I was brought in to contain a technically strong blocker who was holding up an entire S/4 program. That succeeded. Where I failed was with someone I trusted.
The mandate came from the group parent, far from where things were happening: the man at the center, technically strong and untouchable to everyone, needed to be properly reintegrated, and then the program would run. That was how simple it was meant to be.
In the first weeks the diagnosis became clearer than the mandate. There was a document everyone called the blueprint, always with his name in front of it. Either no one knew what was in it, or no one wanted to take responsibility for the content. And it did not read like a blueprint, but like a story. Little lectures on how complexity differs from complication. Notes from the author to himself that he still had to fill in this or that passage. What you would expect when a single person maintains the entire blueprint of an S/4 program alone. Even the project name was unfit for a transformation.
The intervention was clear and ran counter to the original goal: remove the central figure, cover the topics anew, replan cleanly. In the end a solid number was on the table, eighteen months and around three million for the path we recommended. Up to that point it ran.
Where I lied to myself
There was a department head known as a blocker and a hothead. Technically I had little to counter him with, in his field I lacked the depth. So I was glad that my subject-matter co-lead brought a seasoned expert onto the team. The external delivery partner reported that this area was aligned. It was not. And I found out only in the decision meeting itself, in front of everyone.
In hindsight that was my avoidance. I had delegated the unpleasant man and his topic to my team and was relieved not to have to touch it myself. That did not release me from the duty of care for my own team’s work. After the central figure left, a hangover mood set in, and we picked up speed again more slowly. In that phase the department head quietly withdrew from the regular meetings, no time today, sorry, and the direct line was closed. I should have followed up, despite respect and unease, and made clear where we stood. I did not.
Then the decision did not come. It was a polite adjournment, and it took me a while to understand that a polite adjournment at that level is a no. Afterwards a few smaller assignments ran on, and the big program was talked about less and less. My effort to prepare and schedule a second decision was quietly set aside. It was no longer up to me.
The uncomfortable question I have asked myself ever since: do I delegate a topic because it is the right thing, or because it is uncomfortable for me? In the second case I delegate not the work but the diligence. And that stays with me anyway.
My worst rating, 4.5 out of 6, came from this mandate, from a CEO who wrote that I had seemed hesitant. I show this number deliberately, because without the other twelve it says the wrong thing: the average of my thirteen documented client ratings is around 5.6. The 4.5 is the outlier, and it is the most instructive one. The CEO was right. I had only trusted the wrong person and looked too little at the right one.