Tathagat Varma

Tathagat Varma Session 4/12: 04-Jun-2010

  We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:   Individuals and interactions over processes and tools  Working software over comprehensive

documentation  Customer collaboration over contract negotiation  Responding to change over following a plan

  That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

1.  Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.

2.  Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.

3.  Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

4.  Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project. 5.  Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and

support they need, and trust them to get the job done. 6.  The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a

development team is face-to-face conversation. 7.  Working software is the primary measure of progress. 8.  Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and

users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. 9.  Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility. 10.  Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential. 11.  The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing

teams. 12.  At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes

and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

  Organizational structure is an enterprise environmental factor that could have a big impact on  How resources are made available, and  How projects are executed

  Is a hierarchy where each employee has one clear superior.

  Staff members are grouped by specialty, such a production, marketing, engineering, and accounting at the top level. Specialties may be further sub-divided into functional organizations, such as mechanical and electrical engineering

  Each department does its project work independent of other projects

  Maintains many of the characteristics of functional organization, and the PM role is more of a coordinator or expeditor than a true PM

  While the balanced matrix organization recognizes the need for a PM, it doesn’t provide the PM with full authority over project and project funding

  Strong matrices have many characteristics of the projectized organization, and can have full-time PMs with considerable authority and full-time administrative staff

  At other end of the spectrum to the functional organization is the projectized organization

  Team members are often co-located, most of the organization’s resources are involved in project work, and PMs have a great deal of independence and authority.

  Often have organizational units called departments, but these groups either report directly to the PM or provide support services to the various projects

  Many organizations involve all these structures at various levels.

  For example, even a fundamentally functional organization may create a special team to handle a critical project. Such a team might have many characteristics of a project team in a projectized organization. The team may include full-time staff from different departments, may develop its own set of operating procedures, and may operate outside the standard, formalized reporting structure.

Project Characteristics

Functional Weak Matrix

Balanced Matrix

Strong Matrix

Projectized

Project Manager’s authority

Little or none

Limited Low to Moderate

Moderate to High

High to Almost Total

Resource Availability

Little or none

Limited Low to Moderate

Moderate to High

High to Almost Total

Who controls the project budget

Functional Manager

Functional Manager

Mixed Project Manager

Project Managers

Project Manager’s role

Part-time Part-time Full-time Full-time Full-time

Project Management Administrative Staff

Part-time Part-time Part-time Full-time Full-time

  No one perfect organizational structure for managing projects exists.   The functional, the project, and the different matrix structures

all have strengths and weaknesses. The final choice should come after weighing various factors in the nature of the task, the needs of the organization, and the environment of the project.

  The functional structure will work for many projects in many organizations, especially if lateral communications can be improved through integrating mechanisms and procedures short of hiring a matrix coordinator.

  When a matrix approach is chosen, the entire organization must put a good deal of effort into it to make it work. In particular, the project coordinator or project manager in the matrix must be carefully chosen and trained. His interpersonal skills are more important than his technical knowledge.

  In many situations, a project organization may appear to be the simplest solution from the viewpoint of the project manager. However, the functional managers or top management may not find it to be the best long-range or most strategic decision.

Favors Functional Structure

Favors Matrix Structure

Favors Project Structure

Uncertainty Low High High

Technology Standard Complicated New

Complexity Low Medium High

Duration Short Medium Long

Size Small Medium Large

Importance Low Medium High

Customer Diverse Medium One

Interdependency (within)

Low Medium High

Interdependency (between)

High Medium Low

Time Criticality Low Medium High

Resource Criticality Depends Depends Depends

Differentiation Low High Medium

  The advantages of a matrix include:   Individuals can be chosen according to the needs of the

project.   The use of a project team which is dynamic and able to

view problems in a different way as specialists have been brought together in a new environment.

  Project managers are directly responsible for completing the project within a specific deadline and budget.

  Whilst the disadvantages include:   A conflict of loyalty between line managers and project

managers over the allocation of resources.   If teams have a lot of independence can be difficult to

monitor.   Costs can be increased if more managers (i.e. project

managers) are created through the use of project teams.

Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning

  High dependence on leader for guidance and direction.

  Little agreement on team aims other than received from leader.

  Individual roles and responsibilities are unclear.   Leader must be prepared to answer lots of

questions about the team's purpose, objectives and external relationships.

  Processes are often ignored.   Members test tolerance of system and leader.   Leader directs (similar to Situational

Leadership® 'Telling' mode).

  Decisions don't come easily within group.   Team members vie for position as they attempt to

establish themselves in relation to other team members and the leader, who might receive challenges from team members.

  Clarity of purpose increases but plenty of uncertainties persist.

  Cliques and factions form and there may be power struggles.

  The team needs to be focused on its goals to avoid becoming distracted by relationships and emotional issues.

  Compromises may be required to enable progress.   Leader coaches (similar to Situational Leadership®

'Selling' mode).

  Agreement and consensus is largely forms among team, who respond well to facilitation by leader.

  Roles and responsibilities are clear and accepted.   Big decisions are made by group agreement.   Smaller decisions may be delegated to

individuals or small teams within group.   Commitment and unity is strong.   The team may engage in fun and social activities.   The team discusses and develops its processes

and working style.   There is general respect for the leader and some

of leadership is more shared by the team.   Leader facilitates and enables (similar to the

Situational Leadership® 'Participating' mode).

  The team is more strategically aware; the team knows clearly why it is doing what it is doing.

  The team has a shared vision and is able to stand on its own feet with no interference or participation from the leader.

  There is a focus on over-achieving goals, and the team makes most of the decisions against criteria agreed with the leader.

  The team has a high degree of autonomy.   Disagreements occur but now they are resolved within the team

positively and necessary changes to processes and structure are made by the team.

  The team is able to work towards achieving the goal, and also to attend to relationship, style and process issues along the way. team members look after each other.

  The team requires delegated tasks and projects from the leader.   The team does not need to be instructed or assisted.   Team members might ask for assistance from the leader with

personal and interpersonal development.   Leader delegates and oversees (similar to the Situational

Leadership® 'Delegating' mode).

  Bruce Tuckman refined his theory around 1975 and added a fifth stage to the model - he called it Adjourning, which is also referred to as Deforming and Mourning.

  Adjourning is arguably more of an adjunct to the original four stage model rather than an extension - it views the group from a perspective beyond the purpose of the first four stages.

  The Adjourning phase is certainly very relevant to the people in the group and their well-being, but not to the main task of managing and developing a team, which is clearly central to the original four stages.

  Tuckman's fifth stage, Adjourning, is the break-up of the group, hopefully when the task is completed successfully, its purpose fulfilled; everyone can move on to new things, feeling good about what's been achieved.

  From an organizational perspective, recognition of and sensitivity to people's vulnerabilities in Tuckman's fifth stage is helpful, particularly if members of the group have been closely bonded and feel a sense of insecurity or threat from this change.

  Feelings of insecurity would be natural for people with high 'steadiness' attributes (as regards the 'four temperaments' or DISC model) and with strong routine and empathy style (as regards the Benziger thinking styles model, right and left basal brain dominance).

  Can be used to identify factors for building and developing small groups

  Provides a level of guidance for team development

  Limitations:  Was designed for small groups   In reality, group processes might not be linear, but

cyclical  There might be overlap between stages  Model doesn’t take into account individual roles  No guidance on timeframe from one stage to next

  The Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum also correlates in a way to the models above - essentially that management style tends to offer more freedom as the group matures.

  The diagonal line loosely equates to the dotted line on the other two models. As the team matures and becomes more self-sufficient and self-directing, so the manager's style should react accordingly, ideally becoming more detached, more delegating, encouraging and enabling the group to run itself, and for a successor (or if you are a good manager or a lucky one, for more than one successor) to emerge.

  Hersey and Blanchard characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of Task Behavior and Relationship Behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behavior types, which they named S1 to S4:   S1: Telling - is characterized by one-way communication in which the

leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, when, and where to do the task

  S2: Selling - while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socioemotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process.

  S3: Participating - this is now shared decision making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviors while maintaining high relationship behavior.

