Incoherent Initiatives

From time to time in organizational life, we encounter entities we call initiatives. Some initiatives reside entirely within an existing organizational element. Others span several elements, drawing resources from multiple elements or from resource pools attached to administrative elements. Usually, we charter initiatives to exploit previously overlooked opportunities, or to address previously unrecognized weaknesses, or to proactively attend to recently detected threats. Initiatives usually begin their lives narrowly focused and clearly defined. But many eventually expand their missions. They lose focus. They become more difficult to define. They acquire multiple objectives. They become incoherent initiatives.

Keeping When the purpose of an
incoherent initiative becomes
unclear, team unity gives way
to division and confusionincoherent initiatives aligned to their original objectives, which are usually important and worthy, can be difficult indeed. Because the purpose of an incoherent initiative is unclear, the people assigned to the initiative become less able to affiliate with it. Unity of purpose gives way to division and confusion. Incoherence thus becomes a threat to the initiative itself. Effectively managing incoherence risk is essential to the success of initiatives.

Incoherence anti-patterns

Managing incoherence risk begins with understanding the sources of risk. Below is a little catalog of anti-patterns and forces that enhance the probability that a focused, coherent initiative can become incoherent.

Constituency building run amok

To build support for the initiative, advocates add to the mission specific objectives designed to attract support from a collection of organizational elements. This is a sensible approach. But when constituency building takes precedence over maintaining mission focus, the result can be loss of coherence.

Not accounting for reorganizations

During the early phases of initiative development, advocates develop objectives that appeal to those organizational elements that they believe will support the initiative. But reorganizations do sometimes occur after initiative objectives are partially developed. When that happens, organizational elements that previously supported the initiative sometimes vanish or are redistributed across organizational elements that have survived the reorganization. In some cases, those vanished or redistributed elements can no longer support the initiative. Indeed, in some cases, a primary goal of the reorganization was strangling the initiative.

When a reorganization occurs, advocates of the initiative would do well to review all elements of the initiative's mission. By examining elements that support only vanished or redistributed organizational components, initiative advocates might be able to refocus the initiative to make it more coherent.

Vague or non-existent public expressions of objectives

Clear, specific statements of objectives are essential tools for maintaining coherence. But some regard clarity and specificity as constraining. The clarity imperative is most troublesome to advocates who want to maintain the freedom to adapt the initiative's mission as needed to build support from heterogeneous constituencies.

Ambiguity and vagueness do leave people free to work toward their preferred objectives. But the price of ambiguity and vagueness is incoherence. Express objectives and key results as needed to build support, but not by sacrificing coherence.

Blocking the missions of rivals

Some initiatives are created for political reasons. For example, to delay or obstruct Person A's efforts, Person B (a rival of A) might create an initiative that consumes the budget resources that A needs. Or B's initiative might fully occupy the space or personnel A's initiative needs.

These "blocking initiatives" need no coherent mission of their own. They need only a justification for the allocation of budget, space and personnel that A requires.

All-or-nothing objectives

One concern many initiative advocates have is that their proposal will be accepted, but only in part, while other parts are rejected or deferred. To prevent this "slicing and dicing" they craft the initiative mission in such a way that partial acceptance is impossible. The elements of the initiative are so interlocked that the organization must accept the entire package.

To accomplish this interlocking, initiative architects often impose constraints that have the incidental effect of compromising coherence.

Last words

If political agendas, or maintaining flexibility, or mitigating the risks of partial acceptance, or building or maintaining support for the initiative, is the advocate's primary goal, coherence can suffer. One indicator of these agendas is the history of the mission statement. In one form of this history, there is a trail of proposals, with successively more elaborate statements of benefits. Each revision is designed to appeal to a new set of stakeholders, with requirements of their own, not covered in previous revisions. In a second form, the goals of the initiative change for reasons unrelated to the work itself. If a close reading of the different versions of the proposal reveals any of the patterns above, support the initiative with care. Leave yourself an exit.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Devious Political Tactics:

Some Hazards of Skip-Level Interviews: I

Although skip-level interviews have their place, they can be dangerous, explosive, and harmful to the organization. What are the dangers?

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: II

Narcissistic behavior at work threatens the enterprise. People who behave narcissistically systematically place their own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this Part II of the series we consider the narcissistic preoccupation with superiority fantasies.

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: IV

Narcissistic behavior at work is more damaging than rudeness or egotism. It leads to faulty decisions that compromise organizational missions. In this part of the series we examine the effects of constant demands for attention and admiration.

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: VII

Narcissistic behavior at work prevents trusting relationships from developing. It also disrupts existing relationships, and generates toxic conflict. One class of behaviors that's especially threatening to relationships is disregard for the feelings of others. In this part of our series we examine the effects of that disregard.

Layoff Warning Signs: II

Layoffs often signal their arrival well in advance, if you know what to watch for. Some of the indicators are subtle and easily confused with normal operations. Here are three more indicators that layoffs might be secretly underway.

See also Devious Political Tactics and Devious Political Tactics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info