by Rick Maurer

What happens when you are called on to lead a major project? You weren't part of the planning, you weren't consulted on the best ways to implement it, you're not certain why this change is so important - and now you've got to lead it. Sound familiar?

I asked that question to middle managers, project leaders, and consultants. I wanted to hear what they did that worked. People in large corporations, government agencies, and universities from a number of countries responded. (The problem seems to span the world.) As you'll see in this paper, I got many thoughtful responses. I include many of these responses verbatim simply because these people have such good things to say.(Everything written in Arial - this typeface -- are the exact words of someone who responded to the survey. The only exception is where I changed a few words to protect anonymity.) Read on to learn how others cope with managing change in the workplace.

Responses fell into four major categories:

• Reflect Before You Act >>
• Influence the People Who Made the Decision >>
• Get Your Team Involved >>
• Build Strategic Alliances >>

Reflect Before You Act

Acknowledge Your Own Feelings -- to Yourself

It is important to understand where you are in the change process verses those who have assigned you the task. Your superiors are already past the resistance and have had all their concerns and problems answered. They know more information about it.

Understand that your feelings are normal and that you need to take the time (even if you can only give it 5 minutes) to embrace your own emotional resistance. Then try and get as much info. and answer as many of your own concerns and issues to the best of your ability. The people you work with will have the same ones and more.

Then, understand that when you talk about it to others in your work unit that they are in the place you were with the change when you first heard about it.

The only good solution that keeps people from blowing fuses is to keep them readily informed, be there for them, and most importantly, DO NOT RESPOND EMOTIONALLY - cause you will lose face in the future if they see you respond with emotion. I had to pull aside a friend of mine who is dealing with the same issue at his unit and explain to him that he can vent to me and our network, but DON'T display this to the people at his unit since you don't do them a bit of good and when everything pans out in the future, they will remember your reaction and their trust of you handling other perceived crisises will be lacking.

Learn All You Can Before Talking to Your Team

One of the most significant things that must be done initially is to learn as much about the new initiative or new program as possible before discussing with the "troops." In other words, be prepared to discuss the initiative in detail and try to anticipate any questions which may arise.

My advice would be to communicate early and often and be very honest. Employees appreciate honesty even when there is news they may not want to hear and EVEN if their leader may not have all the answers in terms of implementation of a new initiative.

The next manager recognizes that "it can sometimes be difficult to find someone to answer the questions." Nevertheless, here is approach she uses. (The cycle of change is a model that I use in my work with clients. She simply is referring to ways to get sufficient information so she can answer "why" this change is important and then finding out "how" they expect her to proceed.)

I ask a lot of questions to try to "catch-up" on the cycle of change. Who was involved in the planning (any of my peers that I trust?); What were the driving factors behind the change? What contingencies / issues have already been addressed in the planning (have my concerns already been addressed? If so, how? If not, who can I talk to about my concerns without giving the impression that I don't support the change?).

My first order of business is information seeking as to the who, what, when, where, why's and how's to get a better handle on the thinking and rationalization of any such initiative. Most of this research was done in an overt way through group and individual settings. However, I also do some undercover/covert investigation usually over lunch or a few seven-ups at a local establishment to see the real level of commitment or understanding.

From there I analyze what I've learned and heard and then do whatever additional research is necessary to convince myself to fully engage. More times than not, I become immersed in the initiative and keep the necessary sponsors informed of progress and as an active partner to make this sometimes not well thought out initiative a successful endeavor.

I cannot emphasize enough about keeping the Sponsors appraised and involved. Without their active and participative involvement, most fall by the wayside.

In my experience managers must be very inquisitive and curious people.... interested in why the change was implemented, what sparked the interest, what difference do the 'higher-ups" perceive the change will make. Even if they don't full buy into the change, they need to find the specific parts that they do like, buy-into, believe will benefit the organization. They are not "sour grapes" about anything....curious instead. They don't fake it...they are honest about both the good and those things that they are unsure about (in a positive way) They focus on what they can get endorse. Of course, they also involve their people fully in implementing the new directive in the way that they were not involved in making the decision.

Be Professional

As someone who runs an outplacement firm, we encounter the situation you described. Specifically, somebody "higher up" makes decisions as to who will be let go during a downsizing, and the "managers in the middle" are the ones that have to give the notices to their employees, who are sometimes personal friends. This presents, obviously, an awkward and difficult situation for the manager who may be personally quite upset at the decisions made about who will be let go, and particularly upset that they are the ones who have to deliver the news.

