Don’t get me wrong there is nothing like preemptive planing and risk management before an event takes place. A good pre mortem may help everyone out. What I am getting at here are the drama roles that seem to be constant once a project is under way.
The Naysayers: It won’t work. How come? Because. And that is all they got. They do not offer any framework of analysis or method or model or another insightful idea or anything. At some level they are threatened emotionally by the change or probable change and so it is time to invalidate.
The Doubters:Similar to the above this role is more vocal and will provide arm chair quarterback facts and figures to control the failure of the project or event. More of a loud mouth than a silent assassin.
The Critics:The most emotionally invalidating role of them all. Agreed there are models, frameworks and tests that can be conducted and discussed at a pre mortem or as the risk register is updated. I call these the nags and the nit pickers where I feel there is an OCD issue at hand. This is the group to prepare for and always be on the look out for blindside torpedoes to the gig.
I am not trying to evade the fact of conflict in a group or an ad hoc team nor am I a big support of group think or corporate speak. It is the invalidation piece I am after here. There is a time and place and way of surfacing agenda’s that do not fit or at odds with the prevailing thought. Beware of blindside invalidation’s.