Project sabotage.... it's real and happens frequently

A few weeks ago, a brave member of a virtual change managers forum that I belong to posted a question about project sabotage. The forum founder and moderator responded that he did not believe in sabotage or use the word, but believed that "people are always doing their best".

This response pushed a button in me. I was outraged that the forum moderator and someone with supposedly 10 years of experience could be so irresponsible as to completely deny the existence of sabotage. I responded as follows.

Sabotage should be a word both org change managers and project managers use because 1) it is a common verb, 2) it exists, and 3) is practiced widely within organizations all the time, at least in North America. Sabotage is real, and it is active resistance, or better yet, pro-active resistance. Recent real-life example: A client project director communicates to other project team members via a channel she knows they cannot access, then uses their non-responsiveness as a reason to have them removed from the project and as evidence that the project is failing. This individual was obviously "not doing her best in this particular circumstance".

To deny that sabotage happens is pure folly, as is not addressing it, ignoring it, or making excuses for it. In other words, If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.... not a swan. I believe that people mean well most of the time and are basically good-at-heart; however, sometimes they do get nasty for whatever reason(s). As change managers it is part of our duty to recognize, document, report, and help address sabotage to protect the client's investment in the project.

I do not think it is going to far to say that ignoring sabotage is unethical and constitutes malpractice for change managers, because if we are not addressing it then we become complicit in it.

What concerns me more is that the denial of sabotage is yet another sign of a strong trend that I have noticed for at least the past 10 years for individuals and entire organizations to simply deny reality. This trend was most evident in the Bush White House, and seems to still be at play in Obama's administration. In my experience and observation "reality denial" is now practiced in all regions, all types of organizations, and at all levels.

Those of us who insist on engaging with reality are frequently ignored, pushed aside, or shunned, but most of all we are the messengers who get shot. As Chris Martenson says in his brilliant Crash Course series, the mark of an adult is the ability to plan and deal with complexity. How can anyone do either if they are not willing to even recognize reality? I think Martenson would say, as many others are saying or have said, that we are a very child-like society. I am hoping that maturity and reality come back into fashion soon, otherwise, Í will never work again.

Project Planning and Project Management

This post is for all my past and future clients who think project planning has nothing to do with project management. (The guilty know who they are.)

1. According to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), issued by the Project Management Institute (PMI), the function of project management has five main processes: Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring and Controlling (M&C), and Closing. The PMBOK breaks these five down further into 42 sub-processes. Of those 42, 20 fall under Planning. That's right - nearly half, and none of the other four processes comes even close. The remaining 22 sub-processes are parceled out as follows: Initiate - 2, Execute - 8, M&C - 10, and Close - 2. (per table 3.1, pg. 43)

2. If you compare the duration of the planning phase to the entire project duration, planning extends over about 80% of a project lifespan. (See Figure 3.2 in the latest PMBOK for the graphic.) This happens because plan, execute, and M&C form a continuous loop of on-going activity throughout a project. Planning is not a stand-alone, once-only, written-in-stone activity. We all know circumstances change over time for a million and one reasons. The executing and M&C processes result in changes to plans which then feed back into execution and M&C, just like the "plan-do-check-act" cycle that Deming wrote about years ago.

If you are a consultant, the first or next time a client tells you that planning is not part of project management, whip out the PMBOK and teach them something new. That old catchphrase "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail." may be obnoxious and patronizing, but it is TRUE.

Giving Up

You know, what hurts me more than being sabotaged and back-stabbed by low-caliber lying, cheating, dishonest people, is watching it happen to other good, smart, honest, hard-working, skilled colleagues and friends. Seeing good people that I care about suffer, having their jobs, careers, and morale destroyed causes me great pain - especially if they are young and full of promise.

In a larger sense, it seems as if the world has gone topsy-turvy, like the distinction between right and wrong seems to have disappeared. Example: I was on the phone with a former colleague and good friend the other day and she literally yelled at me for being honest with potential employers and clients about my pregnancy. Since when did telling the truth become the wrong thing to do and punishable??

