When it comes to stakeholder management, many project managers forget to consider the project team members.

Every project manager and team leader wants to direct a team of motivated people. And many team leaders probably know that the most powerful forms of motivation -- autonomy, mastery and purpose -- center around self-actualization.

So as a project manager or team leader, it's up to you to facilitate these circumstances for each member of your project team. To do this, you need effective communication in three key areas:

1. Comprehension. Make sure the person assigned to a task understands the work and measures of success, and agrees he or she can achieve the desired outcome.

Asking the team member questions and listening to his or her suggestions on how to best accomplish the work helps develop the team member's sense of ownership associated with autonomy.

2. Acknowledgement. Everyone likes to feel they have accomplished something in their workday. Facilitating this feeling is part management -- minimizing interruptions and diversions -- and part communication.

Make sure a team member's progress is acknowledged on a regular basis and "accidentally" catch the person doing something right. You have to notice and rectify errors in performance. Balance this negativity by acknowledging positives. This is a daily process to keep the team motivated and focused.

3. Purpose. Change is inevitable in project management, and it's up to you to maintain a sense of purpose throughout a project's lifecycle. The challenge usually comes when you have to move a project team member to another role or change his or her objectives. This can be especially frustrating if the team member has developed a sense of purpose around his or her overall project objectives and work.

If you simply instruct people to change, you risk damaging or destroying motivation. Instead, communicate these four points:

1. The problem with the current situation, and the consequences of not changing.
2. The reason the proposed change has been preferred over the other available options.
3.  The expected benefits from adopting the change.
4. The contribution the person can make while achieving the new objective.
   

This approach doesn't have to be complex. For example, let's assume you need to move John from development to testing:



1. John, we need your help in testing. Mary is out sick and the schedule is weeks behind. If we don't catch up, the whole project will be delayed.
2. I'm asking you to help because you have more experience in testing than anyone else.
3. With your skills in testing and your knowledge of the development, I'm sure we will be able to recover the lost time in testing with minimal disruption to the development effort.
4. With good management all around, I'm hoping this change will prevent a delayed completion, but we need you to make this possible. Are you willing to help?
   

If John says yes, you have turned a motivated developer into a motivated tester.

Above all, communicating to motivate has to be authentic to be effective, and it need not require too much time and effort. Plus, the extra time spent motivating will be more than repaid in better team performance.

How do you keep stakeholders happy on your project team?

The core purpose of communication is to share information or direct a behavior change. This is particularly true of communication with your project team members.

The challenge of effective communication is keeping a consistent point and changing your presentation and rhythm to avoid becoming boring.

Great communicators use a similar approach to great music. It does not matter if you listen to Beethoven's "Symphony No. 5" or Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody." You find consistency and variety in both. Patches of high intensity contrasted with quieter movements create a memorable and complete masterpiece.

The same effect can be achieved in your communication by balancing positive and negative elements of a message or changing the direction of the information flow.

For example, if you want someone to stop an undesirable behavior, point out the problem, but also highlight the benefits of the change you want to occur. Or rather than telling the team they are behind schedule, change the direction of the information flow and ask them for ideas to regain the lost time. The point you are making is consistent, but the variety in presentation leads to engagement.

Another key element is to finish on a high note. Great music does not fade away. It builds to a crescendo!

Great communicators such as Martin Luther King Jr. or Winston Churchill had a consistent, heartfelt message they communicated in a way that would create a strong reaction in their listeners.

Both had different speaking styles, but each had a real sense of rhythm and performance. Their speeches are carefully crafted for effect, but the presentation adds enormous weight to the message.

While you may never need to 'fight on the landing fields' or 'have a dream' to change a nation, taking the time to think through how you will present the information in your communication in a way that is engaging and memorable will help you be more effective in getting your message across to your audience.

Do you spend more time drafting your message or thinking about how you will communicate the message?

Have you ever wondered why many executives don't turn up for your steering committee meeting and those who do are usually on their smartphones?

