Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Countering the Everything is 'on fire' and jump ahead tactics
Combined this into a bit of a case study as I see these tactics used together a lot like a jab, cross.
Problem Statement
Our communications team got a particular project handover activity assigned to our team (the analysts). Then are saying that we're not organised, they're uncomfortable etc. ...its a disaster.
The Power Play
Specifically Comms Lead said she wasn't sure a handover activity was covered and asked the head of the project managers to escalate it to the program director
Definite power play - we've had meetings and emails with her on that activity. She knows its in our plan and is being worked on. Also it shouldn't be top priority as we're still building. Can't handover until its built!
Motivation
My guess is 3 motives:
- point scoring - win/lose game
- make themselves look good with client (they've got enough involvement and own the relationship so they can cherry-pick what's going well (it was a mess but we sorted out the analysts and you got this shiny thing)
- get their work prioritised (i.e. we'll kills ourselves growing the cherries they pick) while trying to do our other work
Main Tactics
I think this is a combination of 2 tactics I often see used together
Everything's on fire - when you ask them what their concerns are they time limit the conversation and bring up a number of (often un-related issues). A variation of this is when they ask you a number of questions and don't give you time to answer or cut you short and hit you with the next one.  The really nasty players will then say you couldn't answer any of their concerns and escalate to Exec. The 'throw mud first' keep the opponent on the back foot play.
Jump ahead/fast forward - they point to something we have planned which isn't scheduled yet and say its a gap (the squeaking wheel play).
This one starts with calling out a gap. Once there's a 'gap' they have the power. So I'm thinking stop hit (intercept the attack). I guess we could say its trying to reframe from 'we have a gap' to 'we have a process that will handle that'. Similar to John's nice general tactic:
I would say:
"That's in the plan and We’re working through that process. "
If they are really determined and go again:
"There's a few conversations to be had. We have a plan lets work it and adjust as we go."
I've seen these two tactics used at my last 3 workplaces. So I'd like to discuss different ways of handling and what frame and delivery would work well. I'm sure this is covered in PU and other threads but because its a common combo attack I think there's value in discussing as a combo.
Everything's on fire - when you ask them what their concerns are they time limit the conversation and bring up a number of (often un-related issues). A variation of this is when they ask you a number of questions and don't give you time to answer or cut you short and hit you with the next one.  The really nasty players will then say you couldn't answer any of their concerns and escalate to Exec. The 'throw mud first' keep the opponent on the back foot play.
Yeah, this is similar to what the politicians often do when there is a senate hearing.
The hearing is often more to showcase how "tough" they are, than in actually understanding things.
So the focus is on the questions, not on the answers.
In my opinion, this is where showing strength -but without turning into a race, of course- helps.
The message you want to send is "I'm on top of things and I'm not going to be your sacrificial lamb to look good. If you escalate, I will shame you by showing that everything was under control, and you annoyed people by crying wolf for nothing".
I get the concept. I m just wondering how best to head it off without getting into the low power position of justifying your plan.
What I want to avoid is prioritising the work of those who make noise because then you re just rewarding them for bad behaviour.
Hey T.,
Giving specific answers and techniques without a case study / example is difficult (and likely wouldn't apply to many situations, too).
The mindset, in my opinion, is this:
I'm on top of things and I'm not going to be your sacrificial lamb to look good. If you escalate, I will shame you by showing that everything was under control, and you annoyed people by crying wolf for nothing.
And then standard drawing boundaries.
If someone doesn't let you finish your answer, you make sure that you do control the tempo and the frame at least to avoid you get cornered.
And if they don't let you finish an answer, I'd make sure that you do finish it, somehow, even if that's just to make a point that you aren't dancing on their tune.
One way of doing it without escalating is to let them come up with the new question, but then you don't answer the new question, but say something like "yeah, before answering that and changing topic, I prefer to finish the previous one".
