Part 6 — The Withdrawal of a Critical Resource#
We’ve got a problem.
Our most important resource has withdrawn from the project.
He’s still on site.
He’s just not doing the work.
Unfortunately, the rest of the project appears to have been designed around the assumption that he would.
Welcome back to Troy.
We have a critical resource dependency problem.
And, as of Book 9, we also have a resource retention problem.
Excellent.
So, how’s the project going?#
Not brilliantly.
The Trojans are gaining ground, the Greeks are struggling, and the absence of Achilles is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Now, we’ve already covered the spectacular breakdown in stakeholder relations between Achilles and Agamemnon.
I’m not going to revisit that whole argument.
Suffice to say, the executive sponsor has managed to alienate one of the project’s most valuable contributors, and that contributor has decided he’s had quite enough.
Which is unfortunate, because Achilles isn’t just another soldier.
He’s an exceptionally capable warrior whose contribution has become enormously important to the Greek campaign.
And now he’s sitting out.
The Greeks still have plenty of talented people. Odysseus, Ajax and Diomedes haven’t suddenly forgotten how to fight.
But losing Achilles has exposed something rather uncomfortable.
The project was far more dependent on one person than anyone seems to have adequately planned for.
The risk has become an issue#
Achilles withdrawing isn’t the underlying risk.
The risk was that the Greek army had become so dependent on his participation that losing him could seriously compromise their ability to deliver.
His withdrawal is the event that exposed it.
And now the Greeks are dealing with the consequences.
Which brings us to a question I would very much like to ask whoever was maintaining the project risk register:
Did nobody consider what would happen if Achilles became unavailable?
Not necessarily because he was angry.
What if he was injured?
What if he decided to leave?
What if he simply wasn’t available when the army needed him?
Having someone exceptionally capable on your team is wonderful.
Building a delivery strategy that only works while that person remains available is rather less wonderful.
And it isn’t necessarily that person’s fault.
The retention strategy#
By Book 9, Agamemnon has realised that things are going badly enough to warrant an intervention.
So he assembles a truly extraordinary retention package.
Treasure. Horses. Women. Marriage arrangements. Future rewards.
It’s quite a lot.
Then he sends Odysseus, Phoenix and Ajax to negotiate Achilles’ return.
Which, in modern corporate terms, is a fairly senior delegation for a performance and retention conversation.
They arrive.
Achilles welcomes them.
They talk.
They explain the offer.
And Achilles says no.
Oh.
Resource retention strategy: unsuccessful.
Now, to be fair, Achilles has a genuine grievance.
He was publicly dishonoured by Agamemnon, and the damage wasn’t simply financial.
This is about respect, status, trust, and how he’s been treated.
Agamemnon is offering an enormous amount of compensation.
But compensation isn’t necessarily reconciliation.
And Achilles doesn’t appear particularly interested in pretending otherwise.
There’s something very familiar about an organisation discovering that a valuable person is unhappy and responding with a bigger offer, without quite resolving the reason they became unhappy in the first place.
Sometimes the problem isn’t what you’re offering.
It’s what happened before the offer.
Meanwhile, the rest of the team…#
This is where I started getting a bit frustrated with Achilles.
Because I understand why he’s angry.
I really do.
Agamemnon behaved appallingly.
And I don’t think Achilles should be expected to simply forget it because someone has arrived with a spectacular pile of presents.
BUT MATE. PEOPLE ARE DYING.
Your colleagues are fighting for their lives.
The situation is deteriorating.
And at some point, I found myself wanting to climb into the book, walk into Achilles’ tent and say:
“BRO. WHEN WILL ENOUGH BE ENOUGH?”
I appreciate that this is not a particularly sophisticated diplomatic intervention.
But neither, apparently, is offering someone an enormous pile of treasure and hoping the underlying problem goes away.
And this is the part I find genuinely difficult.
I can understand Achilles’ reasons without necessarily agreeing with what he’s doing.
I can recognise that Agamemnon caused the breakdown without believing Achilles’ decisions have no consequences for anyone else.
Both things can be true.
The person who caused the problem isn’t automatically the only person with choices left to make.
And the people suffering the consequences aren’t necessarily the people who caused the dispute.
Two problems, not one#
The Greeks have a dependency problem and a relationship problem.
Even if Achilles returns, the army is still vulnerable if it can’t function effectively without him.
And even if the Greeks develop better contingency arrangements, that won’t magically repair the damage between Achilles and Agamemnon.
These problems are connected.
But they aren’t the same problem.
Which means they probably need different solutions.
The project continues#
So here we are.
The critical resource remains unavailable.
The executive sponsor has made an offer.
The retention delegation has returned without securing the desired outcome.
And the remaining team is still expected to deliver.
I imagine the project status meeting is going to be an absolute delight.
Because if your entire project depends on one person coming back, you don’t just have a resource retention problem.
You’ve got a project problem.
And in Troy’s case, quite a lot of people would probably appreciate someone doing something about it.
Preferably before the next battle.
Originally published on LinkedIn.