Chances are that the only information the executives received about your meeting was the agenda and the briefing notes, which focus on the project's status and technical performance. This is abstract data that takes time to read and understand. As a consequence, it becomes paperwork that is put aside to read later, buried under other paperwork and eventually forgotten.

To be successful in attracting the attention of busy executives, focus on a 30-second 'wake-up call' that will cut through the thousands of other messages circulating in your organization and get the executives attention. You cannot communicate unless you get the other person's attention first; so your 'call' must persuade each member of the committee to be both physically and mentally present for your meeting. Only then will your more complex messages be heard and possibly acted upon.

The solution is 'What's In It For Me' (WIFM).

WIFM appeals directly to the attention and decision-making functions of the human brain. The amygdala, a part of the brain, rules much of our actions and behavior.

The amygdala determines in a fraction of a second what we pay attention to. It will pay no attention at all unless it can immediately see WIFM. To cut through each executive's communication overload, your 30-second 'wake-up call' needs to be direct and simple and appeal to the person's emotions. Pleasure and fear are equally effective emotions, so the call should worry the executive--or make him or her feel good. It should not focus on a third party, such as you or your project.

The amygdala is expert at screening everything that doesn't directly interest it, including things that are abstract, complex or about someone else. Uninteresting or confusing messages are rejected in the blink of an eye, before the rational and analytical areas of the brain have a chance to begin the thinking process.

Only after you have gained the executive's attention can you engage with the person and deal with the substance of the meeting. Strong messages start this process, but the real work of the meeting will require the use of more highly crafted forms of communication built around the concept of effectively 'advising upwards.'

Ask yourself: 'Are we getting the attention of those most important to us?' If you are getting attention, are you keeping it and building it? And if you don't know, what can you do to find out?

In September 2011, Project Management Journal published an article comparing similarities between public works management in the Roman era and similar projects today.

The only significant difference that was noted from the last 2,000 years is the proliferation of formal tools and techniques we now use compared to the 'seat of the pants' (or should that be toga?) approach used by Roman managers.

However, in my opinion, the authors, Derek Walker and Christopher Dart could have added a few more differences.

For example, the simpler social structures of the Roman era provided a direct link between project initiator and the manager responsible for the work. For major works, the emperor would frequently be the person directly funding the project. He would also appoint the manager. Another way projects were launched: To enhance his or her prestige, a benefactor funded other projects.

The appointed manager bore personal responsibility for the project's success. Interestingly, he also had to lobby for the unpaid appointment. The manager's prestige and the standing of his family for generations to come could be influenced by success or failure of a significant project.

Most of the actual work was contracted to commercial organizations on similar terms. The contractor was obliged to complete the work for the price agreed upon by both parties. Failure could literally have fatal consequences for the contractor and serious consequences for his descendants.

Probably the most significant difference between the Romans and today's project professionals was the overall commitment to success demonstrated by the Romans. There were direct lines of accountability from the benefactor funding the project to the contractors delivering the work. Everyone's prestige was at stake.

Today, the complexity of modern organizations and multiple competing objectives tends to obscure the link between a project and the organization's overall strategy.

Most project managers are committed to the success of their projects. But this commitment is not necessarily reflected in the higher levels of the organization, as evidenced by the number of articles on 'selling' the benefits of a project to organizational management.  

When there is a clarity of purpose, such as building the London Olympics, remarkable results can still be achieved. Unfortunately, within the matrix structures common in most organizations, in my opinion, one of the real challenges is finding a 21st century way to recapture the Roman's top to bottom commitment to the success of each project.

How do you think this level of stakeholder alignment could be achieved in your organization? 

The purpose of a project or program is to have its deliverables create value. But this value can only be realized if the new process or artifact 'delivered' by the project is actually used to achieve the intended improvements.

Executives have a central role in this process. There is a direct link between the decision to make an investment in a project and the need for the organization to make effective use of the deliverables to generate the intended benefits. In turn, this creates a valuable ROI.