  S4: Delegating - the leaders is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.

  Of these, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Effective leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation.

  The right leadership style will depend on the person or group being led - the follower. The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory identified four levels of Maturity M1 through M4:   M1 - They generally lack the specific skills required for the job in

hand and are unable and unwilling to do or to take responsibility for this job or task.

  M2 - They are still unable to take on responsibility for the task being done; however, they are willing to work at the task.

  M3 - They are experienced and able to do the task but lack the confidence to take on responsibility.

  M4 - They are experienced at the task, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. They able and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for the task.

  Maturity Levels are also task specific. A person might be generally skilled, confident and motivated in their job, but would still have a Maturity level M2 when asked to perform a task requiring skills they don't possess.

  Coercive Power   Reward Power   Legitimate Power   Referent Power   Expert Power

  This type of power is based upon the idea of coercion. This involves forcing someone to do something that they do not want to do. The ultimate goal of coercion is compliance. According to Changingminds.org "demonstrations of harm are often used to illustrate what will happen if compliance is not gained".

  French & Raven (1959) state that "other forms of power can also be used in coercive ways, such as when reward or expertise is withheld or referent power is used to threaten social exclusion".

  The power of coercion has been proven to be related with punitive behavior that may be outside one's normal role expectations. (Hinkin & Schriesheim 1989)

  However coercion has also been associated positively with generally punitive behavior and negatively associated to contingent reward behavior.(Gioia & Sims 1983) This source of power can often lead to problems and in many circumstances it involves abuse. Mindtools.com states that "coercive power can cause unhealthy behavior and dissatisfaction in the workplace". These type of leaders rely on the use of threats in their leadership style. Often the threats involve saying someone will be fired or demoted.

  The second type of power involves having the ability to administer to another things he/she desires or to remove or decrease things he/she does not desire. (French & Raven 1959) For supervisors in an organizational setting, it is the perceived ability to present subordinates with outcomes that are valued in a positive manner. (Hinkin & Schriesheim 1989)

  This type of power in based on the idea that we as a society are more prone to do things and to do them well when we are getting something out of it. Social exchange theorists as well as Power-Dependence theorists continue to focus on the idea of reward power. (Molm 1988)

  The most popular forms are offering raises, promotions, and simply compliments. The problem with this according to Mindtools.com is that "when you use up available rewards, or the rewards don't have enough perceived value to others, your power weakens. (One of the frustrations with using rewards is that they often need to be bigger each time if they're to have the same motivational impact. Even then, if rewards are given frequently, people can become satisfied by the reward, such that it loses its effectiveness.)"

  The power which holds the ability to administer to another certain feelings of obligation or the notion of responsibility. (Hinkin & Schriesheim 1989) "Rewarding and Punishing subordinates is generally seen as a legitimate part of the formal or appointed leadership role and most managerial positions in work organizations carry with them, some degree of expected reward and punishment".( Bass 1990)

  Legitimate power is typically based on one's role. people are traditionally obeying the person holding this power solely based on their position or title rather than the person specifically as a leader. Therefore this type of power can easily dissolve with the loss of a position or title. This power is therefore not strong enough to be one's only form of influencing/persuading others.

  The power of holding the ability to administer to another feelings of personal acceptance or personal approval. (Hinkin & Schriesheim 1989) This type of power is strong enough that the power-holder is often looked up to as a role model. (Raven, 1988) This power is often looked at as admiration, or charm.

  The power derives from one person having an overall likability leading people to strongly identify with them in one form or another.

  A person with this type of power generally makes people feel good around them therefore one has a lot of influence. The responsibility involved is heavy and one can easily lose this power, but when combined with other forms of power it can be very useful. Celebrities often have this type of power in society on the flip side they also often lose it quickly in some circumstances.

  The ability to administer to another information, knowledge or expertise. (French & Raven 1959) Leaders who possess this type of power have high intelligence and rely on their ability to perform various organizational tasks and functions. This power makes one able to combine the power of reward in the correct fashion.

  When someone has the expertise in an organization people are more convinced to trust them and to respect what they stand for. When your expertise is valued, so are your ideas, and leadership.