If one's own money were on the line, how often would this happen? The overall system appears to be set up to protect managers from failure, accountability, and liability, usually at the taxpayers' or investor's expense. There's been a lot of "drunken" behavior around projects and money since the 80s, which has only gotten worse as various legislative acts have shielded companies (and the government entities that regulate them) from any liability for harm or defect of their products and services. On top of that is senior managers getting huge bonuses even when they fail spectacularly, because boards are rubber stampers for whatever management wants. But there is one other psychological factor I'd add to your compelling list, and that's the hero leadership nonsense peddled in business schools since the 80s that has produced a generation of managers who go for bold "glory" projects that will make their names as "leaders." Everyone wants to be a Jack Welch or Steve Jobs or [name your favorite famous leader here], no matter the cost or collateral damage.
I too have been on many projects where what you describe were major issue including a near billion dollar software project in 1990 dollars, that two major companies got roped into funding, which ultimately was scraped! That project always had a schedule of being “just” 2 years from shipping for 6+ years, just enough to always keep the parents paying. It had other internal management issues as well that go beyond what was described here that reinforced the problems you described.
I’ve also worked on very large projects, not quite as large, that succeeded because they were not managed and sold in this way and honestly and appropriate pessimism(reservations/issues) was valued.
The strategy mentioned utilizes a well known psychological blindspot. Robert Cialdini wrote a book called Influence which covers many of these psychological blindspots that are labelled as levers of influence; they are inherent in everyone. They are used in a lot of things, from public relations, but notably also including propaganda and thought reform. Its a very enlightening book into practical psychology if one has a chance to read it.
No worries, they have an updated second edition with a lot of additional material.
If your interested in revisiting, other relevant aspects include Sapir-Whorf (or the Whorfian hypothesis), and distorted reflected appraisal (which occurs in many engagement related processes, such as recommender systems and gamification/dark pattern research).
If one's own money were on the line, how often would this happen? The overall system appears to be set up to protect managers from failure, accountability, and liability, usually at the taxpayers' or investor's expense. There's been a lot of "drunken" behavior around projects and money since the 80s, which has only gotten worse as various legislative acts have shielded companies (and the government entities that regulate them) from any liability for harm or defect of their products and services. On top of that is senior managers getting huge bonuses even when they fail spectacularly, because boards are rubber stampers for whatever management wants. But there is one other psychological factor I'd add to your compelling list, and that's the hero leadership nonsense peddled in business schools since the 80s that has produced a generation of managers who go for bold "glory" projects that will make their names as "leaders." Everyone wants to be a Jack Welch or Steve Jobs or [name your favorite famous leader here], no matter the cost or collateral damage.
Thanks, yeah, the book "How Big Things Get Done" does have some home renovation projects, where their money really WAS on the line.
The "hero leadership" thing might be under Hubris? I think Holmes definitely suffered from that.
This is a great article and really nails it.
I too have been on many projects where what you describe were major issue including a near billion dollar software project in 1990 dollars, that two major companies got roped into funding, which ultimately was scraped! That project always had a schedule of being “just” 2 years from shipping for 6+ years, just enough to always keep the parents paying. It had other internal management issues as well that go beyond what was described here that reinforced the problems you described.
I’ve also worked on very large projects, not quite as large, that succeeded because they were not managed and sold in this way and honestly and appropriate pessimism(reservations/issues) was valued.
The strategy mentioned utilizes a well known psychological blindspot. Robert Cialdini wrote a book called Influence which covers many of these psychological blindspots that are labelled as levers of influence; they are inherent in everyone. They are used in a lot of things, from public relations, but notably also including propaganda and thought reform. Its a very enlightening book into practical psychology if one has a chance to read it.
I did read that, some time ago.
"Blindspots" and now they can call them "biases" and get new scholarly papers out of them. Thanks.
No worries, they have an updated second edition with a lot of additional material.
If your interested in revisiting, other relevant aspects include Sapir-Whorf (or the Whorfian hypothesis), and distorted reflected appraisal (which occurs in many engagement related processes, such as recommender systems and gamification/dark pattern research).