The defensive retreat

In a crisis characterised by chaos, one is likely to lose orientation: ‘Where are we?’, ‘What is happening?’ and ‘What shall we do (quickly)?’ are some of the questions that we ask ourselves in a crisis. As a result, and because of that uncomfortable feeling of ‘being lost’, we often tend to fall back on our basic instinct: of self-preservation. We become more inward-looking and try to cover ourselves as individuals. Divisions that emerged during the incubation time (if there was any) may intensify. Instead of more collaboration, we shift towards more adversarial relationships. We start building a wall around us that offers an illusion of comfort. Mindful decision-making becomes less likely.

Broken communication

Going hand-in-hand with increased defensiveness in the face of a crisis is a change in the way we communicate. Communication can be used to preserve our integrity and even to damage others. Information is exchanged, not necessarily to explore what is happening or what we should do next but to lessen any potential blame attaching to oneself. Emails sent for the purpose of explaining one’s decisions and leaving a trail to be used later to justify one’s actions make sense in that narrow personal context, but may not help the project in the here-and-now. Communication can degenerate into accusations and thus becomes more destructive than helpful in crisis recovery. It is especially important to look for this in inter-departmental or client-provider communication as each group may well retreat to its own domain for relative safety if it seems as if the project is unravelling. When trust falters, resorting to formal communication alone can virtually eliminate the spontaneity, collaboration and improvisation that may be vital for a resolution at that moment.

Centralising power

There is a tendency in crises, when we do not see progress from others, to feel the need to assume control. We believe that we can do better and that by transferring power to ourselves we can single-handedly deal with the situation more effectively than we could as a group. Unfortunately, this form of centralisation (and the accompanying power games) is often a side-effect of a crisis in projects.

Thinking and acting in the past

It is likely that a crisis, in its totality, is of a type that you have not directly experienced before. However, human nature means that it is also likely that you will rely on recovery mechanisms you have deployed in the past. Tackling a novel crisis that requires quick and decisive action through drawing on past solutions is not only likely to be ineffective but might exacerbate the crisis. We are habitual creatures, and we tend to rely on our past experiences and schemas of action. However, these past-informed habits may not fit the present crisis. Being aware of this may enable us to focus more clearly on new, more creative solutions to the current crisis.

Tunnel vision

Under increased stress, the scope of our radar narrows and shortens. Our minds tend to focus on single actions, and the insufficiency of response in alleviating the situation is compensated by a further fixation on executing it, sometimes over and over. Such fixation may prevent us from remaining sensitive to the bigger picture of what is going on around us.

Project continuity

This book is very much about the ‘soft’ aspects of project management, about behaviours and applied practice. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the need for some mindless structure that can be relied upon quickly. Every crisis response involves business continuity planning. For project work, this continuity plan defines which functions in the project are critical to address, protect, and maintain. For example, in a software development project, a vital function might be the ‘testing environment’ in which sections of code are brought together and functionally evaluated. If these critical functions come to a standstill, the whole project could be put on hold. In a crisis, such functions deserve special attention. So, a plan can be activated quickly, even if that means in a mindless checklist manner.

Checklists

In a crisis, the resulting stress and ‘tunnel vision’ may be countered by the relative ‘automation’ of a checklist. A checklist should not replace human situated cognition, but it can help to probe the situation and aid a project manager’s state of mindfulness. A useful checklist is one that is:

• Short and simple. Simplicity forces project managers to accept a stimulus and to interpret.
• Focussed. It aims at critical functions of a project. Insignificant components of a project are not checklisted.
• Practical. It only offers probes based on actions that are doable and feasible.

Closeness

We might have all the necessary plans in place, but because of the unfamiliar character of a crisis, we are not ready to exercise those plans, let alone be reflective and creative. The question this raises is how to sensitise a project team for a crisis, in a safe environment, before the crisis happens. One answer lies in simulating worst-case scenarios. Crisis simulations have the great benefit of getting close to extreme situations. Playing through worst-case settings, to test one’s endurance and adaptability in a ‘live’ but safe environment is at the core of simulating crises.

It is a puzzle that, in many projects where substantial value is at stake, planning and preparation involve tools and techniques that do not incorporate the emotive side of managing uncertainty. Most planning approaches advocated in project management seem to exclude the behavioural side of a crisis. If you can, simulate a crisis that allows you to receive immediate feedback on crucial stakeholders’ behaviours and skills under high-stress conditions. It is too late to test out aspects of mindful behaviour when a real crisis is already unfolding.

Tiger Teams

When a crisis strikes, seeking an outsider’s perspective can be vital. Internal politics tend to take over in the middle of a major problem as people can become insensitive and defensive and may entrench themselves in their silos. If we wish to find a swift solution to avert disaster, this silo mentality needs to be broken up. Tiger Teams (whether they are called that or go by some other name) can deliberately be set up as high-performing teams aiming to reconcile potentially opposing views and facilitating solution-finding in out-of-control situations.

