When a project is underway, or even when we're still in discussion stages, we sometimes stumble upon an unanticipated risk. Some unanticipated risks can be serious — fatal or near fatal to the project if they materialize. For convenience, I call these risks Very Bad News (VBN) risks. After serious study, if we can't devise practical approaches to avoid, transfer, reduce, or compensate for the VBN risk, we cancel the project and move on. That's what happens if we're thinking clearly.
Sometimes we don't think clearly enough. We decide to accept the VBN risk. Here are three scenarios that frequently lead to risk acceptance:
- Someone who's politically very powerful insists that this project must succeed no matter what, and "you'll find a way around the problem somehow."
- The team has found some approaches that might mitigate the VBN risk somewhat. The time, budget, or capabilities required are beyond what's available, but somebody says, "If we make a solid demo, they'll find the money."
- There's division of opinion about whether the VBN risk is real. Most expert members of the project team acknowledge the risk, but one ambitious fellow, currying favor with Management, disagrees.
These situations are fertile ground for toxic conflict. When the VBN risk is fundamentally technological, a common pattern for this conflict is an oppositional debate between the "technologists" (IT or product engineers) on the one hand, and on the other hand the "business" (product managers, executives, or Sales or Marketing officials). When the conflict becomes toxic enough, it can leave lasting social scars that limit future organizational performance.
The conflict that arises in the context of debates about VBN risks isn't unique. We can understand its dynamics in terms of a psychological phenomenon known as naïve realism. Naïve realism is our human tendency to assume that our perceptions of the world are accurate and objective. [Ross 1995] Consequently, when our understanding of the world conflicts with that of others, we attribute the difference to distortions in others' perceptions, due to their ignorance, false beliefs, irrationality, or biases. As we do this, so do our partners in conflict attribute to us ignorance, false beliefs, irrationality, or biases. Naïve realism thus provides an elegantly symmetric setup for toxic conflict. It can transform a disagreement from one in which each party critiques the value of the other's approach to the issues to one in which each party attacks the other's value as a person.
But although a setup for toxic conflict is necessary, it isn't sufficient to seriously damage relationships. For truly destructive toxic conflict, the participants need to care deeply about the outcome of the conflict. VBN risks can provide the missing element. We know that conflict participants care deeply about the outcomes of debates about VBN risks, because they all regard VBN risks as "Very Bad News."
On the "business" side, After we identify a "Very Bad News" risk,
a common pattern for the ensuing
conflict is oppositional debate between
product engineers and the "business"conflict participants strongly desire project success. They want what the project promises to deliver, and they can get what they want only if the project goes forward. On the "technologist" side, conflict participants want to work on successful projects, and they want to avoid working on projects that are doomed from the start. Too often, in their experience, project failures have been unjustly and incorrectly attributed not to foolhardy decisions to accept VBN risks, but to the lack of professionalism and low work quality of project teams. In the context of the VBN risk, the technologists can get what they want only if the VBN risk is properly acknowledged and managed, the cost of which can be prohibitive. The "business" faction wants the project to go forward despite the VBN risk; the "technologist" faction wants the project to be reconfigured or cancelled because of the VBN risk.
In many organizations, the "business" prevails. In practice, the technologists are directed to execute the project with the VBN risk wholly or largely unmitigated. Because the people who represent the "business" want the project to proceed, and because they cannot afford to manage the VBN risk, they decide to opt for "risk acceptance."
But exactly how does this happen? What patterns of thought and decision making enable the group to proceed despite this stark disagreement? I'll explore this part of the story next time. Next in this series Top Next Issue
Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.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.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
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 Cognitive Biases at Work:
- Scope Creep and Confirmation Bias
- 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.
- Why Scope Expands: II
- The scope of an effort underway tends to expand over time. Why do scopes not contract just as often?
One cause might be cognitive biases that make us more receptive to expansion than contraction.
- Motivated Reasoning
- When we prefer a certain outcome of a decision process, we risk falling into a pattern of motivated
reasoning. That can cause us to gather data and construct arguments that erroneously lead to the
outcome we prefer, often outside our awareness. And it can happen even when the outcome we prefer is
known to threaten our safety and security.
- Seven Planning Pitfalls: II
- Plans are well known for working out differently from what we intended. Sometimes, the unintended outcome
is due to external factors over which the planning team has little control. Two examples are priming
effects and widely held but inapplicable beliefs.
- Seven More Planning Pitfalls: II
- Planning teams, like all teams, are susceptible to several patterns of interaction that can lead to
counter-productive results. Three of these most relevant to planners are False Consensus, Groupthink,
and Shared Information Bias.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming September 27: On Working Breaks in Meetings
- When we convene a meeting to work a problem, we sometimes find that progress is stalled. Taking a break to allow a subgroup to work part of the problem can be key to finding simple, elegant solutions rapidly. Choosing the subgroup is only the first step. Available here and by RSS on September 27.
- And on October 4: Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: I
- Conversational narcissism is a set of behaviors that participants use to focus the exchange on their own self-interest rather than the shared objective. This post emphasizes the role of these behaviors in advancing a narcissist's sense of self-importance. Available here and by RSS on October 4.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.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