According to PMI's 2012 Pulse of the Profession, in organizations where senior management has at least a moderate understanding of project and program management, 59 percent of the projects successfully meet or exceed the anticipated ROI. This is compared to just 51 percent of the projects in organizations where the senior management has a limited comprehension of project and program management.

This is where a project sponsor comes in.

An effective sponsor is the direct link between the executive and the project or program. The sponsor is crucial to ensuring top-level management support for the project contributes to the project's success and is critical to achieving the ultimate goal of generating an ROI.

According to Pulse, 75 percent of high-performing organizations have active sponsors on 80 percent or more of their projects.

If your project has an effective sponsor, make full use of his or her support. The challenge facing the rest of us is persuading less effective sponsors to improve their level of support.

To impart project knowledge into other areas of the business, the team needs to be able to 'advise upward.' Here are three tips to do so:

1. Create a conversation about value with other project managers and teams within your organization. This is a very different proposition to being simply on time, scope and budget. It's about the ultimate value to the organization created by using the outputs from its projects and programs. The key phrase is "How we can help make our organization better?"

2. Use the right evidence. Benchmarking your organization against its competitors is a good start, as is understanding what high-performing organizations do.
 
3. Link the information you bring into the conversation with the needs of the organization. Show your organization's executive how this can provide direct benefits.

In most parts of the world, organizations need to do more with less to stay competitive. Developing the skills of project sponsors so they are active is one proven way to achieve a significant improvement with minimal cost.

In fact, if projects are supported more effectively, there may be cost savings and increased value at the same time. And what's in it for us as project managers? We have a much-improved working environment. Everyone wins.

Do you have an active sponsor on your project? Do you think active sponsors improve project success? How involved are the executives in your organization?

To discuss Pulse of the Profession on Twitter, please use #pmipulse.

See more on the Pulse of the Profession.


The next time your boss asks you for a number, a deadline date or another fixed value, remember anything you say will be wrong. The reason is 'the flaw of averages.'

Discussed in a book of the same name by Sam L. Savage, the flaw of averages basically explains why everything is behind schedule, beyond budget and below projection.

For example, you're developing two software modules. Both are expected to take between eight and 12 weeks to complete. When both modules are finished, your organization can start a new process, which requires four additional staff.

Your boss asks you for a completion date so the additional people can be brought 'on-board' and the new profitable line of business started. You say, "Eight to 12 weeks," and your boss replies, "Give me a date!" You estimate that a safe date would be 10 weeks, the average of eight and 12 weeks.

Everyone is happy. But should they be? Let's look at the flaw of the average:

Based on your projected date, your boss works out his profit forecast for the next quarter based on an estimated profit of US$1,000 per week. You take the first seven weeks developing the application, and the new team uses the application for the remaining five weeks.

This sounds sensible, but the estimate of US$5,000 profit is the best that can be achieved. If you finish early, there is no upside. The new people will not be available.

If you finish late, however, sales will be lost. The cost of the unproductive new staff will be an added expense until both modules are working. On average, the profits achieved are likely to be significantly less than US$5,000.

Plus, you're more likely to be late than early. The probability of finishing each of the modules in 10 weeks or less is 50 percent.  It's like tossing a coin - there is always a 50 percent chance of it landing on 'heads.'   

Since two modules need to be finished in 10 weeks or less, think of the options when you toss two coins:

Tails + Tails
Tails + Heads
Heads + Tails
Heads + Heads

There is only a one in four chance of you achieving the 'average.' That 25 percent probability means there is a 75 percent probability of being late. Therefore, on average, you can expect to be late.

All you did was assess a reasonable number based on your expected average time to complete each module. The problem is not your estimate, but the way it is being used. This is the flaw of average.

The next time you are asked for a 'number,' use your skills in managing upward to build flexibility into the conversation.

For example, offer your boss a safe date with an option for improvement. "We will definitely be finished in 12 weeks, and there is a possibility of finishing sooner." Point out the cost risks of being early and late. Keep the boss updated as you work through the project.

