Risk Management Risk: I

Risk plans are rarely perfect. For complex projects, unanticipated risk will almost certainly materialize. We can deal with this risk — I'll call it risk management risk — if we adopt some simple practices. Let's begin with some examples of organizational and political risks.

Organizational blind spots

Organizational risk management asset bases usually consist of previously developed risk plans and risk plan elements, documented risk plan development procedures, and personal experiences.

Although referring to these assets might uncover risks that any particular risk manager might not otherwise consider, relying on the asset base probably won't uncover risks not included there. Since continuous organizational change almost certainly exposes the organization to risks never before seen, these asset bases have blind spots.

To limit these blind spots, analyze the results of retrospectives to determine what risks were unanticipated. They provide clues to the location of the organization's blind spots.

Organizational political correctness

In general discourse, political correctness requires that we shape our statements and behavior — if not our opinions — to conform to a generally accepted ideological standard. Organizational political correctness provides an analogous constraint relative to the ideology and views of the organization.

Organizational Organizational political correctness
can limit the ability of risk managers
to address significant riskspolitical correctness can limit the ability of risk managers to address significant risks, when even discussing such risks calls into question organizational beliefs, or the beliefs of those who have internal political power.

If a common theme appears among unanticipated risks, if those risks are evident to many, and if the same risks materialize across many projects, organizational political correctness could be a cause. Organizational culture change is required to address this risk.

Political risk

The organizational value of any project is determined, in part, by the political clout of its advocates. How an organization values a project can present risks to it through resource allocation, schedule, and budget.

Although these risks are widely understood, talking about them openly and planning for them in writing is often difficult, for reasons far beyond organizational political correctness. For the politically weak project, committing to writing and review any plan to deal with political risks simply provides a roadmap to rival projects if they are politically stronger. Such a risk plan is often effectively countered before it can be implemented. In some cases, it might even be forbidden. This effect is especially pronounced if a state of toxic conflict persists between the departments, leaders, or champions of the two projects.

Two factors suggest the presence of political risk. First is the absence of any explicit mention of political risk from the risk plans of politically weak projects. A second indicator can be changes in the execution plan of politically stronger projects, especially following publication of the risk plan of a politically weaker project.

In Part II, we'll examine risk dynamics and risk interactions.  Next in this series  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

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.

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 Project Management:

Team Thrills

Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. How can we make it happen more often?

TINOs: Teams in Name Only

Perhaps the most significant difference between face-to-face teams and virtual or distributed teams is their potential to develop from workgroups into true teams — an area in which virtual or distributed teams are at a decided disadvantage. Often, virtual and distributed teams are teams in name only.

Wishful Interpretation: I

Wishful thinking comes from more than mere imagination. It can enter when we interpret our own observations or what others tell us. Here's Part I of a little catalog of ways our wishes affect how we interpret the world.

How to Get Out of Firefighting Mode: II

We know we're in firefighting mode when a new urgent problem disrupts our work on another urgent problem, and the new problem makes it impossible to use the solution we thought we had for some third problem we were also working on. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for getting out of firefighting mode.

Planning Disappointments

When we plan projects, we make estimates of total costs and expected delivery dates. Often these estimates are so wrong — in the wrong direction — that we might as well be planning disappointments. Why is this?

See also Project Management and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Unintended Condescension: II

Intentionally making condescending remarks is something most of us do only when we lose control. But anyone at any time can inadvertently make a remark that someone else experiences as condescending. We explored two patterns to avoid last time. Here are two more. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 4: Workplace Remorse

Remorse is an unpleasant emotion. But it need not be something we suppress or avoid. It can provide a path to a positive learning experience that adds meaning to life. Available here and by RSS on March 4.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.