Cassandra at Work

When teams confront difficult decisions, two groups of patterns emerge. In Closed patterns, only a few people participate in decision-making. In some cases of Closed patterns, only one person makes decisions for the entire team. In other cases, the team doesn't make a decision — it allows a decision to be dictated by events. On the other hand, in what we might call Open patterns, the team reaches decisions following (but not always as a result of) a period of debate. The Cassandra pattern is one kind of Open pattern. The Cassandra pattern gets its name from Greek mythology. Cassandra was a Trojan priestess who was gifted (and cursed) by Apollo to make accurate prophecies that nobody would believe.

When a team debates the choice of options it has to address a problem, some people take positions based on what they believe will be the results of the various options. They make predictions of what the future holds. In the end, the team settles on an option based, in part, on these predictions. In the Cassandra pattern, the team chooses to reject one particular set of predictions (Option R for "Reject"), and instead chooses another (Option A for "Accept"). This proves over time to have been a seriously bad choice, because Option A turns out to be a miserable failure, and Option R does indeed turn out to be correct.

So the In some cases, after the advocate of a
rejected approach is proven by events
to have been correct, a series of
challenges confronts the team
as it discovers its errorteam finds itself in deep yogurt. In the Cassandra pattern, this develops into a serious fracture among the team's people. That happens when one of the team (call her Cassandra) strongly advocated for Option R, despite being outnumbered by those who favored Option A. Isolated, Cassandra tried every approach she could devise to win adherents for Option R. She assembled massive amounts of evidence. That failed. She sought additional, more detailed, reviews of Option A. That failed. She retained outside experts. That failed. Nothing worked.

In some cases, after events prove that Cassandra had been correct, she faces a series of challenges as the team confronts its error. Below is a little catalog of these problems and some suggestions for dealing with them. In what follows I refer to three phases of the incident:

1. The Decision phase, during which the team debates it options
2. The Execution phase leading up to and including the failure
3. The Acknowledgement phase in which the failure has become evident to everyone

I-told-you-so might be unavoidable

Cassandra might become a walking I-told-you-so, even if she never once utters that phrase. Her mere presence might become a reminder to team members and team leaders that they had made a wrong choice.

Equanimity during the Decision phase is essential to safety in the Acknowledgment phase. The intensity of the I-told-you-so effect is related to the intensity with which Cassandra advocated her position during the Decision phase, and the intensity with which her opponents advocated theirs. To limit this risk, Cassandra would do well to limit the passion with which she expressed her views, even if her opponents do not.

Being accepted as a team player can be challenging

During the Execution phase, before the failure becomes clear, Cassandra might be required to support the team in some way as it executes on the decision she opposed. Some of the people around her expect her to passively subvert the team in its efforts to execute the option she opposed.

Cassandra must therefore clear a high bar to avoid being accused of not being a team player. People might make judgments and accusations even if she provides excellent performance. There are two defenses: stellar performance and a strong network of allies.

Social isolation presents enhanced risk

Cassandra is certainly isolated in her views of the subject matter related to the decision. But her minority views are more likely to be identified as outliers if Cassandra herself is also socially isolated during the Decision phase. The combination of subject matter isolation and social isolation enables the majority to reject Cassandra's views more readily.

Cassandra will likely find difficulty addressing her own social isolation during the Decision phase. But team leaders would do well to monitor the degree of social isolation affecting holders of minority views. Integrating the team socially can be helpful in limiting the risk of adopting an option for social reasons rather than reasons related to subject matter.

Repetition has cumulative effects

Rarely does a team make only one decision in its lifetime. Usually teams make many decisions, and each one has the potential to produce a Cassandra. The emergence of a pattern of producing Cassandras could indicate something deeply amiss. When the same individuals are isolated in several consecutive decision incidents, the Cassandra phenomenon can manifest itself earlier and more readily.

Explanations for repeated patterns abound. Consider only as a last resort explanations that focus on personal flaws. The temptation to blame individuals can be strong, but doing so is rarely helpful. A more likely possibility is an uneven distribution of subject matter expertise. That can occur, for example, when there is only one expert in the team, and he or she isn't recognized as such. The Dunning-Kruger effect [Kruger 1999] can create significant obstacles to recognizing the expertise of others.

Last words

Some people become invested in the success of Option A — so invested that they cannot accept the possibility that it might need adjustment, or worse, that it might not be workable at all. If you were among the advocates of Option R (the rejected option that turned out to be the correct choice), you're at risk of being a candidate for the Cassandra role. If those who advocated Option A have superior political power, tread carefully during the Acknowledgment phase. Dark days might lie ahead.  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! .

Footnotes

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:

Scopemonging: When Scope Creep Is Intentional

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.

Extrasensory Deception: I

Negotiation skills are increasingly essential in problem-solving workplaces. When incentives are strong, or pressure is high, deception is tempting. Here are some of the deceptions popular among negotiators.

Not Really Part of the Team: I

Some team members hang back. They show little initiative and have little social contact with other team members. How does this come about?

Impasses in Group Decision Making: IV

Some impasses that develop in group decision making relate to the substance of the discussion. Some are not substantive, but still present serious obstacles. What can we do about nonsubstantive impasses?

How to Deal with Holding Back

When group members voluntarily restrict their contributions to group efforts, group success is threatened and high performance becomes impossible. How can we reduce the incidence of holding back?

See also Workplace Politics and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

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.

Coaching services

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