Or, do some serious analysis. Offer your boss a range of dates with different levels of probability. You need tools for this, but you want a target date with an 80 percent probability of achieving.

Effective stakeholder management needs more than simply complying with a request -- however reasonable it may appear on the surface.

When a relationship with a key stakeholder breaks down, or there is some other failure in your project, it's tempting to assume there is a 'root cause.' We think that by finding and fixing this key factor, the problem will be resolved.

Many tools help find the root cause and these tools work for simple problems. However, they are dangerous to use in complex systems.

The '5-Whys' approach assumes that each presenting symptom has only one sufficient cause. By asking 'why?' five times, you can drill down to the root cause.

For example, say that your boss complains that her computer is not working. You see the plug is out of the wall socket. You replace the plug and solve the problem, right? Well, the answer depends on how you define the problem:

Problem: Lack of power. Solution: Replace the plug.
Problem: Lack of training or knowledge. Solution: Teach your boss about the plug.
Problem: Poor joinery design. Solution: Put the power points on the desktop instead of on the floor.

The '5-Whys' approach requires the right definition of the problem to start digging for a root cause. Even then, the approach only follows one line of thinking, which limits its ability to identify complex interactions.

When considering problems in socio-technical systems, such as stakeholder relationships, the assumption that there is a single event that triggers a chain of events that lead to a problem is false.

Most problems have multiple contributing causes. Each element is necessary but only when all of the elements are combined 'correctly' is there sufficient impetus to create the breakdown. When trying to understand failures in complex systems, like relationships, a different paradigm is useful.

For example, let's say you used a range of motivational techniques to help your team perform that have worked well in the past. This time, however, the team disintegrated, and productivity dropped. Chances are that the problem emerged from a confluence of conditions often associated with the pursuit of success. But in this specific combination, there was "trigger failure;" each item was necessary, but on its own or in a different combination could be more beneficial.

These unexpected outcomes are encountered because complex systems, like relationships in and around a project team, have emergent behaviors, not resultant ones.

Complex causes require subtle management. You need to be continually prepared for nonlinear behaviors where small problems can result in large and cascading failures.

Rather then resolutely applying your standard approaches, look, listen and 'tune-in' to your team. When a complex system reaches the tipping point and collapses into failure, it is too late. You need to feel the issues emerging and adapt to the changing situation.  

How do you detect failures in stakeholder management?

Read more about stakeholder management.

Carl Phillip Gottfried von Clausewitz, (1780-1831) a Prussian soldier and German military theorist, wrote:

"War is the realm of uncertainty; three quarters of the factors on which action in war is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty ... The commander must work in a medium which his eyes cannot see; which his best deductive powers cannot always fathom; and with which, because of constant changes, he can rarely become familiar."  

Projects aren't much different.

Military leaders and project managers both need the active support of their teams to be successful. But support involves more than just following orders. Active supporters work with you to achieve success in difficult circumstances.

Here are a few theories I've adapted from the military that may help project managers running a large project:

The right of one objection
This doctrine says that regardless of the rank of the person giving the command, if you have information that shows the command may be wrong, you are obliged to share that information with the issuer. Once the objection has been properly considered, the objector is expected to comply with the final decision.

Unfortunately, many project team members tend to keep information to themselves rather than risk getting in trouble with authority. To reduce the concern, adopt a policy guaranteeing no sanctions against a team member who raises the one objection. More importantly, information withholders become liable to an equal share of the consequences if they have kept quiet.

Decentralize execution planning to the lowest possible management level. This way, those who must execute the work have the freedom to develop their own plans.
 
At each level of management, the plan should dictate a subordinate's actions only to the minimum degree necessary. Ideally, rather than dictating a subordinate's actions, a good project plan should create opportunities for the subordinate to act with initiative.

Effective planning should facilitate shaping the conditions of the situation to our advantage while preserving freedom to adapt quickly to changes in the project's circumstances.