They need to be on stand-by or to hover around a project, monitoring the situation and ready to provide the project manager with support. They can be parachuted in when the situation warrants it. A Tiger Team must not replace the project manager but support the project manager in the following:

• Listening and asking questions from multiple perspectives about what is happening and yet not rushing to conclusions despite the pressure to act quickly.
• Imagining worst-case implications, together with the details of complex, potentially dynamically changing, tasks.
• Suppressing members’ egos in terms of ‘knowing the answer’ yet remaining inquisitive in creating options.
• Willingness to break existing rules and processes, with the ability to think outside of the usual methods of operation.
• Skills to create solutions that work at the technical, process and human levels.
• Ability to maintain a continuously high level of focus and intensity of action.
• Maintaining all this to achieve rapid project recovery while operating within challenging timeframes under the ‘spotlight’ of senior management.

In projects, the role of the project manager is frequently an ‘everything’ function. They are often expected to switch seamlessly from managing ‘business as usual’ to being a crisis manager. The shift from normality to a crisis-like situation, however, can be difficult for us who are emotionally and structurally attached to the project. Instead, a set of seasoned managers, possibly currently involved in other projects but with scope to provide the necessary support to a project in trouble, can be used to ensure that valuable input.

Logistical independence

The resources that have been provided for project ‘normality’ may not be the most suitable to help in a crisis. Indeed, one may argue that the resources deployed in the incubation phase of a crisis have been insufficient to prevent it from occurring in the first place. The Tiger Team has to draw on a pool of readily or quickly made available resources, be it people or additional funds. This access to resources should be detached from the daily business of the project. Lengthy, otherwise sensible, change-related processes need to be unhooked or circumvented.

Nevertheless, this does not imply that the provision and deployment of resources to stem a crisis should be allowed to unfold haphazardly. Similarly, the question of how this extra resource is paid for should not add to the difficulties of the project. Preparations should ideally be made in advance of any crisis occurring. Arrangements may, for example, include the provision of a budget for these resources (as yet unspecified, since the nature of any future crisis is unknown) in advance of their mobilisation. As we encounter time-consuming ‘blame-games’ in crises, the risk of a silo- mentality associated with lengthy and often futile searches for root causes could be overcome by switching to a contractual model that ‘shares’ the costs of managing a crisis, regardless of which party ‘caused’ it. This focuses minds on solutions, not blame.

Readying stakeholders

Stakeholders need to be educated for ‘when’ it happens, not ‘if’. Of course, if at all possible, we want to prevent a crisis from ever happening, and this is the focus of all the planning that goes into projects. The result of this effort is an unspoken assumption that failure will not or can not happen, and this makes readying stakeholders for engaging with a crisis all the more difficult. Doing so is an implicit acknowledgement of failure. It also costs time and effort to prepare stakeholders for a crisis in the absence of one. Why prepare for something that has not happened yet and may not happen anyway? We have to allow time and effort, often in advance of the execution of the project, for techniques that would enable key stakeholders (for example, the client) to rehearse a crisis, and to test the response capability to deal with one. Whether such rehearsing involves the development of plans, simulations of scenarios, or storytelling does not matter, as long as the approach helps to sensitise people to the emotive factors of a crisis. Words in isolation, in the form of a plan – dry, impersonal – are inadequate to convey the behavioural side of a crisis.

Being reluctant to press the panic button

We need to set expectations in circumstances where people look to them for guidance. The temptation is to convey messages that the situation is likely to turn out for the best. On the one hand, this optimistic perspective instils confidence and motivates, but it might also lead to illusions of control and thus to blind spots. If people absorb the belief that everything will go well, they may become less vigilant and less adaptive in their understanding. The result may be greater rigidity and inaction in response to the unfolding situation.

On the other hand, portraying a doomsday scenario encourages fatalistic behaviour, in which people sit back and let fate play its cards. It is down to the leader to find an appropriate balance in setting expectations between being too optimistic and pessimistic. Generally, we tend to underestimate the severity of a crisis and overestimate our capabilities to deal with one, so we should tend to look at challenging over-optimism.

Being hesitant to centralise

Defensive retreats often go hand-in-hand with the urge to centralise. We may lose trust in other people because they did not prevent the crisis from happening in the first place. As a result, we may be tempted to rein in many tasks they have previously delegated. Be warned! If we do this, we may find it challenging to focus on what a leader is supposed to do in a crisis – facilitate an understanding of the problem and its solution. Being bogged down in detail prevents us from maintaining sensitivity to what is happening.

