Project Management in Practice

Beyond the alphabet soup of PRINCE2, MSP, MoP, PMBOK, ITIL, Agile

Tag Archives: People

Opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction … what do you mean?


Reading endless research papers for my MBA may finally be paying off. I’m finding one or two gems. This one from Frederick Herzberg is one such article. He contends that dissatisfaction and satisfaction actually contends with two different human needs. First, being the nature to avoid pain from the environment, second being our drive and ability to achieve. Therefore they are in fact not opposites of each other. Does this tally up?

Opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction ... what do you mean

In most staff surveys the number one complaints I can remember are to do with company policies and administration. Timesheet system is crap, too many meetings, things too slow to move, my manager is a !@$!@% are some of the most common ones. Closely followed are to do with working conditions – stress, balance of personal life, relationship with peers, pay etc. Herzberg calls these the hygiene factor of jobs.

I work in the field of IT. In most cases, people are reasonably well compensated. I hardly see anyone leave jobs for these reasons. I see far more people leave jobs because they cannot advance themselves (lack of training), the work itself doesn’t challenge them, they don’t feel recognised for their work or don’t find a sense of personal achievement in their jobs. Herzberg calls these the motivating factors of jobs.

The situation may be different in other blue collar jobs. While it is tempting to lump all my colleagues past and present into a single bucket, I’ll avoid that. Instead, if I think of my career to date, I tend to find it quite plausible. Hygiene factors have to tip the balance so much more than the motivating factors to influence me to stay of move on. So Herzberg has my affirmative vote on this one.

Why does this matter for management? One typical weakness in management is our focus on things that make the loudest noise. It is easy to identify the hygiene factors and express how dissatisfied you are. As managers we spend lots of time trying to make those go away. That actually doesn’t motivate us as much. All it does is takes an irritation away. Our productivity and ultimately job satisfaction rests on the motivating factors … why we work.

I’m keen to hear your views. Does this thought hold true elsewhere?

In case the link expires, the full APA reference is Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate your employees? Harvard Business Review(September-October), 5-16.

Image credit: onherwaytoperfection.com

How do I trade off between cost and capacity?


In every organisation that I have worked in there has never been any argument that additional capacity can help better delivery of projects. But seldom are organisations in a position of luxury to have additional resources, which may not be contributing to the bottom line. For every staff hire, there is an expectation of revenue if it is a professional services organisation. Even for organisations where staff are not required to bring in income, like a ministry or a state services organisation, they add to the headcount the top brass are often under pressure to reduce. How then can we look to get a good balance of capacity and cost? Is this a pipe dream?

Let us explore that. Take the example of a professional services organisation. Cashflow is a key consideration for such organisations. Every staff you have that is not engaged in a fee earning work is contributing to an eroding bottom line. There is the temptation to therefore engage just in time sub-contract resourcing to minimise such risk. Because your sub-contractors are cheaper than the rate you are charging, your cashflow looks great and it looks like you are making a profit in markup as well. Why then bother about making any effort to have your own resources?

By relying more on sub-contractors, you are reliant on third party resources. Once the project is complete, hardly any intellectual property remain in your organisation. There may also be key customers that you do not want to expose to your sub-contractors. What is to stop them going directly to them the next time. You are also compromised in your ability to take on key projects that you want to, because you are operating little or no ability to be agile due to resource constraint. Then there is the challenge of getting time out for your key staff to up-skill, get certifications, do some research and development to keep your competitive edge. When you are resource constrained these are activities that go by the wayside.

Even though the cashflow looks good from month to month by having contract resources. If you do any analysis at the end of the year, you will inevitably find you would have made more of a profit over the course of the year by hiring your own resources. A particular month or two may have looked worse, but over the course of the year, your costs are so much lower because you are not having to pay premium contractor rates. In the bargain, you can also retain the intellectual property. Effectively the rate you have paid is to transfer the risk of potentially not having won this piece of work.

There is an alternative way of thinking. When we’re looking at resourcing, we always look at the right level of skill to apply to that. I have been thinking of ways to communicate the capacity challenge with dollar values, so I can make an effective business case for additional resources. For the cost of one senior staff, I can hire three graduates or at least two with some experience. And I have to get them only half (or a third) productive to have earned the same fee. After some months, whatever additional productivity they can provide actually adds to the capacity of my team. This is an approach that can only succeed if you have enough senior staff to mentor them.

If I get 120 billable hours from my senior staff, and I already have some, I would rather get three graduates and attempt at getting around 40 billable hours off them. My senior staff’s billable rate will suffer as he may end up mentoring them for 10 hours each. But even that requires me to get 50 billable hours each from the three new hires. Even taking into account the different rates I can charge for them would require me to be able to get 60 billable hours. Whatever I can get beyond 60 hours from these three new hires, is adding to the capacity of my team, despite the additional effort to integrate them and lower rates. And it is costing me little or no extra money.

What approaches have you tried? What has worked for you to make your case? If I have gone off the tangent and barking off the wrong tree let me know.

Image Credit: AshishGrover.Com

 

%d bloggers like this: