DeadLinesAsCommunication

Suggested on DeadLines,

"Isn't anyone going to stand up for deadlines? . . . " said StuartScott

**** DRAFT DeadLinesAsCommunication DRAFT ****

"DeadLines" when abused, have lots (and lots, and lots) of unfortunate consequences. Yet, we keep doing them. I suspect that whenever we keep doing something, there has to be some payoff from it. So, what could be the payoff from DeadLines, a real, useful payoff, not something specious and dysfunctional? (There are plenty of those, too.)

"DeadLines" can have at least the following useful effects,

Baselined commitments that include "when", so people can do their own projection & planning, execution & steering.
Recognition of costs / consequences (along with conceptual chunking) especially across diverse groups of people.
Recognition of challenges, difficulties, and risks.
Mechanism for flushing out what's important, again especially across diverse groups of people.
Mechanism for recognizing and appreciating other folks. When a deadline is met, especially with something had to do, how about several "atta boy's" for the folks that did it?

DeadLines pretty much have these effects intrinsically - can't help it, can't prevent them. These are all communications. So, perhaps the biggest power of "DeadLines" is as a kind of communication.

Baseline commitments - A commitment that you can count on, more or less, has a lot of value. So does knowing when you can't count on it any more. Thus "Baselined Commitments", and probably "Baselined Projections" help people get more out of the future. They go wrong when the commitments or projections have less to do with a likely future than random chance. Demanding a commitment that isn't so is counterproductive. Offering a commitment that isn't so is counterproductive. Truth uber-alles is the thing here: partial, contingent, speculative, and approximate. (That's another article: "Baselined Commitments." This onw will be familiar to speach-act folk. - ed)
Recognition & Recognition - Someone else's problem is always trivial, mostly because we don't have to solve it. When you get the stakeholders in the room - the folks who will have to live with a result, or are more expert than you in that part of the world - all your collective insight is brought to bear. You get better answers, although at the cost of giving up your simplifying assumptions that are simply wrong.

Probably the most pronounced one here in software is the tension between development throughput and meaningful feature bundles & speed of release. A pure subscription model of development, and you get what you get has significant costs in product delivery, operations, and marketing. A pure targeting model of product delivery ignores constraints on providing development throughput too many to list. (I feel a (?another?) white paper coming on, on this one. - ed)

The other recognition (see above.)
In all the noise, it is easy to lose what's important, or more important vs. less. Simply asking: "What's most important?" is as naive as simply asking: "So, what does the system have to do?" Techniques to help people figure this out matter, and having conversations around what you're going to get, including when, are one way.
When you get something you asked for, or need, how about a "thank you?" How about a "here it is" ceremony. A fine dinner is often served with a flourish of "presentation". There's as much ritual to the thanks as the delivery. "Deadlines" are a hook to hang these conversations from.

Look at all the information you can get out of a conversation about a "DeadLine." So, "DeadLines" aren't a bad thing. Reframe them, first as a kind of communication. Then reframe the communication as a projection, as a commitment, and a token that rolls up a lot of understanding before it arrives, and a lot of results once you deliver. (Personally I work in terms of "baseline commitments" a "deadline" is one about dates. That's another digression.)

Through all this, hear other people's (seemingly nonsensical, counterproductive, self-serving, superficial, even abusive) take on the deadline as honest (from their POV), based in their experience and understanding, and potentially helpful. You'll learn stuff.

Taken that way, "DeadLines" are pretty powerful.

Coda

Even the most insistent insister on some nonsensical thing is in essence saying: "This is important." Sometimes folks don't have the intellectual or emotional resources to do other than beat you up with their personal, narrow, desperation. At its worst, deadline insistence is a demand to "Get me off this hook that I can't stand, or deal with myself." Often, it is a pressure they are receiving in turn, perhaps amplified by their own way of dealing with pressure.

None of this makes the pressures illegitimate. That's a way we often go wrong, I think. So, the marketing whack-job who is table-pounding because you simply have to ship the WizzyBang feature next week, (WizzyBang? What the hell is that? First I've ever heard of such a thing.) and why can't you "just" port this thing to Treos, Rails, Ipod / RealPlayer format audio, Darknets, and Aircraft Seat Backs all wiht a Web 2.0 mobile community component, by Tomorrow BTW? - even he is only part wrong.

The table-pounding is wrong if it is not very productive. The agenda that we could sell more "if only . . . " is more than right. It is his job, and you need him, unless you want to sell this thing yourself, too. (He needs you also, or he has nothing to sell. He's pounding the table *because* he needs you, actually. So, your problem are his problems just as much as his are yours.) Table-pounding about features = belligerently imposed "deadline." Same relationship, different "thing" they are demanding.

If you are developer-guy in this scenario, ask yourself if you have trained your customers that this is the way to get what they want. If so, you are as much the cause of this dysfunction as they are. Maybe more. The good news is if you trained them into working with you this way, you can begin training them to work with you differently. (How to do that is another whole digression . . . )

The better news is that you can work on this situation, and work on how you show up in this situation, and situations like it. All sorts of "soft skills" can help you have the confidence to keep your head, and second respond effectively, to address what needs to be done, vs. responding to someone's over-reaction about what needs to be done.

-- JimBullock, 2006.08.25 (That's an article, isn't it? Another one. Sigh.)

-- JimBullock, 2006.08.26 (Light edits.)

It sure is [an article], Jim! But you've mostly written it, haven't you? (-: --FionaCharles 25-Aug-2006

So, you write one too - a different one from a different POV. DeadLinesAsCommunication is not the only argument for DeadLines. Actually, several arguments for DeadLines were implied in the discussion there already. I've listed some of them.
-- JimBullock 2006.08.26 (This isn't an argument. It's merely contradiction. Or maybe not.)

Jim All sorts of "soft skills" can help you have the confidence to keep your head, and second respond effectively, to address what needs to be done, vs. responding to someone's over-reaction about what needs to be done.

So I interpret that this is another example of dysfunctional communication where being congruent may have a positive effect. I agree.

There is something that troubles me though. I know the following would never happen: The other person continues to pound the table after I've used every soft skill in my toolkit. But if it did, what would you suggest I do?

SteveSmith 2006.08.27

I was thinking something along the same lines as Steve, in response to Dwayne's & Johanna's posts about congruence on the OrganizationalInsanity thread this branched off from.

Of course I agree that congruence is the core, and we have to keep working at being congruent. But that is a personal thing. I don't know how to achieve a congruent project when vendor and client have differing agendas, and there are myriads of not always nice people on either side. We still have to try and make the best with what we have. How do we do that?

FionaCharles 27-Aug-2006

You aren't required to be "congruent" for someone. You can be congruent in yourself, and interact in ways that will allow others to be the same.

You aren't required, indeed are not capable, of guaranteeing that every interaction in a project will be pleasant or effective. You can choose your own interactions to be as pleasant and effective as you can make them.

You aren't required, indeed are not capable, of *making* a project come out some particular way, if that requires the cooperation of other people who may not give it. You can create opportunities for others to contribute in ways that will allow the project to succeed.

If the vendor and client have competing agenda, to begin with you can decline to own that. You can decline to own ignoring that fact or alleviating the consequences of it. Were I vendor, client, project sponsor, or project leader, I'd be all over resolving the competing agenda, and shame on me for letting it get this far. Were it me somewhere in the project but not owning this issue, I'd look for ways to facilitate a conversation about the competing agenda. Presumably they came together in the first place for a reason. If that reason is dead, maybe the project should be also.

I said "all kinds of soft skills" above meaning "many" because I don't believe any one is sufficient, including "congruence" by whatever definition. There are literally libraries full of such stuff. That's why I didn't propose any particular skill as *the* soft solution. Even soft solutions are insufficient by themselves I think. We may be congruently, caringly, accurately, and with perfect clarity talking about a situation we lack the skills or resources to make work. Somebody's got to write the code. If no one around there can as much a spell computer, well, I think you have a problem that all the soft skills in the world can't solve directly.

I also chose "Deadlines as Communication" on purpose. A communication doesn't mean you'll know what to do with it. It is, however, a useful frame of reference, one I believe is literally correct, and one that allows you a lot of choices - ways to perhaps be successful. Hearing a deadline as something else narrows your choices and lowers your odds of success, I think.

- JimBullock, 2006.08.28 (If one, short article were the whole answer, you'd be out of a job. So would I.)

Jim, How about saying, "No, I don't know how to satisfy your deadline."? I assume the obsticles and the need for tradeoffs were mentioned earlier in the "conversation." Often when the table is thoroughly thumped, the other person is engaged in a monologue that contains pauses, which are designed to demonstrate listening while ignoring whatever is said and waiting for the next opportunity to speak. "No" makes it clear it's a negotiation whose satisfactory outcome is enhanced by having a dialogue.

SteveSmith 2006.08.28

Yep, that can work. There's a whole pile of variations that amount to "declaring incompetence." You may find yourself out of a job, but it will be a job you couldn't do anyway. Another variation is to start working on the solution - doing what you can.
Folks with a competence rule are easily hooked by demands. They (we) have a hard time saying "I can't do that." Some people and places actually do prefer, even require, that you play along in preference to getting things done. In the long term, those places don't last.
- JimBullock 2006.08.29 (Expert in declaring incompetence since 1975.)
It just occurred to me that that "declaring incompetence" might hook Johanna, much like the "ignorance" thing did off on SellingWhatYouDo.
Yet, how do we learn something new without first declaring (to ourselves at least) our ignorance about the situation. I may know something, but I don't know everything - I'm ignorant, at least in part. How do we become more skillful in a situation without first declaring (again to ourselves at least) our incompetence, at least relative to doing things perfectly. If I already can deal with this situation perfectly, there is no additional competence to be had. I may be able to make something happen, but I can't do anything, at any arbitrary investment - I'm incompetent, at least in terms of my imagination running ahead of what I can realize.
I don't think congruence or any other single, named skill by itself will allow any of us to do anything at all, at a whim. Ascention to some godlike state where intention *is* reality has many names, but I haven't seen it happen. What we have are pieces of that. That's probably why there are libraries full of ways to be more effective. Even a conference about amplifying your personal effectiveness. It is a hard problem, at best partially solved sometimes.
A little bit at a time, we get a little less incompetent, I think. That's a very useful POV for me. It allows me to celebrate any time I get better at something, or learn something new. Also preserves that tension, knowing that I'm never done with either.
- JimBullock 2005.08.29 (Reporting in from a journey I know I'll never finish.)
Jim, I agree -- we are never done. There is always more to learn.
Something about the use of the word "incompetence" bothers me though. I interpret it negatively. If I'm incompetent, I can't do something properly. I don't know what proper means in this context. Well... Uh.. maybe that makes me incompetent. Regardless, I have a strong preference for the use of "human" in this context. If I'm human, I feel like I have more possibilities than when I view myself as incompetent.
As I learn to handle more difficult interactions, I become more fully human. I know this wording may sound strange to your ear but so does I "get a little less incompetent." I find it more inviting to frame it using a positive word.
Hmm, I wonder if other people think/feel being human has a negative conotation in this context. If a person was a computer, then in this situation, their program would be incompetent. But would the computer be incompetent?
SteveSmith 2006.08.29
"Human" = "Infinitely competent?" "More fully human" as you can handle more stuff, so "fully human" meaning you can handle anything? Handle everything? I'll remember to bow when next we have lunch or coffee. Or what do you prefer? While I'm at it, what does this make you now in your current limited competence? Inhuman? Subhuman? Partially human?
I think the gap between what we are and what we can imagine is an essential part of being human. "Fully human" includes room to grow, I think.
-- JimBullock 2006.08.31 (Or am I making a virtue of necessity? And if so, is it bad to do so?)

