Harmful advice or behavioral aspects of the failure to perform tasks in telecom

Instead of the preface

It so happened that I received my management experience in the telecommunications industry not “thanks”, but “despite”. Somehow it all went through thorns. From above, some paradigms like “we work with those who are, always and don’t need others,” “do not know how to teach, do not want to force,” “can fool with money and help, and try so” and etc. The “world theory and practice of management” was addressed by everyone when they came up against a barrier that no one understood how to overcome.

So, in his professional activity, when analyzing the “not entirely successful” experience of interacting with colleagues on a number of projects, he highlighted the following “behavioral aspects” or “sabotage methods” that are used by some technical (and sometimes not very) employees as an excuse for failure tasks, or when they need to perform these tasks, but I don’t want to see the horror.

Type 1 (the simplest and most obvious)

"I am very busy and did not have time to do it." A universal behavioral aspect that can be used to justify the non-fulfillment of any tasks, at any time, and by any category of employees upon the expiration of the task.

Disadvantages:
- “reduced to nothing” with questions like “what exactly did you do?” Or “didn’t you allocate 1 hour in 2 weeks?”, Or “you set your own deadlines, you could notify everyone in advance that you don’t have time ";
- the professional authority of the saboteur can be “trampled” with any phrase like “the man said - did the man do?” Or something like that.
')

Type 2 (already harder, for “the best defense is attack”)

“I thought, we probably don’t need this task (or are no longer relevant).” This is a more advanced behavioral aspect that requires a good knowledge of the issue, because this statement will have to be justified.

Disadvantages:
- “reduced to nothing” with questions like “do you want to say that we have been dealing with this issue for a month now?”;
- as a result, the authority of the saboteur is “trampling down” by the further outrage of the surrounding colleagues, who, with his words “have been doing nonsense for a month now”;
- with sufficient support from surrounding colleagues, you can "finish off the saboteur with a control shot": "the smartest?".

3 type (proactive tactic “the best defense is attack” rules)

“I don’t quite understand the purpose of my actions, let's make a roadmap (plan, algorithm, method) of our actions and agree on it, let's formulate the task again” and so on. At the moment, the most serious, found in the way of sabotage, sorry, behavioral aspect.

Disadvantages:
- it is necessary to work anyway, though now on the applied topics to the initial task (drawing up plans, algorithms, “roadmaps”);
- strongly smacks of red tape, because you need to constantly maintain the appearance of the process of activity;
- annoying those around you, you can get the label of a slacker, who "will do everything not to work."

4 type (for "competent professionals")

Immediately say "no" or "it is not possible" and justify why.

Disadvantages:
- it is necessary to know the discussed question very well, to be able to answer the questions “why is that?”, To convince everyone that they are right;
- if this “impossible” is done by other colleagues (“if you want to do something competently - do it yourself”), and quite quickly, then the professional authority of the saboteur will be hopelessly undermined - then you can only use the first 3 methods, because from “league competent professionals "expelled, if no one intervenes.

If these 4 behavioral aspects are combined with periodic multi-valued silence and avoiding direct open questions, then there is a chance to leave the meeting "not plucked and undefeated."