a genuine interest in the audience and audience members’ understanding.

The elements of great delivery are fairly simple; it involves intentionally focusing on how you move, how you look, and how you sound.  How you move has to do with appropriate gestures, eye contact, and body movement.  How you look has to do with relaxed posture, comfortable and appropriate dress, and orientation to other team members.  How you sound has to do with the pace, pitch, volume, and tone of your words.  While we could write a book about each of these elements, the bottom line is that great delivery involves intentionality – making a choice to adjust any one of these elements to fit the needs of the content, the situation, and the audience.

Most importantly, great delivery involves a genuine interest in the audience and audience members’ comprehension of the material.  This interest changes everything.  Being interested in audience member comprehension forces speakers to really look at audience members.  Being interested makes speakers change their voice to communicate interest, concern, or excitement. And, being interested engages team members, audience members, and the speaker in the importance of the content – collectively and individually.

What if this one presentation of the airplane safety information was the time it really mattered?  Would that knowledge change the delivery of the information?  I’d like to think so.  The takeaway for me is this:  Each time we have the opportunity to speak to an audience, we need to deliver the information as if this time it matters. While many of our presentations don’t have potential life or death implications, they are important.  At all times, in all situations, to all audience members, make a choice to speak like what you are saying makes a difference.

Measuring Partnership

Project partnering has been around for a long time, and candidly, the jury is still out as to whether or not it creates lasting value for projects and teams.  In some cases, I’ve seen partnering deliverables guide team members to more positive, team-based behaviors that have had profound impact on project success.  In other cases, I’ve seen team members revert to pre-partnering norms more protective of their own interests vs. common team needs at times when the project really needed stronger teamwork.  In recent partnering processes both in the public sector with the USACE and in the private sector on some large, high-impact projects, I have been working with teams interested in finding a methodology for improving the “stickiness” of the partnering mindset throughout the duration of the project.

One method we’re using with great success is to create partnering metrics that can be used throughout the project duration to measure team performance against partnering objectives.  While useful to assess team member perceptions, the usefulness of the partnering measurement tool is more in how it drives a conversation about teaming and partnership throughout the project schedule.

This is not a new concept.  Early partnering facilitators recommended establishing and documenting what they called “partnership expectations” for the team.  However, as partnering has evolved, few teams actually went so far as to create a real measurement tool.  With the costs and benefits of team performance so high, it’s time to “add some teeth” to how we use partnering.  Clearly established partnering metrics are one way to accomplish this.

Establishing the measurement tool requires two things:  a useful and recognized scale and meaningful, discrete “variables” that indicate team performance.  The quantitative scale makes the measurement and subsequent interpretation of the results more objective, resulting in higher quality discourse about team behavior. The variables enable conversation about core team elements in a way that enables behavior change on a more micro level that is more achievable and lasting.

When establishing a scale, I typically prefer a seven-point Likert-type scale that is evenly balanced at the poles.  The scale is broad enough to enable one to see variance across the response population, but doesn’t mimic a ten-point grading scale.  Plus, though others in the industry might disagree, I like having a midpoint between positive and negative ratings since in many cases, “I neither agree nor disagree” is the real answer vs. “N/A – not applicable”.

While there are certainly some common variables teams might use in the creation of a partnering measurement tool, the most valuable metrics are specific to the team and the project, with variables that are meaningful and communicative to team members.  And, these metrics are best created with the team itself. 

As one of the early partnering activities for any project, I divide the team into two groups.  For the first group, after explaining the concept of a metric, I ask them to create a draft measurement tool of discrete items that once measured would give the team an indication of how successful they are relative to partnering. I ask team members, “How would you know partnering has been successful at key stages of the project?”  An example variable might be “Communication of issues at the appropriate level” or “Decisions made in a timely manner.”  Both of these could be measured on a scale through gathering perceptions from all team members.  And, the results would give the team an understanding of how the entire team feels it is doing in each area, and more importantly, would foster a discussion on how to improve.

The second group works on listing, based on past experience and their concerns for this project, risks or roadblocks to success.  This list is used as a test of the measurement tool and the individual metrics:  Given what we know about this project and the real challenges we have ahead, do the items we’ve listed get at the real issues our team is going to face?  For example, if the team is aware that a significant challenge on the current project is going to be the transition of team members from one phase to the next, we might create a metric in our measurement tool, “Orientation of new team members to partnering goals and objectives.”

Partnering takes considerable time and investment at the beginning of a project, and for larger projects, throughout its duration.  Teams that find ways to continue the partnering conversation in productive ways without multiple formal sessions make a wise investment in their future success.  Establishing and using a tailored partnering measurement tool is one way to continue the conversation and target real improvements in teamwork to achieve project goals.