Adventures in Truthland

- A Tall Tale by Tom Bellinson

Human nature is such that self-preservation is usually the primary motivator.  The challenge with this is that we are often faced with decisions that hinge on reducing personal risk at the expense of the organization's goals.  Most of the time, there is only one reason for this risk: management will receive your message in a way that you did not intend.

Shooting the messenger is a time-honored tradition.  Let's be honest (since we're talking about truth here), if you're bringing the message, chances are pretty good that you are at least somewhat involved in creating the news.  Being responsible, taking responsibility and being held responsible are all different things.  How these three interact with one another can be the difference between a constructive outcome and a destructive one.

Let's take an imaginary visit to Truthland, a place where everyone is exclusively motivated to ensure that the organization's goals have the best chance of being achieved.

You arrive at the office and get to work.  Halfway through the morning, you discover that the new tool the team just got to assist with your portion of the project is not working as expected.  You check the forums and discover that you are not alone in having this problem.  So, you reach out to the vendor's technical support only to discover that "yeah, that's a problem.  We've got that on the list for a future release, but we don't have a schedule for it yet."

The workaround is going to double your original estimate for the project.  You immediately let your teammates know.  After a brief huddle, everyone is agreed that there aren't a lot of options at this point.  The team decides to pull a resource from a lower priority project to mitigate the delay on your work effort.

Sanjeet, your team leader let's his manager, Josephus, know that there are now two projects at risk of slipping their original deadlines.  Josephus wants to know why a problem with one project is going to cause two to slip and Sanjeet explains the team's decision.  Josephus respects the team's decision, but he also knows that Carolina, the product owner for the lower priority project is a proverbial "squeaky wheel."  Before he talks with her, he had better inform senior management, so they can handle the situation properly should it come to them.

Josephus sends an email to his Director, the Deputy CIO and the CIO apprising them of the situation.  A brief meeting is convened, which includes Sanjeet to go over the details.  Sanjeet asks if you can attend the meeting as well.  Everyone listens to you as you recount the events leading up to your team's decision.  Questions are asked for clarification purposes, but everyone agrees that the decision is in the organization's best interest.

Sanjeet contacts the product owners for both projects and informs them of the situation.  They are both understandably upset.  Carolina, as expected, does not believe her project should suffer for "mistakes" made in another project.  Sanjeet invites her to contact his leadership if she would like, but that the decision is unfortunately final.

Carolina does call the CIO.  Todd is ready for the call.  He explains to her why the organization must give priority to the other project.  She doesn't like it, but Todd's explanation is sound and she really doesn't have anywhere else to go.  She begrudgingly accepts the decision.

Notice what DIDN'T happen here.  Nobody obfuscated or watered down the truth.  No blame was assigned.  No repercussions were handed down.  Nobody refused to accept a role in dealing with the problem.

The organization quickly identified a problem, communicated it to all those affected, and rallied around the course of action that best suited the organization's goals.  Sometimes bad things happen.  Their affects will vary depending on how they are handled.  In Truthland, they have a much better chance of having minimal impact.