Stan was known as the go-to group leader for difficult projects with compressed schedules and demanding sponsors. He was always willing to jump in and work hard to maintain schedule— whatever was thrown his way.
Nothing seemed to align on Stan’s most recent project with an experienced client, however. Even though the schedule was reasonable, the project was frequently encountering setbacks from needing reworking to delays to employee turnover. Upon interviewing extended team members, a clearer picture of the problems began to emerge—and they all revolved around Stan.
According to The First 90 Days by Michael D. Watkins, 79.9% of employees in new roles prefer difficult startups, accelerated growth, or “turnaround” situations so they have the opportunity to show their value and achieve recognition.
While difficult situations like these herald a legitimate need for new leadership, all too often leaders and employees exhibit the “hero” or “savior” complex to the point of creating problems so that they can swoop in, “firefight”, and solve them.
Beyond reduced project performance, consequences of sabotage behavior include poor employee morale and turnover, loss of clients, and distressed company financials.
It can be a difficult and lengthy process to find the true source of project sabotage or “arson.”
How do you identify and address a project “firefighter” turned saboteur “arsonist”?
1. They’re known as your best go-to person
These people are considered very trustworthy and have been lauded for their firefighting abilities in the past. Either through a misplaced feeling of job security, career advancement, or feelings of value when they bring order to chaos, they want to continue to be known for their heroism and sacrifice. This person feels self-value through managing chaos.
How to address this: It’s best to recognize this propensity in your employees and get ahead of the conversation with them. In Stan’s situation, company leadership was concerned that Stan’s continued firefighting would burn him out, or that he would choose to leave the company. They placed him on a new choice project, but did not feel the need to explicitly communicate this change of pace (or their new expectations) to Stan.
2. They are willing to be the single point of contact
The project saboteur may be helpful in handling things for you, or serving as a go-between. This strategy allows the “arsonist” to isolate and redirect people they are overseeing without communicating what is happening to the direct project team. In Stan’s case, he insisted his direct reports were too busy to attend important project meetings, when in fact he was not inviting them.
How to address this: Ensure that individual contributors are personally invited to your meetings and practice asking them directly how things are going. I make it a point to schedule a weekly 1 hour “walkabout” the office to casually talk to project team members. Through these interactions I’ve been able to get ahead of major project risks, issues, and concerns that would not have been flagged in a normal status meeting.
3. They subtly blame others or external situations
Project arsonists are usually pretty subtle when it comes to placing blame on others and genuinely do not think they’re the source of or could have prevented the problem. This type of sabotage is easy to do; it simply involves a failure to provide guidance or required information to team members.
In Stan’s case, he was subtle with blame at first stating that the company didn’t provide adequate training for new team members. He then cited economic situations contributing to changing client requirements and forcing employee turnover.
However, as the project continued to exhibit problems, Stan attacked the team members’ lack of understanding, poor communication, and job underperformance.
How to address this: Many times, project leaders will stop here and believe the saboteur, because the explanations seem reasonable and the arsonist has been a trustworthy person. However, it’s important to your project and company’s well-being to investigate further and interview extended team members.
What do you do once you’ve identified the source of project sabotage?
Have a conversation
If you’re approaching the project saboteur before or after minor infractions, it’s best to have an open conversation with this person.
Talk openly and often about the person’s skills, passions, and contributions. Acknowledge that he or she is a great resource for firefighting in the organization, but explain that the company cannot healthily operate in a continual state of stress. Provide facts about their previous infractions, and work with them on what you would like to see happen in the future.
Enlist them for purpose
Offer them a special (guided and supervised) role in leading risk management, or provide them with other higher-adrenaline or new opportunities, leveraging their ability to step in and help with genuine project fires or special events, new hires, or training.
Define an exit strategy
Depending upon the severity of sabotage, you may need to gather more documentation and work with human resources on an exit strategy for this person. Other employees, customers, and leadership may no longer trust this person and their propensity for toxic behaviors in the workplace. In this case, it’s best to replace this person to keep poor morale from spreading to the remaining team members.
Conclusion
As for Stan? His actions remained hidden for many years. He was eventually reprimanded for his acts of project sabotage, which came to light after speaking with employees and reviewing their documentation. Stan was verbally providing incorrect project information to junior team members whom he had insisted be excluded from official project communications.
Whether the company uncovered these details by updating its training and processes to allow for extended flow of project information or halted its project work to problem solve when issues began to arise is unclear. But what is clear is that these are steps that should be taken in project sabotage situations. For any organization to avoid or thwart project “firefighters” or saboteur “arsonists” within their community, they’ll have to maintain transparency and communication at all levels.
What are your thoughts? Have you encountered sabotage on your projects or at work? What were the outcomes?
Published on Medium