Planning should be participatory and evolutionary. The main benefit of planning is engaging in the process -- the planning matters more than the plan.

We should view any project plan as merely a common starting point from which to adapt as required -- and not as a script that must be followed. Plan far enough into the future to maintain the initiative and prepare adequately for upcoming phases, but not so far that plans will have little in common with actual developments.

Adapt these ideas to the circumstances of your project, and they should help you make your internal stakeholder management more effective and your projects more successful.
 

A recent commenter suggested I write a post to help clarify the project sponsor's role.

Your project sponsor is the key link between the project management team and the organization's executive management. An effective sponsor "owns" the project and has the ultimate responsibility for seeing that the intended benefits are realized to create the value forecast in the business case.

A good project sponsor will not interfere in the day-to-day running of the project -- that's the role of the project manager. But, the sponsor should help the project manager facilitate the necessary organizational support needed to make strategic decisions and create a successful project.

With respect to the project, effective sponsors should:

• Create alignment. The sponsor helps keep the project aligned with business and cultural goals.
• Communicate on behalf of the project, particularly with other stakeholder groups in senior management. The sponsor also communicates his or her personal commitment to the project's success on multiple occasions.
• Gain commitment. The sponsor is a key advocate for the project. He or she "walks the talk" and gains commitment from other key stakeholders.
• Arrange resources. The sponsor ensures the project's benefits are fully realized by arranging the resources necessary to initiate and sustain the change within the organization.
• Facilitate problem solving. The sponsor ensures issues escalated from the project are solved effectively at the organizational level. This includes decisions on changes, risks, conflicting objectives and any other issue that is outside of the project manager's designated authority.
• Support the project manager. The sponsor offers mentoring, coaching and leadership when dealing with business and operational matters.
• Build durability. The sponsor ensures that the project's outputs will be sustained by ensuring that people and processes are in place to maintain it once the project completes its handover.

If you have a good sponsor, look after him or her. If your sponsor does not understand the role or is unwilling to fulfill the role, however, you need to speak up. Carrying on without an effective sponsor raises the probability of project failure and you as the project manager will be held accountable for that failing.

It's important to flag the lack of effective sponsorship as a key risk to the project. It may not make you popular, but you have an ethical responsibility to clearly define risks that need management attention.

Ultimately the organization's executive management is responsible for training and appointing effective sponsors. If this has not happened, as project managers, all we can do is help those sponsors who are willing to be helped and flag a risk or issue for those that are missing or unwilling to support "their project."

Read more about project sponsors. 

Who should lead the change challenge: organization management or project management?

The project team probably has a better idea of the technical aspects of the changes required. But, the organization's management initiates the project and has overall responsibility for achieving the intended benefits after the project is complete.

In my opinion, change management is an organizational responsibility. The role of project management is to focus on creating the deliverable effectively and supporting the organizational change effort.  

In short, the project management team works for the organizational change management team. However, I have seen many situations where managing the change is treated as a project responsibility.  

For those project teams undertaking change management, the change challenge is getting the necessary buy-in from organizational stakeholders who have to make effective use of the project's deliverables to get the expected value from the project.  

There is no point in the project team being happy with its work if no one uses it. The way the organization works has to change if the deliverable is going to be used effectively to create value for the organization and generate a ROI on the investment in the project.

Effective communication with the affected stakeholders is a must when addressing the change challenge. These communications follow a fairly standard pattern:

• Explain the reason for the change needs so they are understood.
• Define, communicate and support the actual changes to work practices and behaviors though training or other skills development activities.
• Provide ongoing support to embed the new practices into the operating culture of the organization.

Do you think change management is an organizational or project responsibility? Which option do you think is best for effectively engaging with the affected stakeholders? Which option best facilitates the overall change in behaviors needed to generate a successful project outcome?

See more posts from Lynda.
See more on stakeholder management.

Effective project management governance is becoming an important topic at all levels of many organizations. Project governance focuses on making sure the whole of an organization's project management system is effectively supporting its strategy.

