12 Cluelessness

Cluelessness typically means a lack of understanding or knowledge—the state of being totally uninformed about something or not having any idea what is happening. In project management, cluelessness refers more to a lack of awareness than a lack of information, and it can have a significant effect on project success and team morale.

The Sin

In the early 19th century, Franz Liszt, the great Hungarian pianist and composer, was performing a concert when the Russian czar, Nicholas I, made a rather noisy, grand entrance. Even after he had been seated, Nicholas continued to talk loudly with members of his entourage, disturbing not only the musicians but also the audience. Liszt, realizing that Nicholas had no intention of being quiet, stopped performing and bowed his head. Nicholas, noticing the silence, sent one of his aides to find out why the concert had ended. “Music herself should be silent when Nicholas speaks,” Liszt responded. Nicholas greeted Liszt’s message with a nod and a brief smile and sent the aide back with a request that Liszt continue the concert. Liszt obliged and finished performing for a captive audience, including the now-quiet, attentive czar.

Project managers who commit the sin of cluelessness are often like Nicholas—unaware of the consequences of their behavior. Cluelessness refers to a lack of awareness, not merely a lack of information, and it can affect project success and team morale. Nicholas didn’t realize his antics would cause the concert to end. Liszt courageously and tactfully gave Nicholas a clue, and Nicholas listened, learned, and changed his behavior. Regrettably, some clueless project managers and team members don’t learn and change as quickly as Nicholas did.

A Case of Cluelessness

One case of cluelessness involved a newly hired senior official; let’s call her “Bea.” Bea was full of energy and enthusiasm, but she was also notoriously clueless. The company she worked for, Mucho Grande, had a reputation for honesty and fair play that had been built over many years. Customers trusted the company, and Mucho Grande’s employees were proud of the company’s reputation.

One of Bea’s first initiatives was to change resource management providers. Mucho Grande had outgrown the level of resource management services provided by Mid-Size Resources, so Bea asked Large-Size Resources to prepare a list of services it could provide. The CEO of Mid-Size got wind of Bea’s request and inquired about it. Bea assured him that everything was fine and that Mid-Size would have a fair opportunity to compete for the work. Bea secretly asked Large-Size to assist in the preparation of a request for proposals (RFP) that Mucho Grande then issued only to Large-Size, giving the company a two-week deadline.

On the Friday afternoon before the Monday-morning deadline, Bea sent the RFP to Mid-Size. On Monday morning, Bea declared the hurriedly prepared proposal from Mid-Size inferior to the proposal provided by Large-Size and awarded the contract to Large-Size. When the CEO of Mid-Size complained about the way his company had been treated after 10 years of service, Bea honestly didn’t have a clue why the CEO was angry. She had simply pursued a goal to upgrade resource management providers, so what was the problem? Bea had not given Mid-Size a fair chance to win the contract, but she had accomplished her objective and was then ready to move on to her next project. It wasn’t personal—it was just business. What she didn’t realize was that she had just damaged Mucho Grande’s reputation for honesty and created an environment of distrust among Mucho Grande’s customers, clients, and staff.

The consequences within Mucho Grande were devastating. Once word leaked about the way Bea had treated Mid-Size, Mucho Grande staff felt disgusted and began to question their continued association with the company. Two key staff members resigned and those who remained started looking over their shoulders, wondering if they would be the next victim of Bea’s cluelessness. Senior leadership, finally tiring of Bea’s actions, fired her—and she never understood why.

Bea had become successful because she met her deadlines, generated a healthy revenue stream from her contracts, and was more than a little intimidating. She was a bit rough around the edges, and some senior managers thought she was more trouble than she was worth. Nevertheless, as the old Woody Allen joke goes, management decided not to convince her she wasn’t a chicken because they needed the eggs.

Unfortunately for Bea, nobody helped her understand her faults and their consequences early in her career, and as she was promoted over time, fewer and fewer people were in a position to advise her. Instead of confronting her, Bea’s superiors ignored the problem and thereby enabled her bad habits.

Tips for Keeping Cluelessness at Bay

Explain to a clueless employee why a particular action was inappropriate and had significant consequences. If clueless people can learn to think before they act, perhaps by finding someone to consult before they take actions that might have unintended consequences, they may be able to learn to act more appropriately.

Minimize the damage. Sometimes you end up with clueless people on your team because of a corporate policy that assigns “deadheads” (not the Grateful ones) to a project just to keep them billable until they can be replaced by more qualified personnel. There may not be anything you can do to change the corporate policy, but you can try to minimize the damage caused by a clueless team member—perhaps by putting him or her in a corner and withholding important assignments and sharp objects!

Do not let cluelessness slide and hope someone else will take responsibility for the consequences.