Translation World Conference—Montreal, March 11—13
The first Translation World Conference was held March 11—13 in Montreal, Quebec, presented by the Canadian Language Industry Association (AILIA), Multilingual Computing, Inc., and the Localization Institute.
McElroy Translation was pleased to be invited to participate in a presentation at the conference, with our own Tina Wuelfing Cargile collaborating with Erin Vang of JMP R&D, SAS on a debate moderated by Beatriz Bonnet, of Syntes Language Group. The topic, Point/Counterpoint: Two Approaches to Project Management, explored the strengths and weaknesses of traditional project management techniques vs. facilitative leadership in the context of the translation/localization industry.
Both Cargile and Vang hold PMP (Project Management Professional) certification from the Project Management Institute, and their positions were informed by the additional contrast that one operates on the vendor side and the other on the client side.
Cargile’s position was that many of the tools and techniques of formal project management are appropriate to our industry, provided that they are applied in the context of the Project Management Maturity model, part of which suggests that project management education and techniques be pushed out to all areas of an organization. The resulting empowerment of smaller workgroups and departments to more effectively monitor and measure their work can result in greater efficiency and capacity for project managers to focus on managing projects rather than managing the activities of individual team members.
Approaching workflow in such a collaborative fashion contrasts sharply with the traditional, top-down approach, which evolved from the earliest applications of project management in the automotive and aerospace industries, where the project manager was, in effect, doing rather than managing the work at hand. In that scenario, the PMP negotiated for personnel and controlled every aspect of their activities. In the modern approach, the PMP negotiates for deliverables rather than for team members, which allows line managers and workgroups to focus specifically on the tasks and metrics that are meaningful to their activities.
Vang’s position was that Facilitative Leadership, which essentially sets ground rules for effective groups, is a better fit for our industry. Facilitative Leadership features the Mutual Learning Model, which emphasizes concepts such as:
- I have some information, others may have other information.
- Each of us may see things the others do not.
- Differences are opportunities for learning.
- People are trying to act with integrity given their situations.
- Test assumptions and references.
- Share all relevant information.
- Combine advocacy and inquiry.
- Jointly design the approach.
The result of such an approach includes increased understanding, reduced unproductive conflict and defensiveness, increased learning and effectiveness, and improved quality of work life.
At the conclusion of the debate, both parties conceded that the approaches were really more similar than they were different. Both emphasize empowerment and minimize micromanagement, and both call for a facilitative, collaborative approach that takes the fullest advantage of the skills, knowledge, and wisdom that all team members bring to the table.
The conference was a great success, bringing together both buyers and sellers of translation to share experience, knowledge, and needs. Cargile was also pleased to be able to participate in some less academic linguistic discussions, such as the true meaning of Texas terms like “fixing to” [likely not going to occur in the immediate future], “y’all” [can be construed as singular or plural], and “y’all all” [definitely plural].
