I know of one organization where they do not sit down but gather in a circle and pass around an item and when you have the item it is your turn to speak and/or ask questions. The strategy is to get the information out so that the team can move on with the day’s work.

I have been in organizations where the weekly meeting was a “must have” even if there was nothing on the agenda! To me a meeting needs to happen when there is something to talk about that is impeding the progress of the project or there needs to be clarifications made or coordination of efforts.

A variation on this topic: I do encounter managers that plan to [seems to me] unnecessary to detail for certain events. An example is stage-gate reviews that become highly choreographed affairs planned to excruciating detail. Some reviews are “staged” rather than “stage” meetings. There is no avoiding some charts and tables to display performance information, but I prefer discussion-centered meetings to power point-centered shows.

Another idea may be to intervene with the person with peers or a management team emphasizing that the success of the project is everyone’s concern and from that common ground move forward.

Timing and patience is everything in these types of situations…

It seems newhere could rightly say that he/she does not understand what troublesome’s goals are. If troublesome’s goal is project success, then there is a basis for moving ahead. If it is centered on fighting the organization’s methodology, then there is a problem. Whether the disagreement is cognitive (issues based) or affective (personality based) can be important as well. The situation reads as if cognitive conflict is bleeding over to affective problems, affecting the team. Whether PM is a bona-fide profession is beside the point – the organization is using PM methods, and following standards (benchmarks) is important.

We all like to be able to handle problems and risks with our own resources, but in dealing with a disruptive peer I think that presenting the situation to higher-level managers is good option. My experience has been that the downsides from removal are less than trying to accommodate a disruptive person.

The three approaches can be avoidance of the issue, smoothing over the issue or confronting the issue. In this case the first two do not seem to be a good choice.

What I have seen in other scenarios is the person who is creating the issues is removed from the team in order for the project to move forward.

– Loran

Nona

Glen Givens

My plan has been to use the situational leadership approach to separate the root cause of the issues (ability vs. willingness). Next I need to describe the issue to him in these terms and ask some questions to verify, then address the gap by suggesting the agreement I need to get. If issues continue, they need to be addressed immediately and with an appropriately grave approach (referring to the previous conversation and agreements not being kept, being honest but tactful about how specifically the behaviour is an obstacle to the project, documenting the conversation, and discussing before and after with my own supervisor and/or the sponsor).

If the problem persists beyond that, then I will raise the situation further with the sponsor and my director as a significant obstacle to the success of the project, summarize the risks of allowing the situation to continue, and discuss the options for intervention or corrective action. From there, it is their call. I will continue to be firm in any agreements we have made about our communication, such as time limits on unscheduled phone conversations, or transferring an argument to the issue log for future resolution when it’s obvious we’re not making progress.

Any ideas/issues/feedback? I’ve just spent some time thinking about it and sometimes writing it out like this helps me clarify The main issue I see arising is that the person doesn’t seem to have any respect for the discipline of project managementm which bothers me and I get sidetracked into conversations about why pm is important rather than sticking to the real issue. How do I keep it on track when the blustering, egotistical, condescending comments start flying at me?

The reason being that as someone who has managed numerous global programs the key difficulties I’ve encountered are dealing with remote / offhore teams and effectively communicating with teams who’s grasp of English is not as good as they might like to think.

Regards

Susan de Sousa
Site Editor http://www.my-project-management-expert.com

Are there other organizations or ways to improve group presentation skills?