A crisis requires courageous action, yet it is not up to us to take all the brave steps. Indeed, we need to let go and facilitate action where it matters, close to the problem, and develop the commitment to respond in the most sensible and valuable way. Such determination cannot be taken for granted, given that people may retreat into their shells and may exhibit rigidity, only responding to cover themselves. Such self-preservation in times of upheaval is common (and understandable) and needs to be addressed by project leaders. This commitment should be supported by the provision of an extensive response repository for those ‘firefighters’. Vast power needs to be channelled down to front-line staff, while leaders remain sensitive to what is going on and intervene only when necessary. However, interventions may be interpreted as a sign of distrust or suggest that power is centralised and does not require any response from those closest to the problem. If we intervene, we need to explain and clarify the purpose of such intervention.

Maintaining trust

A crisis can be deliberately triggered because of hidden agendas. Crises encourage us to be more defensive, and walls are consequently built around silos (defensive retreats). In this situation, trust can evaporate. Trust can be established (or re-established) by us if we focus on showing compassion and concern. In a crisis, people may think that their work and importance is diminished. If, for example, a Tiger Team has been parachuted in to mediate, other stakeholders may find themselves side-lined. Show ‘real’ concern to every project team member. Consider the necessity of shifting power, for example, to Tiger Teams and address and explain the rationale for the decisions and leadership interventions that have been made.

Showing concern goes hand-in-hand with being honest and transparent. Communicate that there are conflicting perspectives and expectations; be honest about the pressure that people are under but show optimism that solutions are feasible. Provide pertinent information in ‘real-time’. Outdated information may be misinterpreted as following a hidden agenda.

However, although communication in a crisis is essential, it needs to be controlled. Unreliable information may only add to rumours and fuel false impressions. We want to air their opinions, especially when their own positions and departments are involved. Unwarranted speculations about what is happening or what might be done are detrimental if project managers fail to control them. We should offer our project members valid information and plenty of opportunities to voice their opinions, but information (or a lack thereof) should not be turned into ammunition to serve political agendas. Facilitate communication in an open manner by assuring the reliability of its content.

Manage behaviour, not plans

Crisis management plans or checklists – outlining sets of predefined, ‘mechanistically’ and thus mindlessly performed actions – are there for a reason, to provide some form of structure and order in an environment perceived as being chaotic. However, these plans can be a double-edged sword. On the positive side, they help to trigger behaviours quickly and efficiently. Conversely, they may suppress situated human cognition. If plans do not adequately match the situation at hand, we may blindly walk into disaster. We constantly need to reflect on the appropriateness of plans and check-lists and their execution. If a plan does not appear to match the situation as we perceive it, we must deviate from it. Ultimately, we manage behaviour and plans are there to support this, not vice versa.

Channel resources to where they are needed first

Contingency plans do help to pinpoint critical functions in a project. The question of ‘What must not go further wrong?’ – a question often not asked – drives a greater understanding of the most vital resource allocation. In a crisis, we may throw resources at anything that poses a threat. A much more effective course of action is to prioritise the deployment of resources to where they matter. For example, if we talk about a project that delivers a range of benefits (e.g. functions), then systematically categorising what must or should not go wrong (any further) is a sensible approach. The ‘must not’ requires the most considerable attention and forces clear prioritisation.

Learning from crises

A crisis in which a project stands at the edge of disaster requires reflection and learning. However, we often want to detach ourselves from this uncomfortable experience. The urge to forget and move on to other tasks can leave the potential for learning untapped. Learning from a crisis, if it happens, often takes the form of analysing, documenting and allocating root causes, with the purpose of standardising responses to any future crisis. In its own way, this appears to be a sensible solution unless we operate in an environment in which crises unfold in random patterns. However, expecting a similar predicament to hit you another time may, in itself, form a root cause for future failure.

Learning should go beyond the past, and learners – us – should be reluctant to replace valuable human cognition with yet another additional layer of prescribed process and procedure without a strong rationale for doing so. But how? Storytelling is considered a potent mechanism to convey rich context – an event or crisis – and provide a platform for the ‘listeners’ to develop their learning.

A ‘good’ story:

• is authentic and one that the listener is familiar with and can relate to;
• combines words with images and audio to appeal to all our senses;
• is connected to an organisational narrative or a bridge is built so that the story is linked to the context of the listener;
• provides a clear structure, often helped by a timeline;
• is simple and relatively short, to maintain attention.

People naturally make sense of experience through storytelling, and therefore, it can be a very powerful learning tool. Storytelling done well can encourage reflection, inspire current and future collaborative approaches, stimulate enquiry and help to build knowledge and understanding. Additionally, cultural and emotional contexts can be understood and acknowledged as being important. It is only one way to reflect upon practice and find ways of making sense of crises but, compared with dry, codified knowledge that may never be read, it is a very accessible means of learning. Indeed, it happens anyway. In social gatherings, we may trade ‘war stories’ of what went wrong in projects we have been involved in.

