The Plague of Ulterior Motives

I continue to be amazed at how much time, effort, and money is wasted internally by companies.  One of the number one causes of this waste is ulterior motives.  These are people who will deliberately say and do things in public, but in private have another motive to their actions.  This is a rampant disease that can cost organizations millions of dollars.  Instead of having uncomfortable conversations or debating issues, the person or group would rather act is if they are playing along and hope that the initiative fails.  There are several of these types to watch for:

The Two Faced Approach.  This approach is been around for a long time.  As soon as any social structure is developed, this approach is evident.  My kids experience this in school and unfortunately, some never seem to grow out of the behavior.  The approach is to act one way in front of one group and then act a completely different way in front of the sponsors and executives.  For example, an individual can be openly combative and antagonistic towards you in a closed meeting.  Then in the team meeting, be open and friendly and act as if they have been working with you all along.  One of the greatest examples of this behavior is Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver.  Eddie was conniving, manipulative, and mean to everyone.  However, when the parents were around, he had his best manners on display and gave the illusion to the parents that he was perfectly behaved. 

Transference of the Issue.  This approach will make sure to not answer a direct question or issue.  If you ask a direct question, they will talk around the subject without answering directly, transfer the answer back to you, or deflect the answer to a person or group that is not available at the time.  They make an art of not answering the question.  They will respond to questions with, "It will take whatever you think," or "What do you want it to do?"  These are purposefully vague answers to questions that can allow them to say they are being responsive without actually answering the question.

Secret Saboteur.  This group will secretly try to make the initiative fail.  Either they disagree with the initiative or they are scared of the change that it might bring.  Instead of working with the initiative, they purposefully delay, don't deliver, cause rework, or otherwise sabotage the work.  This is a particularly dangerous group. 

The Other Option.  I have seen this option several times.  This is where the group or individual wants the theme of the solution to be successful, but not necessarily the current selected solution to work.  For instance, a company wanted to do workforce management.   They looked at a portfolio and project management system and an enterprise resource platform.  The business and users wanted the project management system.  A key executive had former ties to the enterprise system and wanted that one.  Instead of debating the decision, the executive allowed the project management system to be purchased.  During the implementation, the executive put unrealistic demands on the team, changed the scope, and changed success criteria.  The first implementation group did not succeed.  A decision was necessary to continue with the current tool or get the one that the executive wanted.  Surprisingly, the business wanted to continue with the current system.  The executive again sabotaged the implementation to the point that the second implementation team failed.  Finally, the executive got the system that she had wanted.  However, it ended up costing the organization millions of dollars.

This can also manifest itself by stating that a group wants something when it isn't the true thing that they want.  For example, an organization that fights for a change of a tool.  The existing tool does what they want, but they convince the organization to change.  The reality is that they want control of the tool.  It isn't that one tool is better than the other.  It is that they can control the tool better if they own it.  I see this quite often with centralized IT departments.  You will get a department that wants to go rogue and get another tool.  In the end, what they wanted was to not have to utilize the centralized IT group.

We will explore how to deal with these types in later blog postings.  The first step in dealing with ulterior motives is to try to understand which one of these categories the group or individual belongs to.  From there, we can start to create a game plan on how to deal with them.

Am I missing any?  Would love to hear from you on this topic!

Rick

More Metrics!

Building on my last post, we are continuing to build some new metrics.  The last post talked about resource management metrics.  Here are some other ones that we are tracking now.

Execution Metrics
# of tasks
# of tasks on time
# of tasks past due
# of tasks severely overdue
# of team members
# of opportunities to turn in status report
# of status reports turned in

Planning Metrics

Date Project Assigned
Requested Project End Date
Project End Date Original Planned
Mandated?
Date Agreed upon with Sponsor
Date Project Actually Completed

There will be much more to come as we are developing a new concept that we are titling now as "Metrics 2.0:  New Metrics for a New Project Management Era"

Do you have some unique metrics that you track?  Please share!




