This week in pm-clinic: The need for two faced managers
This week in the pm-clinic discussion forum:
I manage a rapid prototyping team in for a major consumer software product. We partner with real dev teams from around the org, and explore out ideas they don’t have time for. The group is new and I’m under continual pressure from above to justify the group’s existence (a task of many middle managers) – I’ve asked my team to think about ways to measure value, but I get the risks: people may game the measurements, or the measuring may kill the creative work – – but I’m asking anyway as I can use the ammunition.
So my challenge is how to satisfy the view of big management, which is measurement centric and the language of VPs, but also satisfy the needs for innovation, protecting the environment from passion killing rules and structure.
How can I be the bridge between these two views without being two-faced or deceptive about what’s going on? Or is this exactly what managers of innovative teams in more production centric organizations always have to do?
– Looking for the benevolent Janus
Your only sure way is to create value by innovation. Hey, if the group doesn’t create value, who cares about your creativity and innovation?
Ok, you certanly create value, but often it is not so shiny and straighforward for upper management. Well, translating the technical accomplishments to the language of business is manager’s . It is you, the manager, who knows how to bridge the two worlds. Our techy mates would appreciate us doing all mechanics of such translation for them. What is the problem of being two faced again?
Finally, what if the group values are not alligned with big boys values? Examining this misalligment and figuring out your own position would be a good starting point to approach this problem.
PS. It puts me on guard when I hear “prototyping team” vs “production team”. Do you have any tention there?