Heroics, process, and program management: superheroes in the organization - Professional Growth

Program Manager, Sept-Dec, 2003 by Daniel Ward, Christopher Quaid

In Terry Gilliam's hilarious but underrated 1989 film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, an army officer is brought before his commanding general, in the middle of a pitched battle, for what appears to be a promotion or reward. The general's assistant tells a tale of the officer's battlefield heroics, of his courage under fire, and his willingness to accept personal risk to secure his unit's objectives. When the story has been told, the general instructs his assistant to take the heroic officer out back and shoot him because such extraordinary behavior "damages the morale of ordinary soldiers."

The scene came to mind at a recent meeting. A dozen people were discussing a process improvement activity, and one of the group's explicit assumptions was that due to a lack of well-documented processes, most of the things that get done are the result of "heroic efforts." This was considered unfortunate and undesirable. In fact, a PowerPoint chart was displayed that included the line "Getting things done by heroic efforts without sufficient resources is Level 1 behavior." Our objective was to get to Level 2, where things apparently get done by people who always have sufficient resources and never resort to heroism. This disparaging of heroics and preference tar procedural homogeneity is metaphorically and morally equivalent to shooting the hero.

Few would argue that repeatable, well-documented, robust processes have value. It is important to learn from experiences and avoid reinventing the wheel. But as Robert Townsend observed in Further Up The Organization, it is better to have champions working for (and with) you than zombies. If most of the accomplishments within an organization are the result of heroic effort, could it be there are simply a lot of heroes in that organization? Similarly, if every activity is the result of following an established procedure, is that not the definition of a mindless, inhuman, zombie-filled bureaucracy? Where's the innovation? Where's the life?

The troth is, getting things done through heroic efforts without sufficient resources is admirable, and we mere mortals need to he heroes and heroines for the sake of our organizations as well as for ourselves.

The Case for Heroes

Why are heroes--and from here on, we use the word to embrace heroes and heroines--necessary? To point back to the meeting that sparked this idea, heroes are necessary precisely because sometimes there are not sufficient resources (for whatever reason), and the only way anything will get done is if a hero comes along. Heroes can save the day Would we really he better off without them?

Acts of heroic behavior are infectious. They inspire groups, raise the bench mark on performance, and drive individuals to be better people or play a better game. Heroes are inspiring: even Jimmy Olson was occasionally heroic because he was following the example of his best friend, Superman. The same thing happens in the real world, even when the inspirational hero isn't wearing a red cape. In the trenches in World War I, a Marine famously asked, "Do you want to live forever?" The catch-phrase inspired the American Forces to sweep rapidly through the fields of battle, pushing the front back toward Germany and driving the war to its conclusion.

In addition to their value in times of crisis, we also need heroes when everything is going well, when all activities and results are predictable, homogenous, and dull. In such situations, heroes often uncover villains in disguise. Mason Cooley summed it up when he wrote "heroes are born to be troublemakers." They shake things up and set them right, showing the world what can be done if we are willing to push the limits and explore possibilities.

Heroes bring truth to an organization, and in the words of a well-known hero, "the truth will set you free." It comes down to this: heroes are necessary for the life, vitality, and continued success of any organization. If heroism is routinely disparaged, or--worse yet--if heroes are routinely taken out back and shot by their supervisors, there is little reason to believe the organization will survive.

Believe It Or Not--The Opposition

In the "tragic but true" category, there are people who reject the idea of heroics as admirable. What are their objections?

NUMBER ONE: HEROES ARE UNPREDICTABLE.

Since they don't follow a formally established process, it's difficult to know for sure if a hero will indeed save the day. Such uncertainty can be unnerving to the unimaginative or those without faith, and so they seek refuge and comfort in the so-called certainties provided by processes.

The response to this objection couldn't be simpler: baloney! What is more consistent than (insert hero name here) saving the day? Heroes may not come with a guarantee but neither does a process. Even occasional heroics are frequently a sign of more to come. It's important to recognize that while heroes may not he around every time we want them, they do tend to show up--in the spirit of just-in-time logistics--right when we really need one.