Last time, we introduced scopemonging — the use of gradual, planned scope expansion for political ends or to overcome organizational obstacles. By first gaining approval for something reasonable and less ambitious, scopemongers manipulate the organization into attempting something that's unreasonable or overly ambitious.
When the tactic is successful, scopemongers commandeer resources already committed elsewhere. They place the organization at risk, and their actions can result in severe stress and overwork for the people around them.
We examined several indicators of possible scopemonging last time. Here are a few more.
- In for a penny, in for a pound
- Sometimes, later in the project, the scopemonger asserts that we've committed such a high level of resources to the project already that we cannot "afford" to fail. Ironically, scope expansion itself often presents even greater threats to the organization than failure would .
- To refute their arguments, focus on increased costs and on how scope expansion threatens the probability of success. If the scopemonger has used the same tactic in the past, point to that and ask, "When will this end?"
- There are always those who want to carry out tasks that aren't yet budgeted or that are inconsistent with the organizational mission. Perhaps they want to work with a new technology or try a novel strategy, or there might be a feature they've long wanted to add. Scopemongers sometimes bribe these people by advocating for these items as a means of winning allies within the project team.
- If you suspect scopemonging, describe the bribery tactic to colleagues in advance of its use. Gain commitment to a united position opposing scope expansion by identifying bribery as a tool of scopemongers.
- Scopemongers also use flattery to elevate and manipulate the leading team members. They might say, "We want you to do this work, because frankly, we think you're the only ones up to the challenge."
- Flattery is Scopemongers place the organization
at risk, and their actions can result
in severe stress and overwork
for the people around themespecially helpful when success requires beyond-the-call-of-duty effort by the people flattered. Flattery can distort judgment. It can make the flattered believe that the impossible is possible and that the unsuitable is suitable.
- Migration patterns
- Sometimes the organization successfully resists scope creep, and the scopemonger moves on, seeking a more vulnerable piece of the organization. Often, he or she then targets for acquisition the same resources previously targeted, now using a different project as a base.
- In some ways, the scopemonger behaves like the mole in Whack-a-Mole. Defeat scopemongers in one place, and up they pop somewhere else, again trying to expand the scope of some project or other.
Because scopemongers can create stress and push people to the edge of burnout and beyond, they can harm the organization even when their tactics "succeed." The damage they do isn't always immediately apparent, but it is real and it is expensive. 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
For more about scope creep, see "Ground Level Sources of Scope Creep," Point Lookout for July 18, 2012; "The Perils of Political Praise," Point Lookout for May 19, 2010; "Scopemonging: When Scope Creep Is Intentional," Point Lookout for August 22, 2007; "Some Causes of Scope Creep," Point Lookout for September 4, 2002; "The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Strategy," Point Lookout for June 29, 2011; and "The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Task Duration," Point Lookout for June 22, 2011.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenULfiOipOAKaOuuVIner@ChacgLSHuyIjpFlPECAIoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Devious Political Tactics: The Three-Legged Race
- The Three-Legged Race is a tactic that some managers use to avoid giving one person new authority. Some
of the more cynical among us use it to sabotage projects or even careers. How can you survive a three-legged
- Communication Traps for Virtual Teams: II
- Communication can be problematic for any team, especially under pressure. But virtual teams face challenges
that are less common in face-to-face teams. Here's Part II of a little catalog with some recommendations.
- How Pet Projects Get Resources: Abuse
- Pet projects thrive in many organizations — even those that are supposedly "lean and mean."
Some nurturers of pet projects abuse their authority to secure resources for their pets. How does this happen?
- Kinds of Organizational Authority: the Formal
- A clear understanding of Power, Authority, and Influence depends on familiarity with the kinds of authority
found in organizations. Here's Part I of a little catalog of authority classes.
- The Power and Hazards of Anecdotes: II
- Anecdotes are powerful tools of persuasion, but with that power comes a risk that we might become persuaded
of false positions. Here is Part II of a set of examples illustrating some hazards of anecdotes.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming March 28: Four Overlooked Email Risks: II
- Email exchanges are notorious for exposing groups to battles that would never occur in face-to-face conversation. But email has other limitations, less-often discussed, that make managing dialog very difficult. Here's Part II of an exploration of some of those risks. Available here and by RSS on March 28.
- And on April 4: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: III
- People who behave narcissistically tend to regard themselves as special. They systematically place their own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this part of the series we consider how this claimed specialness affects the organization and its people. Available here and by RSS on April 4.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDHZkOPQTPsHdBBeAner@ChacuWlhOiohpAaUbPdHoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, 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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.