I work in a unit where communication between different people and teams isn't functioning well. That is a problem in itself. But since, after trying for months, I came to the conclusion I can't change the culture in the unit, I wouldn't like to focus on it here.
The problem is this: Some colleagues are working on a project or change without explaining it to other people or just explaining it in very, very general terms. Questions are answered very generally ("the decision won't have consequences for you", etc.). People affected aren't consulted or even informed about changes till the last moment.
Then they tell the rest of the group what decisions have been taken or I learn from other sources a bit more about the consequences the decisions have for the rest of us. And they are often really bad. To give you an example, in one case, a decision was taken, which could make our work break the law in the country.
When I learn about the decisions, which as I say is normally in the very last moment, I bring the risks up.
Then I'm branded a negative person by our boss. The risks I point to aren't put into question - these are objective risks, but I'm criticized for even bringing them up.
I'm not sure how I should tackle similar situations in the future:
- If I don't point to specific risks not being considered, projects will be implemented, which have negative consequences for both the organization (non-compliance, etc.) and me (a sometimes hugely increased workload which will make my work simply impossible)
- If I bring it up, I'm branded a troublemaker. I'm asked why I haven't signaled it before. When I explain I've just learned about it, I'm branded "not proactive".
Any ideas what a good strategy to deal with such a situation is? I use an objective tone and factual information when pointing to risks and negative consequences.