The helpers Ignorance, confusion and helplessness: Interview with Peter Siwon (Part 2)

This is the second part of the interview (to the first part). Peter Siwon has been dealing with the topics of brain and psyche in connection with project work in technical professions for over 20 years now. 25 years of professional experience in research, development, marketing, sales, training, coaching, consulting and management have provided many impulses. Mr. Siwon is co-founder and chairman of the advisory board of the Embedded Software Engineering Congressa specialist event that is sure to be of interest to my readers.

He is also the author of several books. These include the book The human side of project successwhich addresses topics that are also highly relevant for system engineers. This also includes the topic of "systemic project management", which I discussed with Mr. Siwon.

Agile approaches have been all the rage for a few years now, including in SE. These have a strong focus on communication. Do agile approaches support systemic project management, or are we deluding ourselves?

I think that agile approaches reflect many attitudes and principles from the systemic way of thinking. For example, that relationships are more important than contracts. That agile processes are more focused on communicating with each other. Communication is of course a very important factor, especially open communication with each other in order to recognize systemic aspects and take action in the right place. The very fact that I talk to the customer more frequently and regularly and show them things is a systemic principle. We orient ourselves to reality by creating reality and then asking: "Is this your reality too?" In this sense, there is a lot of systemic thinking in agile approaches; however, you can also do classic project management and still take many of these aspects into account. One does not exclude the other.

Agile is a bit of a mystery to me, as it's really not new: I saw agile working back in the 90s, even if it wasn't called agile back then.

I see it the same way. Agile approaches are basically nothing more than what I have always done in 25 years in projects. The moment a project has a higher level of uncertainty, I have to replace parts of the planning with observation. This has always been done. I believe that this has simply come to the surface much more in software projects, and people have simply given it a name. It's rubbish to make an ideological distinction between "classic" and "agile" here; it's about assessing the project situation and thinking, can I do this in the classic way because I can plan it relatively clearly? Or if there is too much uncertainty or many requirements are simply not known, then you do it step by step and then it is just agile. I think these fronts that sometimes arise are completely stupid.

Is there anything else you would like to say to my readers? What are your plans for the future?

Everyone has three helpers. They are called ignorance, confusion and helplessness ([tweetthis]Everyone has three helpers. They are called ignorance, confusion and helplessness[/tweetthis])

For me, it was a valuable realization that there are three helpers, both in project management and in general when it comes to solving tasks. These are ignorance, confusion and helplessness. The crazy thing is that the first thing that comes to mind is: "For God's sake!", "No!", "Don't!" The joke is that these three feelings are instinctive and we resist them. We literally run away from ignorance, confusion and helplessness instead of taking them in hand. What does ignorance even mean? It means I still have learning potential here, there is a hidden resource. If I see ignorance differently - psychologists call this "reframing" - I can deal with it better. Ignorance is often perceived as a flaw and not as a hidden resource. That's why people don't dare to ask questions in projects. This leads to an incredible number of misunderstandings.

That reminds me of the Professor Berry's statement that every project should have an "Ignoramus". By that he meant a person who is intelligent but knows nothing about the subject. Because he is allowed to ask stupid questions.

Yes, that is absolutely the case. These are very valuable sources of information! If you have a question, ask! Assume that there is at least one person in the room who also has the question on their lips but is afraid to ask. They are happy that you dared to ask.

If you have a question, ask! At least one person in the room has the same question and will thank you! ([tweetthis]If you have a question, ask! Others will thank you![/tweetthis])

The second is confusion. This shows us that there is a lack of structure. The questions arise: Where can we structure? Who can help us structure things? This is also something we run away from. It tempts us to simplify in an inadmissible way in order to get rid of the confusion. This gives rise to platitudes or populism. Some people would rather accept a stupidly simplified view of the world than admit that it is sometimes complicated. There are things that you can't necessarily understand, but you can learn to deal with them. It is also a systemic principle: never have the illusion of understanding a system, but there are methods of stimulating a system so that it is more likely to react correctly. So: confusion is also a great helper if we allow it and accept it from time to time. We must not fall prey to the illusion that we understand everything 100%. This is especially true when it comes to interpersonal relationships: we don't understand ourselves, so how can we fully understand our relationships? That can't work.

The third point is helplessness. We simply don't dare to ask others for help, i.e. to simply open up. The more we get into leadership positions, the more we believe that asking for help is contrary to our status. But I think that's total nonsense. I think that these people can ask for help too, as long as they are in control of the process and they are valued and respected as people in the relationship. That doesn't detract from their status, quite the opposite: the employee says: "Hey, great! I can help the boss!", or: "I know something where I can add value to our relationship."

I think it's very important to differentiate here: Is help asked for, which happens at eye level, or is work simply distributed and delegated, which has a clear hierarchical relationship.

You speak from my soul! Staying on an equal footing" is a very, very important leadership principle. I can remain on an equal footing, even if we are many levels lower in the hierarchy. As the CEO of a DAX company, I can treat the student trainee as an equal by respecting them as a person and treating them with the same politeness and courtesy as my colleagues on the Management Board. Nevertheless, I can give the intern appropriate tasks, such as making photocopies. One does not exclude the other.

Now the last question: What are your plans for the future?

My next big project is the Embedded Software Congress, which has been running for nine years and which I organize for the company Microconsult. I have a book plan, which is "The essence of project management". In it, I try not to describe the things that are in every book, but those that lie to the left and right of project management. In other words, the things we have touched on today. I want to elaborate on these even better. I want to give people a broader view of the psychological side of project management. A deepening of what I already did in my first book. I hope I can find the time.