Lessons from a jerk...

Let's cut to the chase -- The jerk client I blogged about late last week and I are parting ways.  THANK G*D and GOOD RIDDENS!  In fact, it couldn't have happened in a more timely way, or in a nicer-smelling way.  I accomplished what they paid me to do in an initial engagement.  What we didn't do was continue together down the path I laid-out.

(In the interest of fairness, I'm not calling my point of contact a jerk, whatsoever, and, if anyone was a jerk it would be the people he reports to, and I'm not saying they're jerks either, just acting like jerks.)

(Furthermore, while this post seems like it's about a client, it's really not.  It's really about what I learned, and the path I took to get there.  The client is just the "vehicle" for that journey.)

Warning: This post covers a lot of ground.  I'm mostly writing it to explore some ideas and thoughts.

Several interesting observations about myself (hey -- it's my blog) come up from this:

All-the-while last week, I had a feeling that things were not what they "should" (whatever that means) be; but, I was conflicted between I know this is true to the core of my being! and am I making stuff up?  The feeling I had was so strong that it felt like I was experiencing extra-sensory perception.  Like I was tapping into a metaphysical truth in a way I couldn't explain. 

Some might call this nothing more than thin-slicing -- which I've learned I'm really frakking good at in many ways in many subjects.  But this good with people?  And, with such little to go on?

One observation during the week was an "inexplicable" inability for me to communicate with at least one of the two bosses.  *Nothing* I said got through.  I then made certain to pay very close attention to that person whenever I spoke, either to that person or to others.  I glanced their way when I spoke and what I observed was nothing short of bewildering to me.  The moment I opened my mouth, the facial expression was one of "what the f--- is he saying?"  At one point this boss turned to my POC and said, "I have no idea what he just said."  But, it didn't matter what I was saying, this person had already written me off!  But why?

Let's combine that with some warning signs I noted along the way prior to last week's meetings (without analyzing them here):

• Communication was a serious issue that appeared several times right from the start.  (Ex.1. I mentioned I had some time in August to help them.  Without asking me when or telling me their plans, they assumed I'd be available whenever they needed, then gave me a week's notice for dates I'd already committed to another client.  Ex.2. There was a misunderstanding of tasks in my SOW, but rather than discussing them with me, they interpreted the misunderstanding to their advantage, then tried to hold me to account for not following-through.)
• The SOW for me to start the next phase was sitting on the VP's desk with no progress for weeks.
• Despite the "high priority" nature of the project we were on, the VP and the deputy boss could not make time to participate full-time in earlier meetings that set the direction of the project, and continued to be "checked-out" at times throughout last week's meetings.
• In a recent conference call, the VP was literally freaked out at what was being realized as a lot of work -- despite having just laid-out the plan with their involvement... as though that planning session never happened.
• The POC kept having to run interference.  Kept having to play diplomat (not between me and the bosses, but between where the bosses heads were at the current point-in-time and where the same bosses heads were at a previous point-in-time).
• The POC seemed to placate and be entirely powerless to stand up for what's the right thing to do.

There was more than just the feeling itself, but how I was responding/reacting to the feeling and the detail with which I could really articulate the likely issues, why they were happening, and what I could/couldn't do about them (either then or should have done in the past).  Also, what came up for me was blunt-force-trauma-strength validation that I was now seeing the "fruits" of observations I had made (and did nothing about) as many as 4 months ago!

At the end of the week, my top three thoughts were, there are issues with either:

• Budget.
• Personality mismatch between me and the "bosses".  And,
• Missed/Unmet expectations.

As it turns out I was right on all three. 

For those of you who may think that I'm writing this with 20/20 hindsight, I have proof.  The blog entry late last week came from knitting together Tweets from back then.  Since the Tweets were nearly real-time, and the blog entry came later, you can see my Tweets express these thoughts and today's conversations validated them.  With Twitter's limited character count, I put down whatever came first to mind and highest-priority.  In other words, based on intuition (or whatever) I'd nailed what were later revealed as issues.

Here's how it played out:

Earlier this evening I spoke to my POC and in telling me they're not going past this engagement, he offered some "feedback" which included his summary of his bosses' main issue with me as being one of "differences in style and personality", and they were going to look for someone whose personality and style fit their way of working more closely.  Specifically, that they didn't think I was "engaged" enough and that my "multi-tasking" was keeping me from participating.

*FAIL*!  *FAIL*!  *FAIL*!
My B.S. meter went off immediately. 
This was a cover-up for something else. 

At the risk of being *way* conceited, anyone who knows me (or reads my blogs, or has worked with me, learned from me, attended speeches I've delivered, or reads the recommendations on LinkedIn) would know that if you can't get along with me, it's NOT me!

But, that's not the reason for the "fail" and the B.S. meter maxing out.  It's because this was just a B.S. excuse!  You can't blame a difference of personality on multi-tasking! 

In full disclosure, last week was a very tough week at the client.  The meetings were very challenging.  Despite the fact that the meetings were playing out pretty much exactly as me and my POC had planned them -- the "heavy lifting" that was going on was both expected and necessary -- the biggest distractions to the meeting were the two bosses.  Often requiring that we educate them on matters they were not needed to be experts in before allowing the conversation to proceed.  Often asserting their expectation of technological decisions/solutions before any of the intermediate steps were fleshed out.  Frequently bringing up questions that were answered over a month ago at an event specifically designated to address the questions and get their input and approval on.  It would be one thing if they wanted to revisit those decisions and had new input to consider, but that wasn't happening.  Instead they were in need of being brought up to speed as though they weren't at last month's meeting!

So, despite the challenges, despite the distractions, despite the additional scope, the meeting executed as planned and achieved the desired outcomes.  So, if my multi-tasking was detrimental to the meetings, there was no evidence of it.  To the contrary, my not commandeering the meeting was all part of the meeting design.  The participants needed to "own" the outcome.  It couldn't be viewed as "the consultant's creation." 

The purpose of the three days of meetings was to bring together and involve a set of people that had never worked together before, have them come to agreement, put them all "on the same page," and to move them from point "A" to point "B" in not-even three days.

In other words, we were going to do something that had never been done before at this company and those of us involved in planning (and eventually executing) knew it would be hard work.  We told the leadership it would be hard work.  And we told them they needed to be visible and support the effort or we risk losing staff-level buy-in.  We knew we were starting off with a meeting that would be hard work and we knew the work beyond the meeting would be hard work.  But we did it.  The meeting got done what needed to get done and (almost) everyone was on board with the hard work ahead and was looking forward to the benefits that work would bring.

Unfortunately (well, really, fortunately), the work of the meeting was far harder than either of the bosses expected, and, this meeting proved that the effort was really truly going to take the time and resources we said it would take.  And, well, that was just not what the bosses wanted.  They were not on board.

You see, months ago, I told the VP interviewing me that I would get them where they wanted to go.  This person subsequently construed that I had some magic pill into which all the "hard work" required to get there would be stuffed, and that the "hard work" would somehow be consumed (thanks to the magic pill) without any real work, real time, or real cost.

This person simply believed we could -- to invoke my favorite metaphor -- lose weight, gain muscle and be in world-champion shape without getting off the couch or giving up pizza, Twinkies® and beer meals twice a day.  That we could (somehow) transform a bloated set of ill-fitting limitedly used processes into lean, broadly applicable, widely adopted minimal process effortlessly.  As if miniaturizing anything has ever been easy!  Whether electronics, writing, or processes, big and bloated is far easier than tight and concise!  (Just look at this post!)

Amazing that this person not only started and owned a successful company, but sold it, did well, and became a VP in the company that bought it!  What ever happened to the lessons people learn when starting up their company?  Maybe they never learned any lessons.  Maybe it was "too easy" and due to certain timing and other circumstances, they never really had to worry too much about anything harder than top-line growth.

