 |
|
The experience trap
|
|
|
 When companies look for a manager, they should look for experience, right?
Well, maybe not. INSEAD professors Kishore Sengupta and Luk Van Wassenhove say their research has revealed what they call the ‘experience trap.’
“Conventional wisdom holds that as we do more things more often, we learn from experience and get better and better, and what we found in our research was that actually some of it may not be the case,” Sengupta says.
Sengupta is an Associate Professor of Information Systems and Van Wassenhove is
Professor of Operations Management and Director of the INSEAD Social Innovation Centre. What they found was that in big complex projects managers tend to draw on experience that doesn’t help, or actually hurts the project.
 |
Kishore Sengupta |
In their research, they found that experienced managers applied the wrong lessons, didn’t link the right lessons with outcomes or were given erroneous objectives or unhelpful feedback. It all adds up to extra problems in project management.
“Managers tend to learn the wrong lessons and apply them again and again in a way that’s fundamentally counter-productive,” Sengupta says.
Sengupta and Van Wassenhove used an intriguing simulation that mimics a real project development environment. As managers go through the simulation they have a number of decisions to make.
Many managers ran through the simulation and made errors, then they got feedback and tried the simulation again – and made the same mistakes.
“These things are deeply engrained into their experience,” Van Wassenhove says. “You have to help them unlearn what they’ve learnt and give them tools so they can avoid these types of mistakes.”
A common mistake is in starting a project with one goal or one budget; and then when some of the variables change, as they always do in projects, managers decide to add staff but they fail to take into account time lags in hiring and training people, and projects end up late and over-budget. This is particularly true in software development, but Sengupta and Van Wassenhove say the lessons are widely applicable.
 |
Luk Van Wassenhove |
“Most projects are complex in that the decision you take now, you see the effect later,” Van Wassenhove says. “Believing that experience will help you and then trusting that experience blindly without questioning the knowledge in the new situation is very tricky.”
It’s not that managers aren’t smart, but projects are very complex, so managers make a lot of decisions over time and often for many projects at the same time. That makes it difficult for them to see the lessons they should be learning and to apply them to future projects.
“If you are running 20 projects and you’re dealing with a couple of hundred people and all these projects are in different stages of completion, it’s very easy to fix something here and something there, and you lose track of action outcomes," Van Wassenhove says.
Estimates, goals and incentives are often unrealistic at the start of a project and as projects progress, things change and become more complex. Often the project managers actually know the goals and estimates are unreliable from the outset. But business culture dictates that managers shouldn’t renegotiate or readjust, even when they have new information.
“It creates a certain dynamic which leads to projects becoming more and more unproductive,” Sengupta says.
Instead, companies should look at goals that induce the behavior they want to foster and then constantly review the goals to make sure they are creating the right behavior and outcomes.
And managers don’t get the right feedback either. They get lots of reports and information, but it’s not always very insightful and doesn’t connect actions with outcomes.
Sengupta says it’s not as though companies don’t have the information or they don’t want to give it to managers, but “they don’t give it in a way that the managers can understand what’s going on and draw conclusions that can help them in this and future projects.”
|
 |
| Your Comments |
|
Undoubtedly, it is neither experience nor superior intelligence that counts in core managerial skills that small or big businesses may lack. At the same, there hasn’t been a single experienced and highly intelligent manager who hasn’t made mistakes while at the peak.
In a study, researchers found physics graduates unable to apply very basic physics rules in a video game while, a four-year-old baby makes news having completed a Mario game in the early 90s.
It then remains that managerial skills are a 100 per cent combination of each of the following:
1. To create a hierarchy of objectives for an enterprise/business.
2. Data: the ability to assemble all relevant information, but to be able to also make new relevant studies.
3. Multiple perceptual positions: to look at (and ultimately redefine) one’s motive, product and objective from the collective eyes of the buyer, worker, investor, manager, competitor, vendor etc.
4. Interaction: the ability to SEE ALL relevant variables interacting in the mind’s eye and to see them ‘progressing’. This is the essence of intelligence and this is where experience complements the interaction.
5. Context check: (simply put) one sales technique may be redundant if the product one sells changes. This is where old experiences begin to rot.
6. Strategy rehearsal: to look for possible changes in the variables and accordingly create alternatives and back-up plans (this includes time lags). The question you’re asking yourself here is ‘if a million things can go wrong, what would they be? Which are those areas that I’ve somehow failed to see?’
7. Fusion: to combine different ideas (which could be outrageous) to innovate a new strategy; to experiment; to find a USP. Strategy rehearsal comes next.
8. To check if consolidated info is in line with plans that match the ultimate objective (and other variables).
9. Communication: how info is passed on. Most effectively, apply the thesis, antithesis and synthesis while communicating this with other managers/departments/vendors.
10. Consistency: to follow up, sustain and refine business values, strategies and products on a daily, monthly, quarterly and yearly basis.
In most of the cases that this article alludes to, I have found that a bad managerial decision is a result a thread-break in any of the above points I’ve (mentioned here).
Maher Zaher
Delhi, India |
| posted on : 11-May-2009 |
|
I disagree with your findings. You seem to have fundamentally ignored the fact that management is not a science; it is rather an experience (Henry Mintzberg). Management is not limited to carrying out an exact predetermined scenario of who, what, when, where, and how. If this were the case, then every high school graduate could become a manager immediately upon graduation. Management, most of the time, concerns what not to do, what not to say, where not to go, etc. and the skills for mastering, restraining these is only acquired through experience; the more experience, the better.
Mohammad Razipour
Vice President,
Planning & Development,
SIDCO, Tehran, Iran |
| posted on : 04-May-2009 |
|
While the study does point out something that we very often experience working on IT projects, it also makes the situation appear to be very scary. What is the way out of such a situation? I don't think conventional wisdom can be done away with that easily. Managers can be asked not to rely too much on their prior experience. But this may be too 'illogical' for many.
Does this study suggest creating a hierarchy among managers where one doesn't encounter the same kind of problems and is therefore constantly faced by newer challenges where one has nothing to unlearn, before going ahead?
Aditya Sharma
Just another Software Engineer |
| posted on : 04-Jan-2009 |
|
The article raises series of questions that need further research. There are (some types) of work where experiences matter. You cannot get a young graduate to manage an organisation that can (only) be managed by an experienced manager. He/she may not know how to take decisions when some problems arise.
Seini Samuel, Nigeria |
| posted on : 30-Dec-2008 |
|
My background is in electrical engineering and software\system development. I've been both a doer and a manager within these areas for about 20 years, mostly in relatively short-term consulting roles, though some have lasted years. A few things become apparent...
Experienced, skilled, and insightful 'governance' is not optional - not within projects and not within an ongoing operations - at least not where desired results are important. While there are anecdotes of 14 year-olds building a successful business, those are news stories precisely because it was managed by a 14 year-old.
The reality of a 42 year-old manager, running an $8M, $20M or $300M operation are common. That's why they are not news stories, and not the topic of anyone's white paper.
While Mr. Michel (below) calls out some issues with the research and article's approach and presentation, I'd like to point out that inexperienced management, management that has not already made the mistakes - in hiring, finance, budgeting, marketing, operational mechanics, organisational design, etc. - will (not 'may') make them during your project. It's just a matter of time.
Management is an art, not a science. And while it's possible to be (or employ) a savant, that's hardly the way to bet - not for the hiring organisation, and not for the inappropriately elevated, enthusiastic, and relatively clueless.
Neither does the organization want a train wreck on its hands; nor does the relatively inexperienced want that on his or her resume - forever.
(No name provided) |
| posted on : 30-Dec-2008 |
|
I believe experience is good in any situation, but the strongest overriding attribute should high-level intelligence! Average intelligence, plus all the experience in the world, just wont cut it when confronted with a new situation. Also, high-level intelligence with virtually no experience can be costly! Finding managers with plenty of experience is usually not a problem. The real challenge is finding a truly intelligent manager (yet to be polluted by routine tasks).
Collins, Nigeria |
| posted on : 30-Dec-2008 |
|
Although the title definitely catches the eye, I would not say too much experience is the problem. The root cause is the inability to learn from (one's) own errors, transforming mere experience into lessons learned. Repeated tasks/projects follow the stages of do-make mistakes-analyse & learn-do again better this time. In difficult circumstances, such as under stress for results or under time pressures, managers look for efficiency at all costs. Typically the analyse & learn stage gets left behind, improving short-term efficiency and results at the expense of long-term ones. That is why people repeat the same mistakes after 20 years in the same business.