In working with these people and preparing these managers to give these notices, there are several things that we stress which I found have been helpful:

These are corporate decisions, not personal decisions. While the managers may not agree with the decisions, we stress that they do have a responsibility to both the firms and their employees to conduct termination meetings in a business-like way and not as a personal venting session. If they wish to voice concerns or emotions, we suggest they do it with us or other appropriate people in the firm.

Influence the People Who Make the Decision

Middle managers and project leaders often take on projects without attempting to influence their bosses. As you'll see, that's a mistake. Here are some ideas:

Use the type of data that is important to your boss

This information can include many things such as anecdotal evidence, financials, technical reports, executive summaries, and especially customer data.

They should prepare for corporate of leadership a list of quotes from employees. This will demonstrate to leadership how employees feel. Quotes like "I would have been willing to change to this new system if I'd just received more warning" or whatever it is that is on employees' minds (positive or negative). This helps corporate leadership see more or less first-hand how company initiatives are seen by employees and improves the process next time around.

Offer Ways to Make the Change Successful

Challenging the new idea may be met with resistance. If so, you might try suggesting ways that will propel the change forward. Suggestions in support of an idea are often heard more readily than challenges. As part of a merger, the company president told everyone to migrate their e-mail to a new system. As resistance grew, the president all but said, "learn to love it." Here is what one manager did that met with some success.

Figuring gasoline had just been thrown on the fire, I posted an e-mail to the president suggesting a few simple things like having different levels of Lotus Notes training be made available with "humans" presenting and available to answer questions. The different levels would address the needs of the different types of users, from casual user to the un-official office expert user and answer person. I further explained that e-mail was a major tool and people were afraid of the impact this change would have on their productivity. To conclude, I was successful in educating the president of the impact of the change, I found myself working with the local IT manager who put together a couple of Lotus Notes presentations (which didn't draw a lot of people) and generally got the feeling that everyone up the line didn't understand the effects of their actions on the general employee population. So, I had some success with developing dialogs, but the Lotus Notes transition continued to stumble along.

Use humor

This manager is in charge of a training department that was told to roll out a major new initiative. He has a dry sense of humor. Once people get to know him, they can pick it up even in his e-mails. This approach works well for him. Here is his e-mail.

We're ready to roll out the training for Feb. 6. Two questions:

1. Are you going forward with this initiative, given the COO's unavailability for at least the next six months? The real incentive for participation is access to an executive sponsor who can open doors and make things happen. Will those conditions still exist? Who will be the new (active, not titular) sponsor? In my assessment, based on eighteen years of experience as an organization development consultant, if this initiative isn't done with serious leadership involvement, it should not be done at all. Otherwise it will only frustrate twenty-some of our best and brightest employees and increase the overall corporate cynicism index.
2. If you still want to move ahead, over whose signature do you want the 'Congratulations' announcement to go out?

Obviously, only use humor if it works for you. If your attempts to be funny fall with shattering thuds, don't try it when you are attempting to influence your boss.

Pick Your Battles

A very successful executive was asked to implement a new program companywide. Unfortunately, she did not agree with the program's underlying philosophy, choice of vendor, program structure or implementation plan. In short, she disagreed with the whole thing - except that she did feel something like this was needed and would be welcomed by the employees. But, as you mentioned, she was going to be held accountable for it's success, nonetheless.

She decided to "pick her battles". The timeline had already been committed to by senior staff and communicated to the employees, so that wouldn't be prudent to fit - but she could work within the end dates to adjust what needed more or less time to accomplish and develop a cost-benefit analysis to justify additional internal resources (hidden $, as opposed to cash). The vendor had already been selected and the contract signed, so that wasn't something she could change - however, she could strongly position herself with the vendor as the new client to be satisfied and use that leverage to negotiate some alterations in how the program was structured. To senior staff, she demonstrated via customer surveys that a slightly different structure would be more satisfactory to the end-user. She subtly altered the philosophy of the program to better match what she felt would result in success.

Rather than just moving ahead and pretending she believed in the program (which people can often see through and which bothered her sense of integrity), she truly made it her own over the course of the project - something that she could genuinely support, even though she might have done it somewhat differently had she been part of it from the start. She identified all the possible items she'd like to change, determined where change was possible and how much change was likely, decided what approach was most likely to get that change to happen, and was savvy and persistent in pursuing them (i.e., she minimized the magnitude of the change by showing how it still met program objectives, and maximized the benefit via justifications like customer surveys).

I don't know if I've successfully captured the essence of what she accomplished, but I respect her for not being a "yes man" and yet still meeting the business goals she was assigned. What a balancing act, but I believe the end result was much better for her concern and effort!

Get Your Team Involved

Build Trust in You Among Your Team

This is a common problem for middle managers. I recently had a discussion about this as part of a focus group. I think the task of implementing new ideas is always the middle manager's. Executive leadership imagines and designs new ideas. Line staff do the daily work that keeps the company running and the money coming in the door. Line staff are usually pretty far removed from the big picture and their work can be disrupted if change is implemented through them directly. That means loss of productivity which, even if only temporary, can cripple a company. The task of the middle manager is to keep the daily focus on the work at hand while understanding the new vision and being the bridge or translator between the two. It is a difficult job and that is why I think so many people make terrible middle managers and burn out, get fired, or change jobs.

The successful middle manager must have a close relationship with the line staff. The relationship is equal parts inspiration, coach, friend, taskmaster, and co-worker. When the line staff know and trust the middle manager they will follow him/her into the murky waters of change. At the same time the middle manager must speak the language of executive leadership well enough to understand the new ideas and why they are important. He/she must give feedback to executives about how the changes will effect productivity in the short run and make suggestions for easing the transition.

I like to think of this as keeping your eye on the daily work and your ear on what's happening above. It's maximum mental multitasking. Executives and line staff are not required to maintain the level of multitasking middle managers are. That's the primary skill.

Find Ways to Make the Change Your Own

Here are a few ways to make the change your own.

1. Find a piece of the plan or initiative that you can live with and support that part. Support can flow from that part toward the rest.
2. Work to renegotiate the implementation so that it CAN work!

This manager created reasons for himself why the change was sound.

"When faced with a directive I disagreed with, I first had to reduce my cognitive dissonance. How? I had to find reasons why his directive was sound. I committed these to writing. If I couldn't find sufficient reasons, I found it very difficult to implement the change."

Give staff specific information about the change and why the change is necessary. Standardize the change: Flowchart the new process to show how it should work. Ask for input from staff, at this point. (Better than nothing.). Revise standards and policies and protocols, because this step has probably been omitted by leadership. Communicate to everyone involved. Provide training and ongoing support, clear channels for reviewing snags. Monitor the change: Establish regular schedule for measuring and process control to maintain the gain and give feedback to the staff along the way. It's a good way to get staff to buy-in especially if they see something good is in it for them.

Support What You Can and Build From There

I was struck by the detailed sequential response this internal consultant in a healthcare institution took.

Neither the staff or I had any input into the decision to change the mechanism of obtaining patient feedback. The staff was "maxed" carrying patient loads that were compromising morale. One more thing to do I felt would push them to the edge. While it would only take about 10 minutes to explain the process, get the machine, and of course, thank the patient, it was nonetheless, 10 minutes in a very hectic schedule multiplied by the number of patients for which the nurse was responsible. Theoretically, the process could add an hour to the work load.

How do I communicate this change with respect to the incredible work my staff was doing? The following recounts the sequence of how the situation was handled:

1. Shared with staff that a change in the process was going to occur and shared as much as I knew about process at that point. Also shared that I did not participate in the decision to change the process.
2. Listened to staff complaints about increasing their workload.
3. Acknowledged that indeed something was being added to potentially increase workload.
4. Volunteered to be a member of the process design for the new mechanism and pilot the process on my unit. Rationale was that everyone likes to be "first" and viewed as a team player by participating in the change process as opposed to complaining about it.
5. Communicated with staff that I had volunteered our unit for the pilot to model supporting a decision that had been made by the communication expert group in the best interest of achieving accurate and more significant data. (Best interest of patients)
6. Incorporated discussion of the process in all staff meetings. Met "off-line" with official and "unofficial" staff leaders to explain the process and delineate the positive aspects of the change. Additional support was obtained in this manner so that staff meetings would have some positive input. This strategy did work. Being a little political, I guess.
7. Invited owner of the equipment to demonstrate the process at all staff meetings (even at night). Engaged staff in suggesting ways to make the process easier. Staff had opportunity to actually use the equipment to practice. Slowly "buy-in" was being accomplished.
8. First month of data indicated the unit had the highest response rate in the system which called for celebration (pizza!)
9. Secretary "leaders" accepted challenge to devise system to make sure every patient had the opportunity to respond to the patient satisfaction survey. Response rate went even higher. Became a competitive thing with other units. However, the unit has continued having the highest response rate in the system--hands down.
10. Recommendation arose from staff that someone other than nursing staff could explain the process to the patient and deliver the Point of View survey. Therefore, clinical assistants assumed responsibility with the RN accountable for all his/her patients doing the POV.
11. Response rates posted each month and discussed at staff meetings.
12. Staff commended for making the process their own and leading the system in the success of the new process.

