More Indicators of Scopemonging

Last time, we introduced scopemonging — the use of gradual, planned scope expansion for political ends or to overcome organizational obstacles. By first gaining approval for something reasonable and less ambitious, scopemongers manipulate the organization into attempting something that's unreasonable or overly ambitious.

When the tactic is successful, scopemongers commandeer resources already committed elsewhere. They place the organization at risk, and their actions can result in severe stress and overwork for the people around them.

We examined several indicators of possible scopemonging last time. Here are a few more.

In for a penny, in for a pound

Sometimes, later in the project, the scopemonger asserts that we've committed such a high level of resources to the project already that we cannot "afford" to fail. Ironically, scope expansion itself often presents even greater threats to the organization than failure would. This mechanism is related to, if not driven by, the sunk cost effect and the sunk time effect.

To refute their arguments, focus on increased costs and on how scope expansion threatens the probability of success. If the scopemonger has used the same tactic in the past, point to that and ask, "When will this end?"

Bribery

There are always those who want to carry out tasks that aren't yet budgeted or that are inconsistent with the organizational mission. Perhaps they want to work with a new technology or try a novel strategy, or there might be a feature they've long wanted to add. Scopemongers sometimes bribe these people by advocating for these items as a means of winning allies within the project team.

If you suspect scopemonging, describe the bribery tactic to colleagues in advance of its use. Gain commitment to a united position opposing scope expansion by identifying bribery as a tool of scopemongers.

Flattery

Scopemongers also use flattery to elevate and manipulate the leading team members. They might say, "We want you to do this work, because frankly, we think you're the only ones up to the challenge."

Flattery is Scopemongers place the organization
at risk, and their actions can result
in severe stress and overwork
for the people around themespecially helpful when success requires beyond-the-call-of-duty effort by the people flattered. Flattery can distort judgment. It can make the flattered believe that the impossible is possible and that the unsuitable is suitable.

Migration patterns

Sometimes the organization successfully resists scope creep, and the scopemonger moves on, seeking a more vulnerable piece of the organization. Often, he or she then targets for acquisition the same resources previously targeted, now using a different project as a base.

In some ways, the scopemonger behaves like the mole in Whack-a-Mole. Defeat scopemongers in one place, and up they pop somewhere else, again trying to expand the scope of some project or other.

Because scopemongers can create stress and push people to the edge of burnout and beyond, they can harm the organization even when their tactics "succeed." The damage they do isn't always immediately apparent, but it is real and it is expensive.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

More about scope creep

Some Causes of Scope Creep  [September 4, 2002]

When we suddenly realize that our project's scope has expanded far beyond its initial boundaries — when we have that how-did-we-ever-get-here feeling — we're experiencing the downside of scope creep. Preventing scope creep starts with understanding how it happens.

Scopemonging: When Scope Creep Is Intentional  [August 22, 2007]

Scope creep is the tendency of some projects to expand their goals. Usually, we think of scope creep as an unintended consequence of a series of well-intentioned choices. But sometimes, it's much more than that.

The Perils of Political Praise  [May 19, 2010]

Political Praise is any public statement, praising (most often) an individual, and including a characterization of the individual or the individual's deeds, and which spins or distorts in such a way that it advances the praiser's own political agenda, possibly at the expense of the one praised.

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Task Duration  [June 22, 2011]

Much of what we call work is as futile and irrelevant as rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. We continue our exploration of futile and irrelevant work, this time emphasizing behaviors that extend task duration.

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Strategy  [June 29, 2011]

Much of what we call work is about as effective and relevant as rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. We continue our exploration of futile and irrelevant work, this time emphasizing behaviors related to strategy.

Ground Level Sources of Scope Creep  [July 18, 2012]

We usually think of scope creep as having been induced by managerial decisions. And most often, it probably is. But most project team members — and others as well — can contribute to the problem.

Scope Creep and the Planning Fallacy  [February 19, 2014]

Much is known about scope creep, but it nevertheless occurs with such alarming frequency that in some organizations, it's a certainty. Perhaps what keeps us from controlling it better is that its causes can't be addressed with management methodology. Its causes might be, in part, psychological.

Scope Creep, Hot Hands, and the Illusion of Control  [February 26, 2014]

Despite our awareness of scope creep's dangerous effects on projects and other efforts, we seem unable to prevent it. Two cognitive biases — the "hot hand fallacy" and "the illusion of control" — might provide explanations.

Scope Creep and Confirmation Bias  [March 12, 2014]

As we've seen, some cognitive biases can contribute to the incidence of scope creep in projects and other efforts. Confirmation bias, which causes us to prefer evidence that bolsters our preconceptions, is one of these.

On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: I  [April 23, 2025]

In most organizations, most of the time, the plans we make run into little obstacles. When that happens, we find workarounds. We adapt. We flex. We innovate. But there are times when whatever fix we try, in whatever way we replan, we just can't make it work. We're working in a plan-hostile environment.

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

Stone-Throwers at Meetings: I

One class of disruptions in meetings includes the tactics of stone-throwers — people who exploit low-cost tactics to disrupt the meeting and distract all participants so as to obstruct progress. How do they do it, and what can the meeting chair do?

I Don't Understand: II

Unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous statements are problematic, in part, because we need to seek clarification. How can we do that without seeming to be hostile, threatening, or disrespectful?

Intentionally Misreporting Status: I

When we report the status of the work we do, we sometimes confront the temptation to embellish the good news or soften the bad news. How can we best deal with these obstacles to reporting status with integrity?

When Your Boss Leaves Before You Do

At some point in your career, your supervisor will leave his or her position and you'll end up reporting to someone else. It can be a harrowing experience, even if you prepare. Nevertheless, preparation usually produces a better outcome than winging it.

Rescheduling: the Politics of Choice

When the current project schedule no longer leads to acceptable results, we must reschedule. When we reschedule, organizational politics can determine the choices we make. Those choices can make the difference between success and a repeat of failure.

See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 23: Microdelegation

Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.

And on July 30: What the Dunning-Kruger Effect Actually Is

Although the Dunning-Kruger Effect is widely recognized, people describe it — and understand it — in many different ways. Some of these expressions are misleading. Proceed with caution. Available here and by RSS on July 30.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info