I saw a news story about the governor of the State of texas who in 2004 knowingly sent an innocent man to his execution eventhough the exonerating evidence was sitting in front of his nose. What happened to the governor? He is still in office. Was he arrested? No. Was he charged with manslaughter or murder? No. Will he ever receive justice for killing an innocent man? Probably not.

There are many other recent anecdotes I could cite here, but I'll just conclude with "I can't take it anymore". I am too old and have little fight left in me. So for the time being I am just going to give up trying.

So I guess that old maxim is true, nice guys (and gals) finish last.... and the bad guys (like Perry) win, again and again and again. I can only hope in some childish fashion that the concept of imminent justice really exists and that the bad people will get what they deserve someday.

Lies, More Lies, and the Crappy Liars Who Tell Them

Below is the response from Eagle's CEO exactly as I had predicted... with lots of lies about events that NEVER HAPPENED from the staff trying to desperately save their hides. My response follows. Today's poll: How many think its time for a lawsuit?

OR You can write to the Eagle CEO, Kevin Dee at Kevin_Dee@eagleonline.com, and give him a piece of your mind.

***********************************************************************
Hello,

Apologies for taking a little time on this, but as you can imagine things are a little hectic and I wanted to be sure that I was able to understand the facts before responding.

The staffing world is a fast paced environment and unfortunately we are not always so good with the common courtesies, or with clear communication.

I explored your situation internally and Kevin "thought" he had been clear in your last conversation with him that you would not be proceeding further with our client. The issue apparently was that you had already interviewed in the past with this client, and someone from a past interview deemed that you were not the right fit for this role. This apparently was the same conversation where you informed Kevin about your pregnancy, however since you would not be proceeding anyway this was never revealed to Deloitte.

Apologies again that we were not clear enough, and good luck with your job search going forward.

Also congratulations on your addition to the family.

Sincerely,

Kevin Dee, CEO


************************************************************************

Kevin,

Now I am even more shocked and dismayed. I know nothing and have never heard anything related to the events you mention below. In my last conversation with Kevin Wang on or around Sept 14th, he said the following:

1. All of my interiews with Deloitte had come back with very positive feedback;
2. That he and the other staff at Eagle had never dealt with a situation where a candidate in the midst of interviewing had announced a pregnancy; and
3. He would speak with Cindy and others about how to handle it and get back to me on next steps.

That conversation was the last I had with anyone regarding the Deloitte position. Never did I receive a follow-up message from anyone, including Kevin, about any topic. Period.

This was the first time I had ever considered a position with Deloitte or interviewed with them in my entire career and my first time associating with Eagle, so a past interview which you mention below simply never happened. Therefore, it was not mentioned or discussed in the same conversation as my pregnancy or any previous conversation.... because it never happened.

Obviously, I have no control over what your staff tells you about what happened, or whether or not you choose to believe what I say. But having events ascribed to me that never happened is extremely upsetting as I am sure you can understand. Also, that behaviour is a sure sign that lack of clarity is not the only issue at Eagle.

A truly Awful recruiting Experience

In the past few years, my expectations of recruiters and clients have fallen quite a bit, but I recently went through a recruiting process where the outcome set the bar at a new low. More surprisingly, it involved a recruiter and client with "good" reputations, Eagle Professional Services (out of Toronto) and Deloitte consulting in Vacouver, BC. Below is the letter I wrote, at the encouragement of a few colleagues, to the CEO of Eagle explaining the incident. Judge for yourselves.

*****************************************************************

Dear Sir,

In August and September, I was working with Eagle’s Toronto office as a candidate for a permanent position with Deloitte consulting. Between August 12th and September 10th I had one phone interview with Deloitte’s HR office in Toronto, followed by three interviews with senior leadership in Deloitte’s Vancouver office.