Trust is a huge issue in managing a situation such as this. Managers have to be unequivocally honest with those we want to bring along the decisions, both those with the opportunity for input and those decisions made by someone else. Otherwise, the effort will be sabotaged and failure ensues.

Our faculty, like many around the USA and beyond, are finding themselves in need of developing online courses and degrees. In many cases this has been a "top down" decision, and many faculty do not see themselves as technologically savvy, let alone theoretically and pedagogically convinced that online courses are valuable. Still, economics and technology are compelling reasons for developing online education. Online education will not go away. So--what to do? For several years, the university, the college, and departments have offered many demonstrations, lectures, testimonials, student assistants, groovy tech labs, and computer brown-bag lunches ad-nauseum. These have helped but we may still have more resistant faculty than converts. In short, this situation is akin to writers (professional as well as student writers!) who receive a writing assignment that they are not the least bit interested in--but they HAVE to do it for a grade or paycheck. (This has to sound familiar!) So--what do THEY do? Much research (and experience) tells me that to succeed, these writers have to do two things: 1) they have to "get right" with the information, and 2) they have to "get right" with themselves. They must find a "cognitive way in" to the work, and they must find an "emotional way in" to the work. The first one is easiest, beginning with the mounds of research (quantitative and qualitative) on online teaching and learning. The emotional investment is harder and to me, it mainly comes once the faculty member has taken a leap of faith and agreed to develop and/or teach an online course--and this course topic should be one that she or he feels passionately about. It's also good for the faculty member to view this as an experiment -- even as a potential research project. Most disciplines are interested in how their field intersects with technology. During and after their teaching of the course, they should have a new research project re: a new course. One way to help motivate faculty is for them to realize that, at least at our university, teaching an online course "counts" the same as teaching an on-campus course. Faculty can do it as part of their normal load.

I have been in the position of implementing several new initiatives from 'on high' that I felt were either based on faulty assumptions or created bigger problems than they were intended to solve. I think the first step in this situation is to get a handle on the rational of the change -- what problem it is intended to solve? And, is there a likelihood that it will, indeed, address that problem (apart from the fact that it may create other problems in its wake)? If the answer is yes, and you are clear as to at least the rational for the change, then you need to convey that to those having to change. You need to also be clear, and able to articulate, what you see to be the positive and negative aspects of the change. Having this sort of open-communication sets up a credibility in you, as the leader/supervisor in conveying that you understand the cons, but that you also see the pros (assuming there are some). Having said that, hope that there is a formal evaluation of the change, which many change-periods have. If there is no formal mechanism, create an informal one--especially a direct and honest communication up the line as to the negative consequences of the change as you either anticipate them or as they occur (a CYA , if you will). And, ask those most directly impacted by the change to participate in that formal and/or informal evaluation. If may not change the "new order" but it will at least allow people to feel heard and perhaps "vent." Communication is important when implementing change. Just as the provost has regularly scheduled meetings with the deans, deans should have regularly scheduled meetings with their department chairs. The provost may discuss suggested mandates with the deans who would in turn discuss these plans with their chairs. Chair responses could then be funneled to the dean and finally to the provost. Communications is important but the upper management must be willing to seriously consider chairs' and deans' feedback.

BEFORE tackling any new task or even getting daily work done, managers and supervisors should have a systemic picture of how their work contributes to meeting the organization's aim, who the customers are, and how the customers benefit.

