notes-group-politicalProblemsInGroups

Often you hear that a project is having 'political problems'. In a person of a certain mindset, this arouses a fear; there is a whole class of failure mode that you don't know about. "Political problems? What does that mean? How should I try to avoid political problems in projects that I participate in? I don't even know what kinds of political problems are possible." To begin in answering the last sentence, I'll try to make a list of kinds of ways that a project has 'political trouble'. I use the word 'political' here loosely; you might think that some of these problems aren't really 'political'; sorry.

Note that many of the 'problems' on this list have multiple points of view. Sometimes I try to list the problem from both points of view, sometimes not. Also, some of these 'problems' are not really a 'problem' but just a discussion over alternatives for resolving some other problem.

• New people keep showing up and disputing the group's rules. Old-timers resent having to spent time having the same argument again and again. Newcomers either (a) dispute that the rules are really rules or that the old-timers have any authority to make rules, or (b) resent the old-timers being set in their ways, or (c) eventually accept the rules but think that they weren't very clearly stated, or (d) think the rules are obviously either stupid or unethical.
• There is a person who is considered to be in charge but that person is too busy with other stuff to really move things forward as fast as others would like.
• There is a person who is causing trouble. Some group members think that the offender should be efficiently disciplined or expelled without wasting more time on the issue, others think that they should be gently reasoned with.
• Some of the members of the group decides to split off and create their own similar group. They would prefer to stay on friendly terms with the original group but the original group sees this as an act of war. Perhaps the splitters see themselves as not competing but the others see them as competing. Or perhaps the splitters think splitting and competing is a friendly thing to do but the others see it as unfriendly.
• There is a disagreement on something. Some of the group thinks that some formal decision process should be used to quickly reach a decision (or perhaps they think the group should split), without wasting a lot of time in discussion. Others think rough consensus should be reached through a discussion, lengthly though it may be.
• There is a formal procedure in place for doing something. Some members of the group feel that the procedure is not well motivation, and ignore the procedure and focus on what they see as 'results'. Some other members feel that the procedure in question is there for a good reason and feel that the 'results-oriented' rebels are doing the group a disservice. The 'results-oriented' members lament 'bureaucracy' and feel underappreciated for the results they deliver.
• One person is seen to have 'gamed' the formal decision-making machinery to 'take over' the group. Perhaps this person sees their actions of a legitimate usage of the decision-making machinery to achieve a fair result; or perhaps they would (if only in their heart) agree that they 'stole' the group but don't care.
• The people previously in charge of a group give formal authority to someone else, with what they believe is an informal understanding that they will still be in charge, mostly. However later on there is an important disagreement between them and the person to whom they have given formal authority and that person uses their formal authority to get their way.
• There is a community of people but the formal authority for the project rests with some entity not formally accountable to the community. The entity takes some action that the community feels ruins the spirit of the project, or that sacrifices its long-term potential for short-term gains.
• A group of people all have shared power. But then some of these people turn against others and strip them of their power.
• Two people have equal power. But they cannot agree on a choice that needs to be decided. The choice is simply not made, much to the detriment of the project.
• Two people have equal power. One of them appeals, possibly secretly and without warning, to an outside authority to strip the other person of their power.
• A member of the group wants to be promoted. Some of the more senior people argue that they should not be promoted. The member who wants to be promoted feels that they are keeping em down out of self-interest (or possibly just because they are blind to the truth of something that this member argues for). The member who wants to be promoted attempts to expose this and destroy the reputation of those of the more senior people who oppose their promotion.
• There is a leader of a subgroup within the group. This leader wants to be promoted, but are not. This leader leaves the project and either joins or forms a competing group, taking many of their teammembers with them.
• There are different people doing different tasks within the project. Some of these people feel that their role is underappreciated, and that due to this their suggestions about how their work should be prioritized or structured is ignored, to the detriment of the entire group.
• Many newcomers join the project. These newcomers listen to a charismatic group member who 'rewrites history' and minimizes the importance of many of the old-timers.
• There is a manager within the project who is good. But then a new manager is brought in above them who is not good. The old, good manager tries to protect people from bad decisions of their boss, earning the enmity of the new boss. The new boss lets it be known that they don't like the old, good manager, and that anyone who supports them will make an enemy of the new boss.
• There is a manager within the project who is good. They encourage subordinates to freely share certainly kinds of information with them, promising that no harm shall come of it. But then a new manager is brought in above them who is not good. After this, a subordinate shares information with the old, good manager, but the old, good manager is forced to re-share this with the new, bad manager, who then punishes the subordinate.
• Almost all members of the group put a premium on being generally upstanding and respectful. But then one or a few members of the group do something disrespectful, but not unethical or illegal, to someone outside of the group. The outside person demands compensation, and the group refuses, on the grounds that there was no actual rules broken. The outside person convinces the public that the group is bad.
• Most members of a group put a premium on being rule abiding. But the group's enemies plant an agent provacateur who joins the group and then breaks rules, getting the whole group in trouble.
• Most members of a group put a premium on being rule abiding. But the group's enemies plant an agent provacateur who joins the group and then encourages others to break rules, getting the whole group in trouble.
• The group's enemies plant an agent who joins the group and then attempts to destroy the reputation of the group's leadership.
• Some powerful member of the group is accused of doing something bad. The group investigates this, but the official conclusion is that there isn't enough evidence to determine if they actually did the bad thing, so they don't punish them. This result is considered unethical by those who believe that the person did the bad thing (which may include a large portion of the group, or of the public). Some people believe that those in charge of the investigation were biased towards a finding of innocence.
• Some person in the group states a proposition or a suggestion for action. Others find the proposition or suggestion offensive, and demand that the first person be punished or expelled. The person who stated it claims that e should not be punished for trying to contribute to the group's discourse, and that furthermore what e said wasn't offensive, and that the others either are refusing to face reality, or are twisting eir words. The others claim that the person is not arguing in good faith, and is trying to cloak something offensive under technicalities.
• A project grows and becomes more successful, and many newcomers join. The old-timers feel that many of the newcomers have impure motivations and are ruining the culture of the project. The newcomers feel that the old-timers are elitists who undervalue the newcomers' contributions.
• Many of the project's key decision-makers also have a stake in clients/customers of the project, or in other related projects. It is thought by some that these decision-makers force a decision which help their other projects at the expense of this one, for example, to purchase from some particular supplier, to give good terms to some client, or to choose not to compete with some related project.
• The project would be well-served by doing X. But doing X would make Y obsolete, and Person A is in charge of Y. People are reluctant to advocate X because they don't want to do anything to hurt the standing of Person A (either because they like A, or because A might punish people who threatens their standing).
• Person A has publicly stated a belief in X. Some people believe not-X, but people are reluctant to advocate not-X because they don't want to do anything to hurt the standing of Person A (either because they like A, or because A might punish people who threatens their standing).
• Belief X has become part of the social identity of the group. However, there is new evidence that makes X less likely to be true. People in the group may not (openly state, or maybe not even believe in their own mind) a reduced confidence in X because profession of a belief in X would send a social message.
• Part of the social glue holding the group together is an opposition to an external competitor. The group might antagonize or focus attention on worrying about what this external competitor is doing, even when a better thing to do might be to cooperate with or ignore them.
• One of the project's founders does a lot less work than the other one and/or doesn't expedite signing formal papers, etc. The other founder(s) try to push them out but they cling to their role as founder, and try to get the public's sympathy for being attacked.