On September 10th I received confirmation that I was expecting which I had the integrity and courtesy to immediately communicate to Kevin since it meant that I would only be available to work through March 20, 2011, before taking maternity leave. Since that day, I have not heard one word from either Eagle or Deloitte. The least I expected was a polite email from Eagle saying, “Thank you for informing us; however, you are no longer a viable candidate for the position with Deloitte.”

I am shocked and extremely disappointed that neither Eagle nor Deloitte has had the common courtesy to communicate with me further. This rude, inconsiderate, and unprofessional behaviour is a clear indication that neither organization is one I want to be affiliated with in the future.

Certainly, this is not news you want to receive, but I thought it was important enough that you be made aware of it. Hopefully, future Eagle candidates who find themselves in this position will be treated with more respect than I was. Should you have further questions or concerns about this incident, please do not hesitate to contact me.

The Impact of Personal Factors on Resistance to Change

In the same article on resistance cited in the previous post, the Prosci author writes:

"... on top of the emotional reactions to change, resistance has other influencing factors, not the least of which is an employee’s personal situation. This includes all aspects of a person’s life including family status, mobility (are they in a position to be flexible in terms of where they live?), financial security, age, health, career aspirations (are they where they expected to be at this point in their life?), relationships at home and at work, educational background, upcoming personal events and past success in this work environment (promotions, recognition, compensation). For example, a person’s financial situation or health may cause them to make choices related to a change that on the surface do not appear logical, but when understood make perfect sense. Similarly, a change in a person’s relationship with a spouse or significant other can cause a fundamental shift in what is important to that person."

Gee, really? Who would have thunk it. (Pardon my sarcasm.) Is this statement true? Absolutely. In fact, it is a no-brainer. Nobody needs certification in CM to know this intrinsically. There is not an organization in the western world where assessing individual personal factors would be an appropriate or realistic part of planning a CM program. The privacy concerns are too strong, the complexities are too great, and the shifts in personal factors over short time periods too numerous.

The best policy here is for change leaders to openly recognize and state this fact up-front; that there are scores of factors a CM program just cannot (and likely should not) take into consideration or plan for except in a generic, collective way.

Could a change leader attempt to survey eployees on such personal factors? Sure, but what would the cost-benefit be? What % of employees would actually respond? Of that %, what subset would respond with the whole-hearted truth? Would the questions be seen as completely inappropriate, a total invasion of privacy, and possibly against the law? You bet.

"Change Management" is Proactive by Definition

Recently, I was reading the latest e-newsletter from Prosci, the change management specialist company. The topic was "Resistance: understanding a phenomena that is natural to all of us". Prosci has a way of explaining the obvious in very clear and simple language, which I appreciate, but I still disagree with some of their points.

Here is the excerpt that caught my attention (my emphasis):

".... rather than simply designing a “great” solution to the call center structure and beginning implementation, a proactive change management program could have been put in place to engage and support employees through the transition. Rather than waiting for resistance to happen, or being taken by surprise when key managers resisted the change, the leadership and project team could have assumed that resistance to change is a normal and natural phenomenon."

As I have written in previous posts and articles, to describe change management as proactive is redundant. Change management is proactive by definition. Someone might say, "Well, it depends on what you mean by 'proactive'." So let me spell it out fully. "Proactive" means that your CM program is:

1) Based on predictions and recommendations resulting from an analysis of the changees, their org culture, past change history, and characterisitics of the change itself, and

2) Planned in advance of implementation.

If your CM activity is not proactive, then you are not managing change, just reacting to it.

Likewise, in recent interviews for CM Lead positions, I have faced the question of "What interventions strategies do you use?" as if interventions are the heart of change management. The focus on interventions and the popularity of this question tells me that most people do not see change management as proactive. The better your CM analysis and planning are, the less frequently you should have to resort to interventions.

No CM plan/program will ever prevent 100% of resistance to change, and some interventions will always be necessary, as will changes to the CM plan. The need for and frequency of interventions tells us how well we analyzed and planned; how well we understood the changees and their organization.