Managers and supervisors should have knowledge of the needs and "gets" of their customers - what do they need that they get, what do they need that they don't get, what they don't get need that they get, and what they don't need that they don't get (this can be defined by a matrix diagram - per the work of Peter Scholtes).

Managers and supervisors should be aware of what is needed to promote pride and joy to the work of the group. A force field analysis can be used to identify the levels of resistance so steps can be initiated to improve trust and employee satisfaction

Managers and supervisors should ensure that their employees contribute to determining the aforementioned parameters.

These steps should be ideally performed before new work initiatives are assigned.

Implementing changes:

If the pre-work has been accomplished, a basis has been established to evaluate the effect of the proposed change on internal and external customers.

If the change will be harmful to internal or external customers, supervisors and managers have a means of identifying the negative effects (e.g., impact on quality and productivity of goods and services) to upper management.

In any case, use of the Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle will be helpful. In the planning stage, the assumptions behind the change, impact on the system of work (especially customers), expected outcomes (good and bad), aim of the change, and measure of success should be clarified. Also, it may be possible to implement the proposed change on a pilot basis to gather more data to assess the worthiness of the change, and to build support for either its full implementation, modification, or rejection. As a variant, it may be possible to run concurrent changes - testing both the imposed change and one perceived to be more effective by the work unit to gather data as to how to proceed.

1. Speak with one voice -- you ARE management even when you didn't get input and/or disagree. So in presenting information and implementing changes/procedures, speak as if you made the decision. I and we are the pronouns of choice -- no they's allowed. Meanwhile, voice your concerns and ask your questions up the line behind closed doors. Allow questions and concerns from subordinates as a ventilating/data input method while making clear that the implementation will continue until such time as it is changed. This is all part of the "one voice" code!
2. Do involve your teams in determining how best to implement -- not whether to implement, but how. There is some control -- even if very little-- in all situations. Successful middle managers find that and share it with their team.
3. Effective middle managers stay clear on the boundaries between initial ventilation about the change, soliciting input, and whining/griping. They are consistent in allowing the firs two, and discouraging the latter. There are consequences for whining and griping and complaining that interfere with the morale of the team and the team's ability to move forward. This is fuzzy stuff; but good middle managers can walk that line (even if it is zigzag). A corollary is that they stay solution-focused -- it is ok to gripe if that griping is followed by a suggestion or idea and ACTION on how to solve that gripe. Griping by itself is not ok.
4. Middle managers take the approach of let's try it -- we will gather data on how it works, and then use that data as part of quality improvement and change or make it better. They build that culture of "nothing is ever 100% right) -- but let's build it and improve it as we go along. That emphasis on data is important -- it helps move the focus from how we feel about it to how it works; it is also a powerful tool to present upward (when the time comes) to improve/change as possible. Find ways to make the process your own.

I find the two most helpful things I can do are:

1. help the manager plan the change initiative, meaning its implementation (even if s/he hasn't been consulted before) and
2. help the manager deal with the unexpected consequences of planned organizational change (those pesky differences between plan and actual.)

Establish Common Ground

As an environment of change and continuous improvement is encouraged as a result of moving deeper and deeper into lean manufacturing, the situation you describe happens time and time again. Resolution over these issues is usually achieved by reframing the problem around common ground so all the parties at least have a starting place of agreement. Once the common ground is established progress can be made toward resolution. This establishment of common ground also ensures that all parties become a part of the problem. I have found that until everyone involved in a situation become a part of the problem, they will never work to become a part of the solution.

The situation you describe enters directly into a victim mentality, which I believe has achieved epidemic proportions nationally. Need to move out of being victims to a healthy "what do I have to do to get it done" mentality. Notice I didn't say what does someone else have to do.

Also to minimize the situation you describe, I find that an environment of trust and cooperation must be present. By trust I mean that all of the parties involved in a situation believe that all of the others have everyone's best interest in mind. A complex problem with human, people focused responses.

Apply a Problem Solving Tool

Get people on the team involved by using a tool that allows everyone to assess where you are today and use that information to develop a plan. Here's what one consultant suggests:

If a manager feels the need for a participatory conversation (as well they should!) then they need to read up on and use a lesser-known tool, the force Field Analysis. Then you can explore the forces for and against success - and we all want success, don't we? - and focus on building the forces for to help eliminate the barriers encountered during and change. This conversation/session to be started and peppered liberally with the following delivered with a positive tone of voice, "As we all know a decision was made by <insert people involved> and we have been charged with implementation. We're stating today by rolling up our sleeves and working to discover those thing that will help ensure our success as well as any barriers we may need to overcome. We're not revisiting the decision; we're focusing on success!"