Jim, Bow if you must. ;-) SteveSmith 2006.09.01
Perhaps looking at "competent", the opposite of "incompetent", may help. Competent means "having requisite or adequate ability or qualities." So incompetent is not having those things. I am confortable in this reframe. Other words that I can use include: "ignorant", "unaware", or "uninformed."
In many situations I am incompetent in this sense. And being incompetent is to me very, very human.--CharlesAdams 2006.08.30
What he said. -- JimBullock 2006.08.31
Charles, "Incompetent" doesn't fit for me. I hate the word. If I wanted to insult someone, I would call them incompetent. I prefer words formed without a prefix that means "not." For instance, I could say, "I'm not Jim." but does that tell you who I am or how I think? SteveSmith 2006.09.01

I think that an important part of the growth is to understand the limits of your control and also of your influence. I can work to achieve congruence in myself and to continue developing my own soft skills. I can seek to earn the trust of the clients I work with directly, and I can provide good information for the others. But often the dysfunction I see in the vendor-client relationship stems from mistrust and conflicting agendas among people outside the project team. We can�t control that and only rarely can we influence it.

Mostly it�s possible to carve out a space in which to do good work, even if the project context isn�t ideal. When it isn�t possible, the only thing to do is to get out. I can�t euthanize a $50m project that has gone bad, but I can sever my involvement.

Not that I find it easy. I have in the past kept trying to make a bad situation work, sometimes beyond the point of futility. But I�m slowly learning to recognize that point and act on it.--FionaCharles 29-Aug-2006

That reminds me of one of the more useful things I stole from Covey's 7 habits is the idea of "circle of control", "circle of influence", and "circle of concern." Made a page: CirclesOfControlInfluenceAndConcern.
-- JimBullock 2006.08.31

Having struggled with a competence rule, I've adopted an aphorism I find very useful:

There is no perfect. There is only better.

I no longer know if I made it up or I read it someplace. Once, in an interview, I found it useful for at least one other. The engineer with whom I was interviewing started to apologize for the quality of the scripts he wrote recognizing that I might pick them up, if hired. I hadn't seen the scripts, but I, no doubt like he, have encountered many situations where the new guy berates the air for the terrible mess left behind for him to clean up. I stopped my interviewer and stated my belief in my aphorism. He visibly relaxed and the interview continued.

And I agree with Fiona. Sometimes better is walking away.

Mike Melendez 2006.08.30

It might also be useful to consider "Dead Lines as a Form of Internal Communication."

Anthony Burgess (an all-around artist type) indicated that he had great trouble finishing anything until one day (I believe he was in his 30's or 40's) his doctor told him he was dying and only had a short time to live.

That was the doctor's best opinion at the time. Turns out he was wrong. But Burgess didn't know that. Suddenly he had what he perceived as a real deadline. Novels and other works poured out of him. Eventually it became obvious the doctor was wrong. But the deadline had worked its magic and he was ever after quite productive.

Maybe it is a personality type thing where strong FP types might need to internalize deadlines (carry on an internal dialogue about a deadline) without letting the deadlines kill them.

I am not suggesting artificial BS deadlines as something praiseworthy. But the realization of notion of deadlines can be an important form of internal communication that at least some of us need.

If anyone hasn't seen this described well, I recommend trying to screen Martin Scorsese's "Life Lessons" - one of the three films that make up the anthology "New York Stories." "Life Lessons" was written by Richard Price. Nick Nolte plays the artist. The short film is one of Scorsese' minor masterpieces.

It is one of the best films I have ever seen about the crazy way an artist generates his art to meet a deadline for a gallery showing. And it resonates; at least, it does with me.

DennisCadena 2006.08.31

Please participate in the following poll at PollYouAreIncompetent

SteveSmith 2006.09.01

I would, but I can't figure out how to do it.

Besides, you didn't give a deadline, so what are you trying to tell me? - JerryWeinberg 2006.09.18

Failure to participate won't cause the guards to aim their guns at you. SteveSmith 2006.09.18

Updated: Monday, September 18, 2006