I started out as a Tech but as I’ve progressed I’ve had to take on more and more man and project management to the point that it feels like I spend more time helping people than fixing broke computers.
Meetings serve a few valuable functions: they help organize efforts, prepare people for challenges, and identify problems. However, meetings themselves don’t accomplish tasks and at the end of nearly all meetings, no tangible work has been done.
To be effective, meetings must either add to the team’s understanding of their task and deliverables or gather new, actionable information. If they fail to do this, they are largely pointless.
The main exception is well executed agile meetings, particularly short, focused morning stand-ups. These can be useful if done right:
Keep them short.
Keep them honest.
Avoid using them as a reporting mechanism for managers. They’re not for compiling data into spreadsheets or lists. Stand-ups exist to help team members stay on track and understand what’s going on.
For managers, here’s an easy rule of thumb to determine if you have the right number of meetings:
If you were off sick, how long would it take for something important to go wrong?
If it’s a week, weekly meetings may be appropriate.
If your absence wouldn’t cause issues, you might not need that meeting at all.
Finally, consider this: do your team members get more done when you’re on holiday? If so, it might be time to rethink how and why you’re holding meetings.
Disclaimer: As always these posts are not aimed at anyone client or employer and are just my personal observations over a lifetime of dealing with both management and frontline associates.
This is more of an open discussion than my usual posts, as I don’t have a definitive answer. Lately, I’ve been reflecting on when optimism and cheerfulness are most effective in managing projects and leading large teams. Before diving into this, let’s establish some definitions—at least as I interpret them when it comes to a project. Even these are open to debate, but they serve as a foundation for the discussion.
Key Definitions
Determination:
Determination is the unwavering desire to contribute and work through a project. It’s about sheer resolve—nothing will stop you from completing the task. Key point: Determination is neither emotional nor time sensitive. It’s not about the future or the success of the project. It’s about the here and now: getting things done.
Optimism:
Optimism builds on determination by adding hope for a better future. It’s the belief that, despite challenges, there’s a goal worth striving for. Key point: You might not be happy about the present situation, but you’re confident it will improve. Optimism is forward looking and success oriented.
Cheerfulness:
Cheerfulness is optimism combined with happiness. It’s an outward expression of positivity—not just believing in a better future, but also radiating joy and enthusiasm in the present. Key point: Cheerfulness is upbeat, engaging, and contagious, making it a powerful tool for boosting morale.
Application to Management Styles Now we have definitions, how do these traits translate into leadership and project management?
The Cynical Optimist
A cynical optimist maintains hope for the future but is realistic and grounded. They don’t sugarcoat challenges or pretend everything is fine. Instead, they acknowledge the hard work ahead while believing in the eventual outcome.
The Cheerful Optimist
A cheerful optimist is not only hopeful but also exudes enthusiasm and positivity. They inspire others by creating an energetic, uplifting environment, making challenges seem less daunting and the goal more attainable. At first glance, you might assume that a cheerful optimist would naturally be a better leader—someone who motivates and energizes their team. However, the effectiveness of either style depends on the audience.
Audience Matters
The best leadership style is often dictated by the needs and expectations of your team or stakeholders.
Technical Teams, such as Information Technology or Business Analysts:
These individuals are typically pragmatic and focused on the realities of their work. They’re not easily swayed by cheerfulness and can see through superficial positivity. What resonates with them is honesty and a grounded no nonsense approach. For these teams, cynical optimism works best:
Acknowledge the challenges.
Communicate that success is possible with effort.
Avoid overly cheerful reassurances that might come across as dismissive of their workload. Example: “Yes, this will be a grind, and it’s going to be tough. But with persistence, we’ll get there.”
Non-Technical Stakeholders such as Customers or Senior Managers:
Stakeholders often value reassurance and confidence. They’re less concerned with the technical details and more with the perception of progress. Cheerful optimism can prevent unnecessary panic or doubt, making it easier to keep projects on track. For these groups, cheerfulness is more effective:
Inspire confidence in your ability to deliver.
Reassure them that challenges are under control.
Create a sense of enthusiasm about the project’s future. Example: “We’re making great progress, and while there are challenges, I’m confident we’ll deliver excellent results.”
The Importance of Adaptability Ultimately, the best managers are adaptable. They adjust their style based on their audience and the situation.
Be honest and pragmatic when dealing with teams that value transparency and realism.
Be cheerful and reassuring when dealing with stakeholders who need confidence and enthusiasm to stay engaged.
It’s all about balance: conveying optimism without dismissing reality and bringing energy without losing credibility.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this? How do you balance cynicism, optimism, and cheerfulness in your leadership style? Disclaimer: As always these posts are not aimed at anyone client or employer and are just my personal observations over a lifetime of dealing with both management and frontline associates.
Project managers generally fall into two distinct types: facilitators and demanders. As someone who has worked for project managers as well as having them work for me, I feel confident making this distinction.
Facilitators
Facilitators actively contribute to getting tasks done. They play a hands on role in delivering results and often get involved in the finer details of the project. Their effectiveness is apparent when they go on holiday: productivity may slow or even halt because their direct involvement is crucial to progress.
