Even the ones who saw this coming probably had no real way to work around it. I read a quote once - I can’t remember who said it and am too lazy to google it - but it was something along the lines of “people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but they’ll never forget how you made them feel”. It’s supposed to be inspirational, but to me, it’s the most depressing fucking thing I’ve ever read in my life because it’s so accurate. They won’t remember that when you said “this timeline is unrealistic” that you were right, all they’ll remember is that you made them feel bad. The brutal accuracy of it, though, has definitely inspired me to stop trying - I do what I’m told and no more, because trying to be helpful or actually be forward thinking is a surefire recipe for disaster. I do make people “feel” good, though, except on here where I’m “salty”.

Quote is from Maya Angelou

I'm assuming you mean you try to give people honest feedback, but people object to it because it's too harsh?

It's completely possible to honest, assertive and kind at the same time. I see this false dichotomy all the time: "be honest and make enemies" or "be silent and watch a project tank." There's a third option: be frank and kind. (And yes, there are environments where no form of honesty, gentle or harsh, is welcome -- smile, put in your 40 hours and try to find employment elsewhere.)

If you're constantly angering people with your honesty, the problem is not with your honesty but with your people skills. You need to cut the pity party and take a hard look at your communication habits.

>If the government contracts for some consultants and lets them "take over", then it's their fault.

>If they do not have the expertise to act as their own general contractor, they should hire one.

How are these not contradictory?

Let's say you want to build a house. If you know what you're doing, you could put together the plans, get the approvals, order the materials, and hire various contractors to get the work done (masons, carpenters, electricians, etc)

In that case, you are acting as your own general contractor. If you don't have the skill to do all of that, you can hire a general contractor to do those things for you. In that case, you are approving timeframes, designs, materials, and money. All this is based on what the GC is saying. You are working at a higher level, and paying for their expertise.

However, you have to also determine if what the GC is saying is realistic, as well as if what you are asking is realistic.

If the GC says they can build the 2000 square foot house for $20K, they are not being realistic. If you require that all windows be bullet proof and cost the same as normal glazing, you are not being realistic.

Either way, you're ultimately responsible, just like the state of CA is for building this rail line.

The short of it is, unless you know what you are doing, don't get involved in building a house. Buy one that is already built and get a good inspection.

There's a difference between owning the job in organization and farming it out completely. You don't need to have all competencies inside your org, but you better have some kick-ass people you can trust that can ensure you're not scammed by external consultants - or who know how to talk with contractors so that the project is not catastrophically buggered by nonsensical behaviour and unrealistic expectations of your org