SRH25JZFSYVH

New Metrics: Resource Management

I have several requests from people asking about some of the metrics that I track on my projects. I am working on a new book of metrics and new ways of thinking about metrics. Here is a sneak peek of some of the types of metrics that I track:

Resource Management Metrics
# of times invited to a meeting
# of times showed up to the meeting
Participation type (called in, showed up in person, etc.)
# of issues assigned
# of risks assigned
# of issues resolved
# of risks resolved
# of issues introduced
# of risks introduced
# of tasks assigned
# of tasks completed on time
# of tasks completed past due
# of e-mails sent (by pm)
# of e-mails responded to

This takes the metrics just a bit beyond what we normally track. It is not all % complete or estimates. It is also about quality. For example, I had a very large project that had impact on multiple departments. One of the departments was finance. Right at go live, the finance department went to the project sponsor and said that the project should be stopped. The project manager (which was me) did not consult them or did not get their input on the project. Therefore, since finance was not consulted, the project should be stopped.

When I was called in to the Sponsor’s office, I stated that I had not gotten their input. What finance had stated was completely correct. However, they were not an identified stakeholder on the project and based on their project focus rating, they did not appear to want to be involved. Finance asked, “What do you mean by a project focus rating?” I explained that I track how many times I had invited them to meetings, asked for input, number of issues assigned, number of e-mails that were sent and went unresolved, and overall participation on the project. Based on the information that I had, they were invited to 47 meetings and never showed, 31 e-mails went unanswered, 3 issues were assigned that never were completed, and 2 direct requests for assistance were not answered. Since all I can do is facilitate, I took the 83 separate times to have them provide input as a sign that they did not want to participate. In the end, finance didn’t have a leg to stand on. If they wanted to have direct input, they could have. What happened is that they felt the project would not impact them and they blew off the project. When they finally saw that there was impact, the project was too far down the road.

This is a common occurrence in projects. This is why we have to look at metrics that go beyond. The point is that we have to manage more of the quality or focus of individuals on a project. In environments when there are tons of competing projects and priorities, it is a necessity to measure the amount of focus a resource gives to the project.

Hope this helps!

Rick

The Chicken Little Syndrome

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”  Ah, the overreaction, the storm that breaks up the calm, or the person who is just trying to get noticed.  Whatever the cause, the Chicken Little Syndrome (CLS) can hurt your credibility as well as cause disruption and productivity loss for the organization.  What is the Chicken Little Syndrome?  This is taking a small fact or occurrence and blowing it out of proportion so that it becomes the center of attention to executives.  Many times the motivation behind it seems pure.  However, it also can be truly dangerous.

In my seminars and lectures, I always talk about “getting to the data.”  If I have more data than you and can speak intelligently about the data, then I have a higher chance of winning a conflict.  Just like anything else, data can be manipulated and misused.  Look at the poor egg.  I don’t know if they are good or bad for you anymore.  It seems every month a new study is released that states and proves the exact opposite of the study before that one.  It is a mystery!  So data can literally become the great chicken and egg debate……Squirrel! (That was for those loyal followers from my seminars ;)

Back to Chicken Little, Wikipedia states, “The Merriam-Webster Dictionary records the first application of the name Chicken Little to 'one who warns of or predicts calamity, especially without justification’ as dating from 1895.”  So the Chicken Little Syndrome is someone who takes a small fact, issue, or data point and uses it to warn of impending doom without understanding what the data point really is.  I see the syndrome almost on a weekly basis and sometimes more often than that.  When it really can become fun is if the data points are theoretical.  For example, take estimations of a work effort.  The first key word is “estimate.”  This word alone implies a guess.  There are tons of theories on how to do estimates.  My favorite estimation theory is PERT or Program Evaluation and Review Technique which was started in 1957 by the US Navy.  You can read more about PERT here.  At the end of the day and regardless of the theory, it is still an estimate.  What is great about an estimate is regardless of how much time and effort you put into the models, it will always be an imperfect value.  Whenever there are imperfections or data points that are open to widening levels of interpretation, the Chicken Little Syndrome can rear its ugly head.