Had last week's meetings been less bumpy.  Had the "process" we followed been less abstract.  Had all the answers we identified been easy, airy, light and bubbly, my "multi-tasking" would not have even been noticed!  The facts are, this was tough stuff and the leadership wanted "easy" not hard.  Facts that they brought with them to the meeting!  They knew, going in, that they weren't happy with me.  They knew, going in, that I was likely done there.  At best, this meeting was a test to see if I could salvage myself in their eyes and "finally" make it make easy sense.  It was just too hard, and it was my fault.  They expected me to come in and make it easy, but that's not what I said I'd do and it's not what I went there to do.

So, what we've covered is that personality was part of the "issues" I was feeling -- even though it was used as a lame excuse about me and my style, it was about the leadership's personality that was being rubbed the wrong way by their petulant whine for things being too hard.  Budget was part of the "issues" because the harder the work, the more budget they needed. 

And, finally, expectations were clearly part of the issues.  In fact, expectations were the only real issue.  And, that one I can, at least, own a little bit of.

I knew within a month or so of getting on contract that the VP to whom I made my pitch had already filtered the "meat" of the conversation and sifted out the bits that were all about the heavy lifting.  I learned that my saying "I have experience and processes to get you there" was later interpreted as, "he has templates and canned procedures that we can copy and force everyone to use," among other variations of that failure of an idea.

What's the lesson?

There are actually many lessons.  One which stands out is that I must.not.ignore my instincts about people. 

If something "smells off" I need to square away with the involved party immediately.  And, I cannot let intermediaries deal with it for me.  If I'm being misrepresented or misunderstood, take it to the source.  And, if an intermediary insists on being the interlocutor -- walk.  Or, if the immediate party insists on my using the interlocutor -- walk.

I learned that when the person calling the shots is disconnected from the person in charge of the work, then going to the person who calls the shots is essential -- to help them be content so that the person charged with doing the work can succeed.

I learned that when I "smell" that someone's expectations are misplaced, I must deal with it personally and quickly.  When it comes to clients, I *really* need to connect with them when the "gold owner" is emitting the smell of unmet expectations.  AND, often, the unmet expectations are due to a twisting of the original expectations which means that revisiting the expectations often is unequivocally required.

I've known these lessons for a long time, but for some reason I was missing the signs of the need to apply them.  Well, that's one way to look at it.  Another way is that in this case I was led away from dealing with the signs because in the end, not having them as a client is for the best, of course. 

Early on, I saw the need for creating a charter.  What I didn't realize then was the need to go back and make sure we're on the same page for whether the charter is even worth the effort.

I'm not sure, in this case, whether any preventive measures would have stuck, would have worked, or would have prevented (rather than merely delayed) the outcome. 

Though, what I can't do is let that sort of thinking be an excuse for stopping me from doing what needs to be done.  Namely, addressing the "smells" of unmet expectations immediately and creating a communication cycle that is frequent and deep.  Especially with those whose expectations call the shots.

What really gets me the most is that there are now at least two people in a very large company that have manufactured a very unfair "position statement" about me.  More importantly, people who my "spidey senses" tell me are highly likely to bad-mouth me on something that really wasn't at issue at all (in reality -- they've made it an issue in their heads as the means to justify their ends). 

Sigh.  In my pursuit of being unstoppable and being the possibility of integrity, authenticity, inspiration and power, I think this is all leading me to what I need to do in a few months:  make an appointment to meet with the VP to clear the air. 

Right now, a huge and growing part of me is saying that doing so is a waste of time because someone who has come this far without the ability to see their role in this outcome is not likely to acquire it any time soon.  (In our exit conversation tonight, the POC indicated that this turn fits earlier patterns.)  Another part of me still isn't sure what the purpose of such a meeting would be.  What do I want from it?  For them to see that this was really all about their immaturity?  No, that won't work. 

So, then, what?