Good governance requires that the governing board sets the strategy and provides direction -- and not become involved in the day-to-day management of the organization. It's up to the organization's managers to implement the strategy and provide the board with the necessary assurances, information and advice needed to support the governance process.

Good governance and optimum performance should be synonymous. And developing an efficient structure to ensure both is a subtle art.

The directors need to ask their executive managers the right questions and the managers need to develop efficient systems that deliver the right answers. Paul A. Samuelson, an American economist said, "Good questions outrank easy answers."

In other words, if you don't ask the right questions, you are unlikely to get the information you need to make good decisions. The governance processes need to focus on the aspects of project delivery that really matter.

Some key questions to ask include:

 - Are we doing the right projects?
 -  Do we have the optimum risk profile?
 -  Do we have the resources and capability to accomplish the selected projects?
 -  Are we properly supporting our project teams to encourage success?

The challenge we face as project professionals is that most directors and senior executives have had limited exposure to effective project management systems. Concepts such as project portfolio management are relatively new and are still evolving. PMI is providing strong leadership in developing these concepts, but I find that execution of the work is largely occurring at operational management levels.

The challenge we face as project management experts is educating our senior executives and directors to ask the right questions in order to help move the organization forward. We must encourage them to invest in developing the ability to effectively manage the organization's project management so the executives and directors can get meaningful answers.

Effective project governance structure provides the optimum environment to allow project and program managers to deliver successful outcomes, so encouraging its development is in everyone's interest.

How can you and your colleagues work to encourage the "right questions" in your organization?

One of the biggest challenges faced by all sectors of the project management profession is persuading senior executives to focus on implementing effective project governance.

Governance is a "top-down" process. Most of the risks and rewards associated with a project or program are determined long before the project manager is appointed.

Effective project management delivers a realistic and achievable outcome efficiently. If the parameters for the project are unrealistic in the first place, the best project management can do is stop the situation from deteriorating further. Failure is guaranteed.

Wishful thinking is not an effective substitute for effective project governance. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) does not have a miracle process that will magically transform an impossible set of objectives into an achievable set of objectives.

The organization's executives need to balance risks, rewards and capabilities to set realistic objectives and then use effective governance systems to oversee the delivery.

The only way to achieve meaningful change is by communicating to affect a change in the understanding of stakeholders. When senior executives require effective project governance, we can better assist them in establishing effective and robust systems.

If you're lucky enough to work in an organization with effective project governance, broadcast the benefits. If you work in an organization that could improve its governance, use your skills to advise upwards. If your organization is on the road toward effective governance, keep helping it along.  

If we are successful in making effective project governance the normal way organizations operate, the rate of project success will increase, as will the standing of our profession.

What can you do to help create the climate for better governance?   

The recent Qantas Airways network shutdown was a good example of an industry taking a long-term view of what is best for the industry. Rather than overtly exploiting the problems and passenger discomfort caused by the disruption, Qantas' competitors scheduled additional capacity and cooperated to minimize the overall inconvenience to the flying public.

An obvious consequence to this is that passengers may discover they like the rival airline and keep flying it. But overall, the airline industry worked to minimize the damage to the air travel category. Everyone recognized the collective overall need to keep the flying public flying and returning to repeat the experience.

This win-win approach is a stark contrast to the situation where a competitor's primary aim is to score a short-term win, regardless of the damage caused to the sector. If Qantas' competitors had resorted to negative advertising pointing out how bad the Qantas service was, for example, there would have been damage done to the overall perception of flying.

Now, consider your next argument with one of your project's stakeholders, either internal or external. While your stakeholders may not be competitors, it may benefit you to use the same "win-win" approach.

You have a clear choice: You can work collaboratively to build your project team brand and even enhance the larger project management profession. Or, you can go all out to win -- and if you lose, make sure your competitor can't win.

The latter approach always causes long-term problems.

If the customer loses, the relationship will be damaged and they'll be looking for an opportunity to get even. You also permanently damage your long-term opportunities. If you lose, you're no longer part of the solution. You've effectively negotiated yourself out of a role.