Personally, I always feel that there is something behind the Chicken Little Syndrome.   Something else that may not be right on the surface, but it is the true issue of the prediction of doom.  For example, a consultant is working with an organization to build a work estimation model.  He or she works with client for an extended amount of time and designs an extremely comprehensive model that is +/- 7% accurate.  The model is accurate, but also requires the end user to track large amounts of different data points to help feed back into the work model.  A second consultant comes in and looks at the model and suggests a different way.  The different way is +/- 10% accurate but greatly reduces the amount of time the end user spends capturing the data.  The core team chooses the easier model and accepts the additional 3% of inaccuracy as an acceptable risk.  The first consultant feels strongly that the way it was designed originally is the best way.  To disprove the second consultant, CLS takes over.  The second consultant creates a specific case of where the model that was originally created is much better than the model in play.  This turns in to charts, graphs, and presentations stating that the sky is about to fall.  This grabs the attention of the executives which just finished a hefty investment in creating a system around the second model.  Doubt, worry, and panic sets in.  Meetings, conference calls, and many side conversations are generated based on the CLS.  This causes the second consultant to come in and defend the model that he or she created.  Instead of working in the existing system and focusing on the use of that tool, time is spent debating and validating models.  It becomes a war of presentations.  CLS has taken over the center stage and hours and hours of time are spent trying to prove that the sky is fully intact.  In the end, the first consultant was potentially only looking for validation.  There was time and effort and a great amount of good work placed into the model.  No model was truly right or wrong, they both had advantages and disadvantages.  However, because of the CLS, the organization is forced to choose.  Since the organization had to choose, this means someone won and someone lost an argument.  This is a dramatization, but a great example of what CLS is.

Another form of CLS is also called “blamestorming” or “issue deflection.”  Essentially, this occurs when there is an issue that someone causes or a major mistake is made on a project.  Instead of confessing to the issue or admitting fault, the person contracts the Chicken Little Syndrome.  The person launches into a meeting and creates a great hubbub about something in the complete opposite direction of the issue that he or she had caused.  Maybe a grandiose statement is made.  Sometimes it is just a downright lie.  Regardless of what is said, the intention of saying it is to create a commotion and take the attention off of them and place it elsewhere with the hopes that the original issue will be resolved or go away.  This just creates distraction and ultimately hurts the organizations, relationships, and often people.

I have also seen forms of CLS where the person sees everything as a personal battle.  It is as if the whole company is conspiring to interrupt the individual’s workflow.  These are the ones that every conversation is them discussing how they gave an ultimatum, or had to stop someone from destroying life as we know it.  Each story consists of what an idiot everyone else is and how they alone saved the day.  Usually, it is about everything in their lives.  Work, relationships, fights with the mailman, how the cable company is personally trying to rip them off, etc.  It is a defensive and hurtful posture.

Is there an antidote for CLS?  I am not sure.  It can be combatted in a couple of ways.  First, be savvy to what is really happening.  See if you can identify and work with the person that appears to have CLS and see if you can determine the root cause.  Make sure that they do not see the issue as a battle.  The other way to combat it is to call the behavior out for what it is.  Ask for the motivations.  Ask why they feel so strongly about their statements.  See if you can get them to discuss openly what is really happening.  A great technique to do this is the “5 why” technique.  This technique is a way to help try to identify the cause/effect relationship of an issue.  You can read more about that here.

If you feel like you are about to expose the next grand conspiracy or are trying to deflect blame or a mistake off of you, take a step back.  Are you creating a bigger issue than what it really is?  Could there be alternative solutions?  Is it possible the data you are referencing is not correct?  Make sure you are being objective before you raise such a large issue.  If I asked you to name someone that contracts CLS often, most of you reading this can come up with a name almost immediately.  Sometimes, these people just want to be appreciated for doing a good job.  Sometimes it is their insecurities.  Whatever the cause, nine times out of ten, there is a cause.  Find it and you too can stop this horrible disease.

No day but today!

Rick