It's easy to understand how resources become available to projects that are pet projects of people who answer to no one. But most pet projects are nurtured by people who do have supervisors — if not a supervising manager, then at least a Board of Directors. How do these people secure resources for their pets? How can we detect this activity when people we supervise keep pets?
Most nurturers secure resources in one or more of seven basic ways. Here are three methods involving abuse of authority. For methods involving cleverness, see "How Pet Projects Get Resources: Cleverness," Point Lookout for February 9, 2011.
- Flagrant violation of policy
- It seems almost suicidal, but some nurturers simply violate organizational policy or the expectations of superiors. One wonders how they get away with it, but sometimes they do, at least for a time.
- Detecting this tactic requires monitoring resource use, but we sometimes forget that monitoring anything at all takes resources. If you establish a policy about resource use, ensure that there are enough resources to monitor compliance.
- Political coercion
- Nurturers sometimes use coercion to extract resources for their pets. For instance, they might exact retribution when a subordinate objects to the allocation of resources to the pet. Others observing the price paid by the objector then learn not to object. More insidiously, nurturers might coerce silence or cooperation from those responsible for monitoring compliance with organizational policy.
- This tactic becomes clear when it's repeated often enough for the observing supervisor to notice a pattern. It is therefore most effective in environments with significant turnover in supervisory positions, because no one is in place long enough to notice a pattern. The tactic is also effective in environments in which contractors comprise a significant fraction of subordinates, or when most work is carried out virtually, because contractors or people at remote sites are generally less aware of the goings-on.
- Abuse of power
- Nurturers might Political coercion is most effective
in environments with significant
turnover in supervisory positionsuse their legitimate authority to supply resources to their pets, claiming that the action is in the interest of the organization. Even if that is so, the decision might still be an abuse of power if the nurturer knows that another choice would likely have been even more helpful to the organization.
- Detecting this tactic requires a level of understanding of the nurturer's responsibilities sufficient to support independent evaluation of the nurturer's decisions. In relatively flat organizations, the supervisor of the nurturer might lack the knowledge required for such judgments, or lack time to make them even if he or she has the requisite knowledge. This tactic is therefore of greatest use in flat organizations, or when the nurturer's supervisor is relatively unfamiliar with the nurturer's area of specialization.
Allocating resources to pet projects might not entail abuse of authority. Other methods can be consistent with organizational policy, or at least, benign. They are the topic for next time. First in this series | Next in this series Top Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenrDUDwWaUxOAJtKFRner@ChaclWPJpPZohNvtYLEJoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Political Framing: Communications
- In organizational politics, one class of toxic tactics is framing — accusing a group or individual
by offering interpretations of their actions to knowingly and falsely make them seem responsible for
reprehensible or negligent acts. Here are some communications tactics framers use.
- Why Don't They Believe Me?
- When we want people to believe us, and they don't, it just might be a result of our own actions or demeanor.
How does this happen?
- Some Hazards of Skip-Level Interviews: III
- Skip-level interviews — dialogs between a subordinate and the subordinate's supervisor's supervisor
— can be hazardous. Here's Part III of a little catalog of the hazards, emphasizing subordinate-initiated
- Exasperation Generators: Irrelevant Detail
- When people relate stories at work, what seems important to one person can feel irrelevant to someone
else. Being subjected to one irrelevant detail after another can be as exasperating as being told repeatedly
to get to the point. How can we find a balance?
- Is It Arrogance or Confidence?
- Confusing arrogance and confidence can cause real trouble — or lost opportunities. What exactly
is the difference between them?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 11: The Rhyme-as-Reason Effect
- When we speak or write, the phrases we use have both form and meaning. Although we usually think of form and meaning as distinct, we tend to assess as more meaningful and valid those phrases that are more beautifully formed. The rhyme-as-reason effect causes us to confuse the validity of a phrase with its aesthetics. Available here and by RSS on December 11.
- And on December 18: The Trap of Beautiful Language
- As we assess the validity of others' statements, we risk making a characteristically human error — we confuse the beauty of their language with the reliability of its meaning. We're easily thrown off by alliteration, anaphora, epistrophe, and chiasmus. Available here and by RSS on December 18.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenrDUDwWaUxOAJtKFRner@ChaclWPJpPZohNvtYLEJoCanyon.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
- 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.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.