One of
the key political skills is knowing when and how to voice opposition to a managerial
decision. A misstep here can cause you to lose your side of the argument for
good, and with it any possible wriggle room on interpreting the decision, and
also be a major career mistake.
This week
I was in a meeting where two groups were discussing how to combine their
activities. One group is having to adjust to the inclusion of the other team's
project managers into their long standing processes and projects. Senior
management had decided that the first group’s projects lacked sufficient
management rigor. They were more right than they knew, rigor was missing not
only from the projects but also from the executives that launched and
prioritized them. But more on that subject in a future posting
The
change had been in place for some weeks but the integration was spotty with the
usual foot dragging and half-hearted cooperation, but no overt opposition. The
classic guerrilla warfare strategy aimed at wearing down the invaders with
minor delays and obstacles. That was until this meeting when one of the
managers in the first group decided to voice her opinion that the change was
unnecessary and she didn't see the need to implement it. So far so good, from
her viewpoint, she'd stated her opposition and since it was a view that others
shared no serious damage had been done. Honest opinions are always welcome.
But
knowing when enough is enough was not in this individual's skill set. She kept
on arguing her point of view in a vigorous and forthright manner. She wouldn't
allow others, including her boss, to finish their comments. She just
steamrollered right over them. When my boss tried to intervene she received the
same treatment.
The net
result was that the vague guidelines that had been in place prior to the
meeting will now become more explicit; should will be replaced by shall and all
wriggle room and obstacles will be swept away.
The overt
opposition resulted in the opposite outcome to that intended. The invaders were
not repulsed, far from it as they were now securely ensconced in the heart of
the process and opposition to them will be frowned upon.
As far as
the individual is concerned she not only embarrassed her boss in a public
meeting, she also lost the support of her peers. Even those who in general
agreed with her arguments were appalled at her strident behavior. Her ability
to influence future events has been negated and she's going to have a career
counseling session with her boss – never a good outcome.
How
should she have proceeded?
Well
keeping quiet once her boss failed to support her would have been a good start.
Never raising the issue in such an open forum would also have been a smarter
move. Unless you know you have the votes or the backing of the decision makers
then raising controversial issues in public is never a clever move. She should
have worked on her boss in private and got his concurrence with the delays and
interpretations. Covert opposition was the way to go.
Opposing
senior management decisions requires a very careful analysis of the political
environment and an appreciation of what is possible and practical. Sometimes
ambiguous instructions that allow you to interpret them in your favor are
preferable to outright opposition that leads to the codifying of the rules you
don't agree with. If you believe that you can't live with ambiguity then make
sure that you can live with the clarifications you seek. Always be careful what you wish for.
No comments:
Post a Comment