However, facilitators have a notable weakness—they are often too immersed in the process. This closeness to the “coalface” can make it difficult for them to maintain an overarching view of the project. It can also hinder their ability to transition seamlessly between projects since they are deeply embedded in the operational details.
Demanders
Demanders, on the other hand, take a more removed approach. They don’t do much hands on work themselves; instead, they push, chase, and pressure others to deliver. Their value lies in their ability to maintain momentum, as they often accelerate delivery timelines by holding team members accountable.
Interestingly, when demanders go on holiday, tasks may still get done—albeit at a slower pace—because their presence primarily serves to keep pressure on the team. Their absence gives the team a breather but doesn’t stop progress entirely.
Distinguishing the Two:
At first glance, it can be hard to tell facilitators and demanders apart. However, their behavior and approach reveal key differences:
Facilitators:
Provide actionable solutions.
Offer hands on help to overcome obstacles.
Criticize constructively by identifying steps to resolve issues, e.g., “This can be done if we contact X and Y to address these dependencies.”.
Demanders:
Focus on dates and deadlines, and how this effects perceptions of the project by the wider company.
Use corporate jargon like “root cause analysis” often without direct knowledge of the production process.
Sometimes use blanket statements: “We’re missing deadlines, This isn’t acceptable”.
Ultimately, facilitators are deeply engaged in the delivery process, while demanders rely on oversight and pressure to drive results. Recognising these distinctions can help organisations understand how to better utilise their project managers for different challenges.
This is something that I personally find drives me crackers, and has done all the way through my professional career, it is also one of the golden rules that I apply now that I spend more time doing management stuff than I do doing technical or support stuff. It is to not inappropriately delegate. What do I mean by inappropriate? In this case, I mean to delegate items that do not have clear owners and therefore, often, managers delegate to anybody they can find rather than just doing it them selves. The worst case for this is to delegate administration tasks to subject matter experts. The classical one is, if you are running a project and you are running a lot of meetings within that project, but have no project office member, or scrum master or general admin, you ask technical specialists or Business Analysts to do admin tasks such as minute the meeting or raise requests Unless there is a hard dependency on a skill set they use, do not waste the time of specialists on such things. I personally believe all minor admin actions fail back on the project manager in the absence of anyone else. If you feel that you are ill equipped to do such administration items because you do not understand the subject matter. For example, to raise a ticket that you don’t know the process for or that requires complex technical details to fill in, you initially take it as your job. Then you ask one of your fellow managers to assist, to see if they can help you. If that fails, then you go and ask one of the subject matter experts if they can guide you through the process the first time so you can learn. In summary, if in doubt, all boring and dirty jobs become the project managers responsibility.Disclaimer: As always these posts are not aimed at anyone client or employer and are just my personal observations over a lifetime of dealing with both management and frontline associates.
As most companies and corporations start pushing everybody slowly back to the office full time 1. It turns out that there are a couple of hidden and not so hidden costs to this, and moreover, they only effect those that are good at remote working.
1)
If you are an efficient remote worker, you plan your days out, and tend to actually commit the same amount of hours to your day working from home as you would for a full office trip. To explain that better. Once I have my shirt and tie on, I am in work mode. If I’m in my home office, that means I can use that time for calls, emails or genuine work. From my client office, however, that means I waste the first and last 30 to 90 minutes of that day travelling. 2
On a number of international projects I have been a member of, it has reached the level requiring H.R. involvement for permanent members of staff, as meetings that have been going on successfully for years at the very beginning and end of the day due to time zones, suddenly have terrible attendance because people are travelling during those times.
2)
A far more insidious impact, and one that both helps and harms the delivery of work for corporations but requires a long term view , is the time taken to actually socially collaborate with your fellow office drones.
If I go into an office with a clear list of things I’m going to do and how long I will take to do them, i will have to add about 2 hours to that estimated time because I’m sharing a work place with fellow humans not just loud motivational music.
And if you only think like that, for a full week in the office, I would loose 10 hours worth of delivery just being a paid up member of the human race 3.
But then it starts to get complicated. Sometimes, a quick face to face conversation solves hours of meetings and emails, an over heard chat 2 desks down stops you making a costly blunder or makes you aware of something.
All this variance means that there is no clear absolute winner for the move back to the office and no one size fits all. But the points I take away having to manage it for both clients and team members are:
Full time in the office hurts the productivity of efficient or hard working people, give the people that plan their days out at least 1 day a week to get their head down and clear backlogs.
Measuring improvement based on being back in the office is a long term game, as in the short term there is often a drop on what people actually get done.
Much as it is irritating to some team members, if you have made them come in, then make them sit together as if they all go an hide in little booths and corners you have just made the whole thing pointless. If they state they need that space then let them work from home and move to a more delivery focused measurement of work to try and evaluate that.
Realize that people are different and just because you as a manager like everyone sitting around you, does not mean that others do and are more productive that way, you are not helping yourself by pulling such people in.
.Denials from the powers that this is not the case are not fooling anyone[↩]
