Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
This list is a sad thing for me, a former Project Manager, to review. It’s not because I failed to do these things; it’s because, on the rare occasions on which it was really up to me to run a meeting, I did do them and they probably weren’t helpful to my career. In fact, the only thing on the list I didn’t do, which is to bring munchies, if I did that I would likely have gotten into trouble. I can just hear management asking “did you, or are you going to, expense that?” with no correct answer to the question possible.
Other people who were so-called Project Managers were clearly more in keeping with what my organization wanted, and enjoying a boost to their careers…although many of them hit the unemployment line as quickly as I did. They did not do anything on this list. In fact, they did the opposite. And this “helped” them…I guess. They got their positive strokes, their approval.
I suppose when the mediocre performers are employed just as long as the people who are really trying, and the merit increases barely keep pace with inflation, there’s no “right” or “wrong” way to do anything. Process over outcome, folks. World’s becoming more vaginized. Still & all, if I had to do it over again, I wouldn’t do it any differently. If you want to stand up for what’s right, make the best possible use of your time and everybody else’s time, and really give it your all to make sure the project is a success, act-like-you-own-the-company and all that — this is pretty good:
Establish whether the meeting is absolutely necessary. Before you even think about scheduling a meeting, figure out if you really and truly need one. You should only call for a meeting if:
* The information to be discussed could not be disseminated via telephone or email. Meetings should never be called when only a one-way information exchange is needed.
* There are clear benefits to having everyone together in one room.
Type up an agenda for the meeting with a specific list of what items will be discussed and in what order. Email everyone a copy a day or two before the meeting to give them a heads up about what to expect and some time to start thinking about the issues and what they’d like to contribute. People can also make additions and objections to the agenda before the meeting instead of at the meeting. Make it clear in your message that if it’s not on the agenda, it can’t be discussed at the meeting. Paste the agenda into the body of the email. People don’t open attachments. [emphasis in original]
And I really, really like this thing down near the bottom. A whole lot.
There are 3 different ways to set up a meeting room: the U-shape, a circle, or lecture style…The circular, uber-democratic, let’s hug it out style has been in vogue for awhile now, and it makes everyone feel important, but it’s also the reason meetings get off-track and become totally unproductive. The truth is that not everyone does have something important to say, and a leader is crucial in keeping things focused on the things that matter.
You know what is a great example of what he’s talking about here. Thunderball, the scene where Number One calls out those two guys who didn’t make as much profit as they were supposed to, and fries the one that was skimming off the top. Not “fires.” “Fries.”
I really detest the round table marathon. I think everyone with a working brain hates it. Anyone who’s been there for any length of time, can make the connection: That’s next year’s raise that’s paying for this circle-jerk. Oh goodie, ol’ Windbag McWindbaggerson to my left, wants to point something out that nobody’s thought of before…oh, you’re so important Windbag, go for it Windbag, don’t leave any detail unexplored.
The problem isn’t that the Project Managers don’t know any better. The problem is one of incentive. There really isn’t any such thing as a good Project Manager or a bad one. So the problem, I think, really exists in the layer above; the PM role is viewed as one of purest bureaucracy. It isn’t acknowledged that this PM over here really excels at making the most of staff time, and this other PM over there really sucks at it. Instead, the PM’s stewardship over a particular project is seen like a gallon of vegetable oil — a can is a can is a can, no difference amongst any of them.
It’s really more like a waiter. This guy can effectively work three tables, that guy can work five, it’s simply not do-able to take on more than seven, so don’t try. If I had my way, they’d earn their wages like waiters; they’d exist on tips. These are crucial people. If they can’t multi-task and manage details and make the best use of an hour, then nobody else can either.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.