Establish clarity

The antithesis of a defensive retreat is to break down barriers and share information freely while being sure to control the accuracy of the information. Sharing information should be done with the help of clear contact points. Stakeholders should not need to seek out sources of information on crisis updates or how the crisis is being dealt with. An obvious choice is the project manager, who is most often closest to the evolving situation and has the most unobstructed view of events.

Listening

An important aspect of crisis management is that of caring through listening. Listening is not as easy as it may seem, though. Reflective listening involves both content checking and feeling checking. Content checking implies mutual acknowledgement of each other’s understanding of what has been said. Restating content provides reassurance of a shared understanding. Feeling and checking is not so much about the content but the emotions, involving feedback and reflection on each other’s emotional state.

As with so many skills that are important in a crisis, listening, to show that one cares for another’s content and emotions is not without barriers:

• Anticipating a message: you may already think or expect in advance what the person is going to say and hence you might interrupt them.
• Rehearsing an answer: while the person is trying to convey their message, you may already be thinking about an answer, and thus you will not give them the attention they deserve.
• Thought wandering: a cue by a person may make your thoughts wander off. This may lead to misinterpretation and the need for that person to repeat the message.
• Premature conclusion: you may already have come up with a conclusion, although the message is incomplete.

Collectively owning a crisis

A crisis, regardless of whether sudden or creeping, is often caused by a multitude of factors. Hence, searching for a single root cause is often a futile exercise; not having a root cause in place does not negate the collective ‘ownership’ of the crisis, though. However, ownership is not to be mistaken for accountability. A project manager may be held accountable for what he or she does to resolve the crisis by providing timely feedback and measuring progress toward recovery. Ownership, though, is the obligation of the collected stakeholders. Ownership is created by establishing collaboration and a sense of partnership in the belief that recovering from a crisis is in the best interest of all parties. Commitment from all parties involved to engage in timely (and often costly) actions of troubleshooting is highly valuable and provides a sense of cohesion.

Think long-term relationship

A characteristic of a defensive retreat is myopia: short term thinking. We tend to ask ourselves during a crisis how to recover from it in the short-term. Our horizon may not move beyond the phase of recovery. However, not only is the project at risk but also the long-term relationships with stakeholders. Questions need to be asked about what happens after a successful recovery, and how (potentially) damaged trust between stakeholders can be re-established. It is dangerous to wait until after the crisis has passed to consider how groups and individuals could and should work together in the longer term. Projects are (by definition) transient and, although it is difficult when current work is in turmoil, it is important to consider future projects and the sustainable working relationships that will be necessary to support them.

Sharing the burden of recovery

It is tempting in a crisis to look for a root cause and allocate the burden – costs, emotions, responsibility for recovering from it – to those believed to be the triggering factor for the predicament. This search for single-point failures and single-point accountability is often already manifested in the choice of contract. Projects most often rely on a ‘traditional’ type of contract, with a focus on the position of one party to the contract concerning the actions of the other parties. Essentially, this can set up an adversarial relationship, with each party to the contract protecting its position and looking to maximise its benefit. The agreement itself can encourage and exacerbate the adversarial stance taken by the various parties delivering the project. The focus can shift to personal gain rather than the goals of the project. This is the antithesis of project partnering wherein there is an implicit (and often explicit) assumption that all parties involved in the project are committed to a single goal while recognising the different and shared needs of the various organisations involved. This is well-understood in many project environments and has led to the development of a variety of alternative, more collaborative, contract forms. With collaboration comes the incentive to share the costs of tackling problems. Typical of these types of contracts is some form of pain/gain share agreement, whereby the costs of failing to meet milestones or objectives are shared among project participants. By the same token, the project is delivered below budget, or early, then all participants can share this better than expected outcome.

The key of a partnering contract is to encourage swift and efficient collaborative problem-solving while avoiding the sometimes crippling transaction costs that are so often the outcome of more traditional contract forms. These transaction costs have two effects on the project: they can mire the project participants in bickering over where the fault lies, rather than focusing on resolution, and they involve inordinate record-keeping and costly arguments over who is to blame, often resulting in protracted legal disputes long after the work has been completed.

To avoid some of these problems, collaborative, partnering-type projects will typically be ‘open-book’ whereby the client and the project team can view each other’s project documents. There are two main justifications for this: project parties have to trust each other, and it avoids the need for costly claims. Hidden agendas are removed, and the project staff and workers start to focus on the needs of the project rather than those of their organisations.

Celebrate a victory

Overcoming a crisis is a feat to celebrate. Crises do occur and often are not preventable. They are high-pressure situations in which emotions take the upper hand and recovering from one deserves recognition. However, it is tempting to lay the memories of such a painful phase of the life cycle to rest, to forget and to move on. Stakeholders need to recognise their successful recovery and rebuild potentially damaged relationships. By celebrating victory over a crisis, negative connotations about its occurrence can, at least to some extent, be alleviated.