The alternative is a collaborative approach where you seek to build the best outcome with as many of your needs, wants and ideas embedded in the final solution as possible. This collaborative solution will, of course, include some of your stakeholder's wants and ideas, but may result in an overall better outcome for everyone by transforming the problem into a win-win solution.

In this scenario, you may have made some compromises, but you're still in the game and can influence the outcome. The relationship is maintained and you have helped maintained the image of the team and the project management profession.

What do you think? Short-term "wins" may feel good. But if the consequence damages the customer's perception of you and your project, is the short-term gain worth the long-term pain?

Successful projects meet or exceed key stakeholder expectations and requirements. How can this be done when working with the client, sponsor, senior management and users of the project's deliverables?

The need to effectively manage stakeholder expectations is a consistent theme in the PMBOK^® Guide. This goes beyond the simple delivery of specified requirements -- it covers all aspects of a project's work and the manner in which it's accomplished.

The first element is to ensure the project's deliverables will actually meet the requirements of the project. Failure to do so means an unsuccessful project. Take the time to ask the right people the right questions -- after all, they expect your deliverables to work.

The next step in building success is to map the expectations of the key stakeholders. Do you really understand what they expect from the project?  

Accurately mapping expectations requires skillful listening and the ability to decipher what's meant, not just what's said. Don't be afraid to enlist senior management to ask questions on your behalf. As you begin to understand your stakeholders' expectations, they will fall into two groups: realistic and unrealistic.

Realistic expectations still need managing. Make sure you can fulfil them -- then make sure the stakeholder knows you are meeting them. Your communication plan must present the right information to the right stakeholder in the right manner.

Unrealistic expectations are more difficult to manage. They are unlikely to be met, and when you fail to achieve the "impossible," the project will be deemed a failure. Fortunately, expectations are not fixed, but exist in a person's mind and can be influenced or changed.

The key to shifting stakeholders' expectations is to provide new and better information.

Developing a communication strategy that brings the right information to the stakeholder's attention in a believable fashion is a subtle art. This is particularly tricky when advising upward with the goal of changing senior managers' expectations. (I'll write more on this in my next post.)

What challenges have you faced in managing key stakeholders' expectations? How have you found success in managing and meeting those expectations?

See more posts from Lynda.
See more posts on stakeholder management.

Fact: A happy person is more creative, productive and engaged than an unhappy person.

As project managers and leaders, we are responsible for optimizing our teams' productivity. One effective way for you and your team to achieve great productivity is to create a happy workplace.

Creating a positive environment is your responsibility as a leader. As the saying goes, "There are no bad soldiers under a good general."  

In his book, Full Engagement, Brian Tracy outlines a simple series of actions any leader can take to encourage positive contributions from everyone. These ideas are not new. Aristotle believed the underlying motive for every human action was the desire to be happy.

The golden rule for creating happiness is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But this requires a number of specific actions.

First, avoid destructive criticism. Destructive criticism sparks feelings of fear, rejection, anger and defensiveness. Leaders should resolve never to criticize, attack, insult or diminish another person -- including team members. Instead, look for good in everything that happens and learn to view problems as opportunities.

Second, stop complaining. When you complain about something you become a victim of the situation, diminish your self-confidence and open yourself to feeling inadequate. You hurt yourself much more than the target of your complaints.

Third, remove fear from the workplace. If you want people to be innovative and creative there has to be room for experimentation and failure. It is impossible to improve without risking failure. Remember: Fear of failure can prevent improvement.

Finally, do not condemn anyone for any reason. This can irreparably damage relationships.

Here are some positive actions you can take to develop a happy and productive project team:

1. Smile when you see someone for the first time each day.
2. Ask people how they're feeling. A genuine interest in your team members goes a long way.
3. Listen attentively to others and be polite and courteous.
4. Keep your team informed.
5. Design work assignments so that each team member can be successful. Then acknowledge their successes.