Learning from experience is a conscious, active process. I assume that is why business schools ask applicants: "Tell us about a time when you did not succeed." Companies should seek the ability to perform the process of gaining experience, rather than just number of years spent in an industry. It goes without saying that sometimes experience is not applicable - and good managers can tell when to switch on innovation and creativity, and when it is quicker to do things in the good ol' way.
David Kleinhampl
Project Manager, Strategy
CEZ |
| posted on : 30-Dec-2008 |
|
A very laudable effort to provide insight into the drivers of management decisions, using experimental techniques. The results are certainly counter-intuitive and go against my own observations in large organisations and very complex projects over the last twenty years.
Unfortunately, the brief article does not give away much about the set-up and the underlying assumptions of the simulation; even the presentation of the results is somewhat vague: does it mean that the failure rate of projects is proportional to the experience of the project managers? Is the experience of the manager the cause of the failure rate of projects (question of causality), or is the failure rate of experienced managers, ceteris paribus, significantly higher than those of inexperienced managers (question of comparative static)?
The article certainly raises a number of questions which merit further research into the topic. In any case, and even if it should turn out that the results of this particular study may not hold up against serious challenges, I would encourage more experimental research into managerial and economic decision making!
Christoph Michel
Hong Kong |
| posted on : 30-Dec-2008 |
|
I concur with this article. In fact, scenarios have occurred in my work environment that justify this article and argument.
My question is how do we manage the challenge as managers?
Michael Onuorah, Nigeria |
| posted on : 30-Dec-2008 |
|
The topic could well be applied to many industries. However, in the shipping industry, in which I have been involved for more than 30 years, experience in process, transactional and risk management comes mainly from experience. Where the quality of management personnel lies, the demarmacation is wide. The best and promising top management quality is one with leadership attributes and fearless in adopting new frontiers - void of past experience.
(No name provided) |
| posted on : 30-Dec-2008 |
|
This is very interesting research that provides insights to further studies.
It seems to me that the ultimate problem of "experience" occurs from the definition of the word itself. According to Webster's dictionary, "experience" is defined as "the act of living through an event or events; personal involvement in or observation of events as they occur". It derives three experimenters' opposed perspectives: the emotions felt during the experience, the involvement made during the experience and the observations made.
Now this study enlightens- if I understand it correctly- the situation, where the observations of the facts would be biased or misinterpreted due to causes as various as data volume, data accessibility, data availability or data comprehension.
The side of experience underlying the statement "I have experience" is closely related to a thorough observation of the facts. It refers to an individual who would use his competencies on ground level, unbiased by emotion and with a full understanding that some data might be unavailable for different reasons, but who WOULD STILL make decisions with the care of taking into consideration different possibilities and scenarios, based on facts.
I believe the true problem with "experience" lies in its evaluation from third parties. Considering the facts, it is completely false to make a positive linear analogy that the number of years of experience increases the experience itself.
What is really important, and I think this is was professors Van Wassenhove and Sengupta tend to demonstrate here, is that experience should be re-evaluted on an individual basis based on competencies and not strictly on the number of years. They infer to a "methodology" that would "foster behaviour and constantly adjust to the goals, to secure the outcomes". That brings us all back to facts.
Ground-level, remember this simple rule about evaluating experience: "it takes competence to see incompetence."
Jean-François Landré
EMBA, MBA, C.Adm.
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada |
| posted on : 05-Nov-2008 |
|
I am an old manager, not of a lot but I have managed a business and a home, and have worked with a lot of bosses and their plans. This article I know encompassed a bigger idea than I can even think or consider, but I do know this: companies do not know how to give important information to managers in a way that really informs as well as motivates. I think company bosses and managers are usually two different types of people and deal with problems, information and people differently. I once read a book that I feel gave a good practical answer to solve the communications issues between the company and the managers- it was named "Stronger Than Steel". Unfortunately I started this statement without looking up the author... but it is a true story about management in a steel mill and how one man solved the problem of communication between all concerned.
Nancy Mcavoy
Portland, Oregon
USA |
| posted on : 12-Oct-2008 |
|
I would agree that the article and interview focus on managing several subordinates in multiple business disciplines.
A high level manger delegates business disciplines accordingly.
The experience trap deficiencies or efficiencies are clearly in the company's court on who they hire as a manager.
