George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
I have conducted two polls on the question of “Have you ever had a spy on your project.” Both polls suggest that approximately 40% of project managers have experienced this phenomenon.
- Does this surprise you?
- What is your opinion regarding the root causes of this issue/concern?
- Does this shine a negative light on a project manager?
I’m interested in getting everyone’s opinion on this subject, from the NextGen to the Seasoned professional. Bottom Line: What thoughts get triggered when you ponder the existence of spies on projects? Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jan 31, 2020 3:38 PM
Replying to Steve Ratkaj
...
In one of my old position's we had hired several persons from one of our larger competitors. One of those persons became disenfranchised because of promises made with respect to his 407K plan. Those promises never materialized and he left to return to his former employer. At the time we were developing a line of new products, and at later trade show some time later, we were stunned to see "our" product in their booth. He had stolen our design and given it to his employer. We thought of legal action, but in the end decided against it. Instead, we redesigned our product to be even better than "their" product. Lol.
Hi Steve,
I’ve also had similar experiences. I had one wherein an outside firm was given responsibility to manage a team that was made up of 80% internal developers, and 20% from the firm that was managing the project. Their job was to deliver a bleeding-edge product component that I had designed, and I was managing the development of a related product on the other side of the pond. After a couple of months, that development team imploded and upper management was told that the team could not realize the design, and that nobody could realize it – a statement that was backed by the outside company that was managing the project.
I had my hands full, so I didn’t fight it and adapted certain parts of my project to accommodate their abort of this component. A few years later, what did I find out? That company realized my design, with some changes and was marketing it and building it into other products. This type of thing unfortunately occurs in all sectors of the software industry. Saving Changes...
Jim BrandenSenior Project Manager| Retired from UNC Charlotte - IT Services - PPMOCharlotte, Nc, United States
Jan 31, 2020 12:19 PM
Replying to George Freeman
...
@Luis, @Vincent, and @Scott:
The polls were done in the context of “Internal Intentional”. Personally, I wouldn’t put the “accidental” category into the context of the question, but it is a good point.
Internal Intentional can mean (1) spying for others in the org. or (2) sabature for personal gain at the project / PM’s expense. I wouldn’t call the second ‘spy’, however I’ve dealt with more than my fair share of sabatures who were jealous of my success; not to steal my tools and techniques!
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Feb 01, 2020 10:48 AM
George Freeman
...
Hi Jim,
I agree with you, that saboteurs (for our purposes) fall into the category of “internal intentional,” and that they have nothing to do with spies. In fact, in my forty years of experience, I’ve had more run-ins with saboteurs than spies.
Spies exist in the realm of the “good and the bad”, whereas saboteurs exist only in the realm of the “bad and ugly.” When I’ve written on this subject, I use the term Epistemic Subterfuge (hover over it with a mouse to see my definition) to describe the condition. I’m not sure if I would create a thread called “Project Saboteurs,” as the community would start to wonder, “there’s something not right with that George Freeman,” but then again, they probably already think that :)
Spies get employed when either the cost of procuring some information by ethical means is much higher or when there is a low level of trust in a relationship.
While their usage is an unfortunate reality in many project contexts, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to set a higher standard and if they are the rule and not exception, we should question if we are working for the right company.
Kiron Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jan 31, 2020 9:49 PM
Replying to Jim Branden
...
Internal Intentional can mean (1) spying for others in the org. or (2) sabature for personal gain at the project / PM’s expense. I wouldn’t call the second ‘spy’, however I’ve dealt with more than my fair share of sabatures who were jealous of my success; not to steal my tools and techniques!
Hi Jim,
I agree with you, that saboteurs (for our purposes) fall into the category of “internal intentional,” and that they have nothing to do with spies. In fact, in my forty years of experience, I’ve had more run-ins with saboteurs than spies.
Spies exist in the realm of the “good and the bad”, whereas saboteurs exist only in the realm of the “bad and ugly.” When I’ve written on this subject, I use the term Epistemic Subterfuge (hover over it with a mouse to see my definition) to describe the condition. I’m not sure if I would create a thread called “Project Saboteurs,” as the community would start to wonder, “there’s something not right with that George Freeman,” but then again, they probably already think that :)
...
1 reply by Jim Branden
Feb 01, 2020 2:55 PM
Jim Branden
...
George, thanks for the definition of Epistemic Subterfuge. From my experience, it is 'a nature of the beast' because we're dealing with humans who have personal drives and motivations beyond the 'moment' of their involvement in the project - human nature.
As to 'less-than-stellar PM', I've had two situations where I knew who was the Epistemic Saboteur and after dealing with them on several projects, I created a new niche for myself and let them have what they wanted (my old leadership position). In one case the person failed within a year and the other person took two years to fail. By then I was on to 'bigger and better things'.
As Richard Nixon said (something to this effect), when asked if he had negative feelings for those who brought down his administration. You can't waste emotional energy on those you do not respect. (That's a paraphrase for PC!) ;-) Is that a lesson lots of people should learn today? Jim
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
With large projects, the idea that you are going to have “emotional trust” across all stakeholders is a thin proposition. It’s possible that you might have “cognitive trust” (i.e., they choose it) across the board, but the emotional side may still drive some to install spies.
That said, we should absolutely try to set a higher standard. If we had previously built trust-focused relationships with the stakeholders, then we are unlikely to have a problem, or if the stakeholders are “mindful” then we may also be in the clear. But again, with large or overly complex projects, it may be impractical to gain the proper level of trust to prevent concerns like spies.
These thoughts beg the following two questions:
- Should we accept spies as a nature of the beast?
- Are spies a reflection of less-than-stellar project management? Saving Changes...
Jim BrandenSenior Project Manager| Retired from UNC Charlotte - IT Services - PPMOCharlotte, Nc, United States
Feb 01, 2020 10:48 AM
Replying to George Freeman
...
Hi Jim,
I agree with you, that saboteurs (for our purposes) fall into the category of “internal intentional,” and that they have nothing to do with spies. In fact, in my forty years of experience, I’ve had more run-ins with saboteurs than spies.
Spies exist in the realm of the “good and the bad”, whereas saboteurs exist only in the realm of the “bad and ugly.” When I’ve written on this subject, I use the term Epistemic Subterfuge (hover over it with a mouse to see my definition) to describe the condition. I’m not sure if I would create a thread called “Project Saboteurs,” as the community would start to wonder, “there’s something not right with that George Freeman,” but then again, they probably already think that :)
George, thanks for the definition of Epistemic Subterfuge. From my experience, it is 'a nature of the beast' because we're dealing with humans who have personal drives and motivations beyond the 'moment' of their involvement in the project - human nature.
As to 'less-than-stellar PM', I've had two situations where I knew who was the Epistemic Saboteur and after dealing with them on several projects, I created a new niche for myself and let them have what they wanted (my old leadership position). In one case the person failed within a year and the other person took two years to fail. By then I was on to 'bigger and better things'.
As Richard Nixon said (something to this effect), when asked if he had negative feelings for those who brought down his administration. You can't waste emotional energy on those you do not respect. (That's a paraphrase for PC!) ;-) Is that a lesson lots of people should learn today? Jim Saving Changes...