Develop a Strategy That Attends to Both People and the Project

As you can imagine, trying to manage this change was therefore a major task!

In this case, the most important response has been a lot of understanding and consoling of staff (as well as mutual bad-mouthing of those at the top who made the decision) who have had a lot more work, consternation, etc. dumped on them with no extra compensation. Encouraging "support groups" among staff in different departments and areas is very helpful--most of which have been informal contacts; although actually even arranging such informal meetings might have been useful. These people, often working alone in the department, need to have others they can turn to for assistance--especially when, as in the case of this new software, those who are supposed to offer help from the central office are not able to deal with the kind of issues that arise at the micro-level. And these support groups have helped in keeping morale up--they allow the staff to share their frustrations. It is also important to keep a steady flow of "noise" going back to the administrators, often channeled through the academic administrators (Deans, Provosts) rather than through the business administrators who are actually responsible for the new systems. By "noise" I mean complaints, anecdotes, etc. that keep the message alive that this is not working like it is supposed to. Even if direct changes do not result, the message builds throughout the institution and the usual reply from the higher-ups who are directly responsible ("it works, they just need to see consequences (staff, e.g.). Fold into other section on keep the processes moving forward.

Build Strategic Alliances

This is especially helpful to do before you need something. In this way, you've already built your reputation as a credible person or team who can be counted on.

Be Yourself and Tell the Truth

One coping mechanism I employed as a mid-level mgr was connecting with peers - others at similar role in the structure to share strategies. Depending on how "down" I was on the plan, this action could become a mutual misery society. But was also sometimes helpful.

I could also try to not propagate the syndrome of non-involvement in my little universe by involving people in planning, etc for those elements we could control. Also honesty about the boundaries of our choices was helpful.

Do things to prove reliability over time with stakeholders

What do I do to make these transitions more palatable? Keep the users more informed. Build up a little credibility with them in non-project situations. Listen to them. There is usually a reason for the initial development effort. I send emails. to a group of current users saying things that may come down the pike. When things are particularly fast moving (or I was blind sided by them) I will type up a response note to the project initiator, that I felt he was not letting me know in a timely manner, or ask where did this effort project come from. The general questioning that happens when some thing pops up unexpectedly. I print this document on the shared laser printer in the staff room. And don't pick it up for a few days. I know that people will always read what is there. I may not get all the information in a timely manner, but I can at least tell my staff when I got it. Yes, it diverts the heat from me, but it saves a lot of face and builds up a good bank account of "I am not springing this on you." It is that kind of 'We are in this together', instead 'what is he bringing to us now" that makes the 'market' the challenge and not each other.

Putting It All Together

Here is a final response that nicely ties together many of the points covered in this article.

First, do your best to embrace the change internally (even if you don't agree with it), then:

Think about constructive and positive ways to communicate your concerns to the people that can help (to bosses, peers and subordinates). Bosses - voice your concerns in a positive way and look for the 'why's' behind the initiative. The benefit will be that you understand more about why the change is coming and why it is important to the organization which will help your success in implementing it. And, your boss(es) will understand concerns and barriers to making the change successful from the lower levels of the organization which will help them raise concerns at higher levels of the organization to be addressed. Chances are that your bosses will agree with you and share your concerns. Peers - look for additional ideas, support for your ideas and partnerships to make thechange more successful, or for information to share with bosses, peers and subordinates that can be helpful. Be honest with subordinates about the change being as positive as possible. But don't pretend you agree with all of the change if you really don't - your directs will see through this and you will lose their trust. Think about how to do the impossible. Things will actually start appearing more doable than they seemed initially. Break the change into smaller pieces - separate the parts of the change that you think can work and make these pieces as successful as possible. Focus on the components of the change that you can influence vs. those that you do not have control over. Make as much of a difference as you can. Your contribution and support of the change won't go unnoticed!

There is no one-size-fits-all approach. The politics and culture of your organization, your relationship with your boss, and your own reputation all figure into the equation. My hope is that from these many and varied responses to the challenge you will find some nuggets that can help you lead projects more effectively.