The project hasn’t been going too well; KPI’s indicate problems, staff are demotivated, the customer is complaining, the schedule is in double digit revisions, rework and resubmissions reflect quality, and you may be on your third or even fourth project manager, and cash is all but flowing. Phew…what will happen next?
Despite these symptoms the project is allowed to struggle on until, one day, one brave soul has the courage to admit that enough is enough! The self-help applications of Band Aids and a couple of paracetamols obviously haven’t worked. Making an appointment to see your local GP or even a trip to the emergency room at this juncture may also be a tad late. It’s time for a surgeon or, in project terms, a troubleshooter.
A troubleshooter? Troubleshooters, popularly, suggest a wild-west hero-type gunslinger, like Eastwood’s High Plains Drifter, who, in a prepotent manner protects others and metes out justice. The first troubleshooters appeared in the late 18th century but they weren’t such romantic heroes. As latter-day security guards they protected the gold and silver of fledgling mines and miners and shot the thieves who would cause trouble.
In the 19th century troubleshooters took a technical turn as the telegraph infrastructure, although embryonic in its early days, expanded rapidly. As with today’s ubiquitous go-to IT guys and gals the telegraph operators too had their gurus. However, these troubleshooters, rather than shooting villains, sought out, found and fixed technical problems.
Today’s troubleshooters are not restricted to technical matters but also address human, managerial, and organisational issues which, when trouble abounds, is a more than likely major cause of any trouble. However, we find that a techy is engaged without much thought but, when it comes to management troubles then the engagement of a “management troubleshooter” is another story…but why?
Grief
It’s about grief. When an organisation considers engaging a troubleshooter it’s seen by some as an assault on the competence of people in charge when, for whatever reason, the project went off the planned rails. This can be perceived as a surreptitious attack on those that didn’t recognise a changing situation, failed to see those early warning signs that, with the benefit of hindsight, were so crystal clear, and didn’t take timely action. It may also be interpreted as an adverse criticism of the people who should have reported but didn’t, or a failure of those who should have read reports but didn’t and again, while failing to see any sign of impending doom, did nothing.
Engaging a troubleshooter announces that somebody somewhere has failed…and nobody likes to fail or be blamed. Grief, for some, inevitably results because of a change to an accepted situation, surprise that an outsider is being brought in, and that external action is being taken. Grief affects individuals as well as organisations and is characterised by the initial phase of Denial followed by varying degrees of Anger, and then Bargaining, Depression and, finally, some form of Acceptance. This DABDA cycle is iterative until a final acceptance, if ever, is reached.
When it comes to troubleshooters some people deny that one is needed. Some people become upset, but, after discussion and rational reasoning some semblance of agreement is reached, and the arguments about doing things “in house’’ and not airing one’s dirty laundry to a stranger are put aside, and the troubleshooter, at least in principle, is accepted. Unfortunately, that’s not “it”! The “grief cycle” is not a one-off and DABDA repeats itself; the “grief saga” rather than “grief cycle” may be a more apt term.
Egos and Heroes
Grief also occurs because of an assault on people’s egos. Engaging a troubleshooter requires an admission that a failure of sorts has occurred, is occurring, or may occur and that an organisation needs assistance. Egos and any belief that an organisation is omnipotent must be put to one side. But for some their ego, far from being put to one side and accepting things is merely subdued and waits to emerge and re-establish itself.
For these people their ego is such that any admission of anything approaching or resembling any responsibility for failure will be avoided. However, as these egoists attempt to show that they cannot be at fault and, possibly egotistically, never were, then the result tends to be the creation of a toxic environment with a ‘heads-down’ culture where people seek cover from blustering and micromanaging rants. Such behaviour has the contemporaneous effect of propagating problems but can compound them for the future as the grief saga unfolds.
Engaging a troubleshooter requires a conscious decision to reinforce the management team and this is a heroic act. Calling for such reinforcement means that one’s ego, or the collective ego of some management committee, has been challenged, shortcomings have been recognised and, logically, assistance is required in some form or another.
But the heroic act isn’t just the appointment of some specialist, technician or consultant it’s also about allowing them to rectify the situation. Fixing situations is about changing things for some positive outcome and, for a successful change the appointed troubleshooter needs to be empowered.