A company needs to first appoint a high level manager with relevant business and regional experience. Second, the manager must have complete authority to shape the business understanding of the market dynamics. (A manager with accountability but without authority will fail). Third, the manager must have very clear market development and financial objectives. Forth, the incumbent manager must be highly trusted.
The incumbent manager should define in 90 days the current and emerging market condition(s), competitor value propositioning, customer perceived needs, wants and relevant issues, and the current and proposed company value proposition, and what is needed to create a market and customer perceived and effective value proposition to gain market share and increase profits. Corporate level market share and profit gains must be reconciled though a comprehensive analysis of the market situation, competitor capabilities, and company/business capabilities.
Peter Gray
MBA, Strategic International Marketing
MA, International Relations in Trade & Economy
|
| posted on : 11-Jul-2008 |
|
| This article seems to focus on management from the perspective of a technically oriented project/product manager that oversees many human resources. In this 'knowledge worker' economy it would seem that a manager overseeing so many human resources on various projects needs to learn how to empower their employees on a project, rather than relying on technical experience. So the problems that we often here of in this light include promoting the wrong people to managers, as well as building heavily layered structures of management. How many of the symptoms stem from a transition from a manufacturing economy to a professional service and IT economy? How many of these symptoms will naturally disipate within 10 years in developed economies and what will the lessons be for developing ones? |
| posted on : 09-Jul-2008 |
|
An interesting experiment. I, too, am interested in how experienced personnel can "unlearn" faulty "knowledge". While I agree that experience has its peculiar potential drawbacks, I maintain that a wealth of knowledge drawn from a longer work experience is extremely valuable for most teams. We just need to filter that experience and not be bound by it.
Kris Childress
Singapore |
| posted on : 09-Jul-2008 |
|
Most of the conventional wisdom is outdated today, as is the case with the experience of experienced managers. Their experience has been acquired in almost an static environment and different circumstances vis-a-vis today's fast changing environment with changing circumstances. Secondly, experienced and successful managers develop two major pitfalls, namely, arrogance and complacency,which adds fuel to fire. These two blinders do not allow managers to perceive the changes taking place in the environment in their true colors, leading to an array of problems.
This applies to all organizations- whether it is family, society, a company or government. All of them keep following the past practices which have earned them success. They forget that change is the law of nature and they should keep abreast with the changes taking place in their environment and accordingly change their strategies. Moreover, for an organization to grow, management has to inculcate a lot of changes to be successful. For an example, a kirana store cannot evolve into a departmental store unless the management gives up the past practices and adopts new ones. So, management has to cope up with two types of changes- one within the organization and second outside the organization.
Prof. Ajit Zutshi
Noida,India
|
| posted on : 10-May-2008 |
|
This article is from two experienced writers. In today's context, therefore, their philosophy should not be trusted fully- in their own words.
I, as a professional in an engineering project company knownn as A.V.P. Projects, believe that there is need for a mix, which takes ideas from both the enthusiastic and the experienced lot, so as not to get "trapped" into projects due to ignorance of consequences of project action.
Harish Kumar Wadhwa
|
| posted on : 04-Apr-2008 |
|
Dear Professors,
I would be curious to know if the same reasoning applies to knowledge and experience gained out of business schools. So, for example , the wrong learnings getting applied to the project at hand or the use of frameworks taught in B-Schools that are not really relevant to the project.
Did your research focus on this part as well and, if yes, what would be your recommendation on how can we learn to unlearn?
(No name given) |
| posted on : 03-Apr-2008 |
|
Interesting research, but I think managers have become more aware and are careful not to stereotype situations or people they are faced with. I will bet on an experienced manager.
Professor Sengupta, the corporate world is like driving a car in the unpredictable traffic on the streets of Kolkata. I will bet on an experienced Bihari Taxi driver than sit behind you at the wheel(just to illustrate my point). It has become a habit for him and I bet he will take you from Behala to Salt Lake in 45 mins, whereas you or me will take an hour and a half if not more.
There is no experience trap as long the learning is correct. Even if there is one, the percentage of managers belonging to this category is very low as they would themselves weed out.
|
| posted on : 03-Apr-2008 |
|
|
 |
| Hot Topics |
|
|
 |
| Subscribe now for free access! |
|
|
|
|
Email this article
