{"id":7213,"date":"2025-11-26T14:47:49","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T13:47:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/web-dev-weissblau.de\/microconsult\/?p=7213"},"modified":"2026-02-14T17:15:51","modified_gmt":"2026-02-14T16:15:51","slug":"project-crises-and-the-sinking-of-the-titanic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.microconsult.de\/en\/projektkrisen-und-der-untergang-der-titanic\/","title":{"rendered":"Project crises and the sinking of the Titanic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Crisis meeting: The customer has angrily berated the boss. The recently delivered machine is malfunctioning sporadically. The boss is visibly agitated. He yells, accompanied by a powerful slam of his fist on the table: "The machine isn't running properly! The customer is threatening legal action. What went wrong?"\u201e<\/strong><\/p>\n

In such situations, it's helpful to be familiar with the nuances of human communication. How quickly a team moves from a state of shock to a solution depends largely on its communication skills. The more complex the technical or human challenge, the more crucial this ability becomes. Everything we do contributes to communication \u2013 even passive silence. "We cannot\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0\u201cCommunicate,\u201d as Paul Watzlawick, one of the great communication scientists, very aptly put it.<\/p>\n

Psychologists have developed a very helpful model of communication. This model assumes that every message contains not only information about the subject matter, but also something about the sender and their relationship to the receiver. Finally, it also contains an appeal to the receiver. We speak, so to speak, with four "tongues" and, accordingly, listen with four "ears.".<\/p>\n

The best way to explain this model is using our crisis meeting as an example. Let's first consider the boss's statement. Clearly, it contains more than just the factual information that a machine has failed. This simple statement carries additional messages. It expresses his current mood (e.g., "I'm furious!"), describes his relationship with his employees (e.g., "I'm the boss, and it's all your fault!"), and finally, includes a plea (e.g., "Give me a scapegoat!"). Even if not all of these messages are explicitly communicated verbally, they are conveyed through tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures. The extent to which these four different "tongues" shape the message depends on the sender's personality, history, and current situation.<\/p>\n

How might the message affect the recipients? They have four "ears" with which they filter out their interpretation of the factual message, the self-disclosure, the relationship message, and the appeal. The hardware technician, for example, "objectively" assumes that it must be a software problem anyway. The self-disclosure ear of the project manager sees his boss as an unreasonable hothead. The relationship ear of the inexperienced software technician fears that he will be made the scapegoat. The appeal ear of the seasoned professional hears that a justification is due. He prepares his defense speech as a precaution. Obviously, the interpretation of the partial messages also depends on the personality, background, and current situation of each individual recipient.<\/p>\n

This example makes it clear that factual information isn't necessarily the most important factor for either the boss or the developers. The boss might primarily want to vent. The software developers feel personally threatened. The factual aspect of the communication can be vividly compared to the tip of an iceberg protruding from the water. But since the sinking of the Titanic, we know which part of the iceberg is significantly larger and more dangerous.<\/p>\n

So how does the typical "homo technicus," that is, engineer and technician, react? They act as if only the objective level exists and react superficially objectively. Let's assume the people on the team suspect that a scapegoat is being sought. They will try to pass the buck. The tester didn't test well enough, the developer didn't program cleanly, the system architect specified imprecisely, and the project management failed. Emails are exchanged, memos and minutes are dissected, technical trenches are dug, and organizational defenses are erected. On the surface, everything remains nicely objective, but beneath the surface, tensions are simmering.<\/p>\n

Perhaps something surprising will happen, and a frustrated colleague will suddenly speak out quite frankly: \u201eThis whole petty squabble is taking the joy out of my work. I don\u2019t want to be afraid to talk about what went wrong. I wish we could talk openly about what\u2019s on our minds, how we feel about each other, and what we truly want. Only then can we leverage our strengths, identify our weaknesses, and find solutions. We\u2019re all in this together.\u201c Finally, it\u2019s out. Awkward silence. No one had dared to say it before, and many wouldn\u2019t have been able to express it that way. No problem: Communication beyond the purely factual can be learned and is a crucial factor for success.<\/p>\n

Anyone who thinks they can do without it should think about the fate of the Titanic.<\/p>\n

Tips for your communication: Request them now!<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

I welcome your suggestions at\u00a0denkanstoss@microconsult.de<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Peter Siwon<\/p>\n

Test: How well do you communicate between the lines?<\/h2>\n

Imagine that a software program has returned from testing for the third time with errors. As project manager, you say to the responsible software developer: "I'm curious to see if the software will be running flawlessly next week!"\u201e<\/p>\n

Questions:<\/strong><\/p>\n