The troubleshooter aka change agent, fixer, or expeditor may have some early success, after all a new broom sweeps clean, but for enduring success the changes that are required need to be embedded. Change is not some flash-in-the-pan snake oil cure and the real heroes not only allow change, but support its implementation, and empower those who adopt it. Change takes time and resolving trouble in the longer term is not necessarily a quick or easy fix.
Trouble
Trouble, eventually, is resolved in some way or another, even if it’s merely lived with, put down to bitter experience and learned from, or brushed to one side in the hope that it will go away and be forgotten. In resolving or attempting to resolve trouble our would-be troubleshooter typically formulates a plan for recovery. This requires probing and questioning to find out the facts and establish, or possibly re-establish project objectives, identify issues and formulate a plan for recovery…at least in theory.
However, in reality the troubleshooter may be fed the biased views of those who necessitated their appointment in the first place. There are also the defensive smokescreens and disingenuous behaviour put up by people who have been, proverbially, dropped in it by their management. And this management, now in hands-free mode, can sit on the sidelines and see how things pan out between the new broom of the troubleshooter, a situation and circumstances that they did not or were unable to manage, and the incumbent team.
If things go well, then a good decision can be chalked up for management. If they don’t go so well then management can say they did their best. In any event the management can be seen to have done the right thing. Management have demonstrated that their position is far from untenable, and trouble has either been resolved or has been shown, through deductive reasoning or clandestine orchestration, to be unresolvable, at least by the troubleshooter at large.
But, no matter what the outcome, the “trouble” has not necessarily been resolved at this juncture. The question of prevailing anger and denial from an earlier iteration of the grief cycle has yet to be accounted for. Acceptance for some is still far from over and some form of retribution or revenge may be required.
Resolution, Retribution or Revenge
The end of the grief cycle is ‘acceptance’, but by whom? Despite trouble being resolved, there are those who may feel aggrieved that a third party has been parachuted in and achieved things that they hadn’t or couldn’t and, perhaps, exposed elements of poor or even mismanagement. Such grievance, either covert or overt, is a sign of a damaged ego which, when coupled with preexisting anger and denial is further fueled if any accolades to success are poured out. Defensive behaviour can be expected and, with attack being the best form of defence, the troubleshooter becomes the target.
In the event of a successful initial outcome the troubleshooter can be thanked and sent on their way even in the knowledge that the “change” has not necessarily been frozen in place. Quick fixes don’t tend to stay fixed for long and old attitudes and behaviour can just as quickly return. In this case the troubleshooter can be blamed later, and the “fix” can be attributed to chance, dumb luck or, generously, serendipity.
If there is a realization that change must be consolidated and the troubleshooter is retained, then life can become more difficult. Changes that were made as part of the recovery process must now be ratified but the bureaucracy that prevailed over the original trouble raises its wearisome head again. The troubleshooter is now breaking the rules and, as retribution is exercised, he or she can quickly become ostracized in the inertia created by the steadfast proponents of the original rules and regulations …normalizing change comes at a cost for somebody.
Of course, if the troubleshooter fails then any damaged egos are quickly repaired, vindication and revenge are wonderful remedies for the would-be righteous. The troubleshooter can be dismissed with impunity and the pre-existing management even mismanagement practices can return; after all they weren’t wrong…were they!
Conclusions
Projects, like most ventures are not always plain sailing. Problems and trouble, like risk, must always be planned for. But, if trouble can’t be handled through business as usual, then a troubleshooter will be needed despite possible objection by those who may feel that they are implicated in allowing the ‘trouble’ to have happened in the first place.
Troubleshooters are engaged to identify, target and ‘shoot’ the trouble. They have the confidence and courage in their own convictions and the wherewithal to work alongside those who have lived with the troubled project. If things go well then positive change will have occurred but, if they don’t then there may well be disillusionment and despair for some and, potentially sighs of relief by others.
Whatever the outcome not everybody will be happy. For those who dwell on the past they endeavour to protect their reputations and egos even though they had trouble shooting their own problems. In the light that they can’t shoot trouble they may well resort to shooting the troubleshooter in an act of defensive retribution and the real trouble, unfortunately, is all but resolved.
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.