It is said that ‘no news’ is ‘good news’. However, in todays media driven environment the news we are exposed to is inevitably about doom and gloom and is not ‘good’ for those affected. The ‘headlines’ that reflect crises, uncertainty and disaster are certainly ‘bad news’. But it’s good news for those journalists and reporters who thrive on pestilence. Even positive news can be turned into a negative vibe through the casting of doubt and anecdotes of failure elsewhere; optimism can quickly become pessimism and pessimism sells.
But what of project reporting. Late projects attract media attention if, or more often than not these days, when they are late or overbudget. If a project is delayed or overbudget the project participants should not have to wait to be told by the media. They will know, and should know all too well, that something is amiss. They will also know that reporting possible failure is not good news and will not be well received, and it’s never a good time to give bad tidings.
Telling the truth often ends with a shooting of the messenger, and the grief that accompanies the ‘bad news’ can, and does, result in dismissals. These would-be purveyors of the truth realise a project’s predicament and are perhaps the best people to put it back on track. Unfortunately, the risk of self-sacrifice is highly likely and project managers succumb to a predilection for being economic with the truth in acts of self-preservation.
Economic Truth.
In the 1986 trial regarding the exposé ‘Spycatcher’ regarding British Intelligence one witness referred to a quote of 190 years before by the politician Edward Burke that “there is an economy of truth”. ‘Truth’ or ‘actuality’ depends on the person or parties who are providing the facts or receiving them.
When people have to give bad news they can, in all honesty, be economical in an effort to prevent another party suffering too much grief. These truisms may be akin to terminological inexactitudes but are perceived be ‘white lies’, ‘slight stretches’ of the truth and perhaps understatements. However, like many lies, if they are told repeatedly enough they will be believed.
In a similar vein as the proverb ‘what the eye doesn’t see the heart doesn’t grieve over’, being economical with truth prevents people from being upset; at least in the short term. Many politicians practice, with impunity, the art of paltering which provides truthful facts but with a less than accurate application. Unfortunately, in the real world of cost and time, and profit and loss any politically motivated positive spin on a project’s performance is eventually revealed.
Positive Spinning
A few years ago, I worked with a project team that had only 20% of the staff required and we were failing to meet deadlines. Staff were actively, but slowly, being recruited and our regular weekly report to senior management repeatedly stated ‘staff numbers are increasing’. The positive spin was so successfully misleading that some senior managers thought we were reporting a glut! “The glass is half empty” implies pessimism and a shortfall. Alternatively, “the glass is half full’ is seen as optimistic and ‘positive’ but the exact same volumes are being described.
When a messenger is required to give ‘bad news’ or rather news that could impact negatively on the messenger or their team, reporting is couched in positive terms. Any outside observer is then influenced to see things in a positive light. The resultant positive spin then gives an impression of good news but, eventually, rose-tinted spectacles are broken and clarity prevails. As George Washington said “Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light”. In the witch-hunt or inquiry into cost and time overruns truer words have never been spoken.
According to the Greek tragedian Sophocles some 2,400 years ago “nobody likes the man who brings bad news’. It’s no different today as we are cajoled into being positive and give the impression of not being negative; ‘good news’ reporting is undeniably more pleasant than the bitterness of taking the truth and dealing with ‘bad news’.
The Bitter Truth?
But when does ‘bad news’ start. In a competitive bidding environment and in efforts to promote a project all parties make assumptions. Politicians and Owners do not want to hear that a project promoted as taking three years will take five, and be 30% over a possibly wildly optimistic budget. Similarly, bidders are forced to make assumptions on the basis of a promoters’ assumptions. Execution is inevitably an even riskier business as the optimism of a promoter, rather than being verified, becomes a catalyst for even more optimism.
The ‘good news’, in hindsight, is apparent from the outset of a project. This results from optimism bias and a belief that nothing can go wrong coupled, perhaps, with the turning of a deaf-ear or blind-eye to obvious and inevitable risks. Contrived budgets masked with adjustments for NPV, inflation, returns on investment, cost benefits or other accounting magic are believed. Time frames are similarly ‘magicked’ in a similar belief that a Gantt Chart and S-curve will ensure all stakeholders will make this project their number one priority and make their readily available resources available as and when required; and at a moment’s notice!
Reporting is about the truth. It should be the whole truth including its ugly and uncomfortable side. It’s undeniably uncomfortable to state what should have been achieved when there is delay and openly admitting shortfalls. It’s also uncomfortable to forecast an adverse outcome when there is an inconvenient but glaringly obvious adverse trend. One can always blame others or make excuses but the truth is a prerequisite to project reporting no matter how unpalatable or unsavory.
Conclusion
News, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. A recipient may only want ‘good news’ based on their perception of what they want to happen rather than what is actually happening. If ‘news’ doesn’t relay the truth then a rose -tinted dream will quickly become a cold-light-of-day nightmare from which there is no awakening.
Being economic with truth may offset anger from the recipient and avoid any awkward questions being asked letting the messenger and their team off the hook. Similarly putting a positive spin on any discounted truth may promote a belief that ‘all is well’. Spinning good news repeatedly may galvanise a message of positiveness but as with any tissue of lies, the truth will eventually prevail, particularly when couched in terms of time and cost.
Projects may be political in nature but reporting should reflect the truth be it sweet or bitter. Spinning the facts and paltering are, unfortunately, within the domain of the politician while being straight and not being afraid of the truth should be within that of the project manager.
Good news is the truth and, as Benjamin Franklin advocated, ‘honesty is the best policy’ and the early news of the risk of a bad outcome may actually provide the opportunity to create good one.
Bio:
Malcolm Peart is an UK Chartered Engineer & Chartered Geologist with over thirty-five years’ international experience in multicultural environments on large multidisciplinary infrastructure projects including rail, metro, hydro, airports, tunnels, roads and bridges. Skills include project management, contract administration & procurement, and design & construction management skills as Client, Consultant, and Contractor.