Project Management

Virtual Victory, Virtual Defeat

From the Game Theory in Management Blog
by
Modelling Business Decisions and their Consequences

About this Blog

RSS

Recent Posts

George Jetson, Bring Me A Rock!

How To Obstruct A PMO

Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of The Project

Think You Have A Culture Problem? Think Again.

Finally! A GAAP Concept PMs Can Get Behind!

Categories

Game Theory, PMO, Politics, Risk Management, Strategic Management

Date

linkedin twitter facebook Request to reuse this  


Most people are probably not aware of this, but the United States did not lose a single major engagement during the Viet Nam war. In fact, the Tet Offensive was a major defeat forf the Viet Cong. Why does this matter? It’s a prime example of how a real victory was turned into a virtual defeat. And, if it can happen on an international military scale, it can (and does) certainly happen on a project-by-project basis.

The opposite is also true: actual project disasters can be spun into outcomes that, if not completely acceptable, are at least okay enough so that significant pushes to find the true causal factors and hold accountable those responsible don’t really happen. How else did the Big Dig escape widespread outrage?

So the savvy PM needs to be aware that successfully bringing a project to close on-time, on-budget does not automatically translate to an accurate narrative. It’s axiomatic, but bears repeating: perception trumps reality, every time. So, which organizational pathologies serve to turn the facts on their heads en route to the accepted narratives? I’m thinking that prime among them is nepotism/cronyism.

Any deviation from a pure meritocracy that the macro organization indulges in is poisonous, and it’s rarely a fast-acting poison. When employees are promoted into leadership positions, not because of displayed talent, but due to political or any non-performance-based element, several effects emanate. For example, did your organization just promote someone who wasn’t the best candidate for a managerial position? And does this organization have a Mission Statement that contains verbiage about a commitment to the customer, or some such? Well, this Mission Statement has just been shown to be false. Clearly the decision to promote the not-so-qualified over his or her betters is a slap in the face to “the customer,” indicating a willingness on the part of the ones making such a decision to act on factors other than optimal performance. Enhancing the personal relationship, but damaging the organization, becomes acceptable decision-making.

The waves from this pebble-in-the-pond spread farther. The rank-and-file of the organization – will they not also immediately recognize that the so-called Mission Statement isn't accurate? And, if that communication from the executives is false, what other statements from them can be trusted (particularly and especially the whole business about “our people are our most valuable resource”)?  The new “leaders” – where are they leading to, exactly? Is it the same managerial destination that the more talented but rejected one(s) would have pursued? Again, if hard work and talent are not to be recognized and rewarded, and the macro organization knows this, I really can’t see why any employee would want to expend effort or engage their talents, other than the bare minimum to stay employed. Once the nominal rewards for exemplary behavior are off the table, those behaviors will evaporate, and soon.

I’m really not trying to come across as hopelessly naïve – I know that John Ross had to move in to the executive position in Ewing Oil vacated by J.R.  But Dallas is television drama, and the real-world marketplace tends to reveal stories more consistent with those that led, say, to Microsoft® founders becoming bazillionaires because those around them in the nascent personal computer industry failed to put into positions of authority the most talented people at their disposal. Cronyism isn’t confined to friends – it also extends to those who adopt a corporate narrative at variance with an unfolding reality. The reasons for these variances can be legion – arrogance, ignorance, a desire to replicate past victories or avoid previous defeats. And yet, let just a portion of the narrative of the causes of these previous victories or defeats be at odds from the facts, and the organization may have ingested the slow poison of cronyism.

And as this slow poison of cronyism spreads throughout the organization’s circulatory system, it becomes awfully hard to differentiate virtual failure from the real thing.


Posted on: February 24, 2014 11:35 PM | Permalink

Comments (1)

Please login or join to subscribe to this item
Andy C
MH,

You have an innate negativism, however, I do tend to agree with your observations and can relate to a well-spun event that turned an unmitigated disaster in to a ''technical success" merely by virtue of providing a plethora of ''lessons learned''! In the industry I work in the adage is that "perception IS reality".
Let's not be too hard on those that buy in to the corporate mission statement, afterall it was written in all sincerity, regardless of how some are promoted beyond their capabilities to the detriment of the organization and customer alike. Another adage holds true; some rise to the level of their own incompetence (the Peter Principle).

Please Login/Register to leave a comment.

ADVERTISEMENTS
ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors