Introduction:
This month’s blog entry explores the complex relationship between
project success and project leadership. Risk of failure is potentially
higher for IT projects than commonly acknowledged and, by all accounts,
it would appear that success hinges less on strict adherence to
methodology than on leadership. Leadership, of course, assumes manifold
forms, but in the context of this discussion I narrow it down to its
core: the moral/ethical responsibility of project managers to "tell it like it is," so that appropriate decision-makers can make effective decisions in a timely manner.
This is the third and final part of the Project Management Leadership series, the first of which was published
on 8/18. Here we make the link between success, leadership, and ethics explicit. Ethics in project management elude rigid definition,but realism (rather than optimism) is critical to every organization's ability to think critically and to maximize
the opportunities for effective and timely decisions at every organizational level.
The Definition of Leadership
The danger with any
of the BoK's (i.e. PMBOK) or methodologies (i.e. PRINCE2 or TCMF or
CCPM) is that their level of abstraction
is so high as to render them largely meaningless "out of the box". Strict adherence to methodology, as we’ve
seen, does little to blunt failure. In
fact, failure of effective leadership combined with the failure of effective
communication, are consistently identified the two top project management problems. PMI
credentials and certifications are no substitute for leadership and leadership
is grounded in experience. It’s not at
all counterintuitive that a virtual tide of classroom-trained PMPs has done
little to improve project success rates.
Leadership, even
within a limited project management context, can assume many forms. For project managers, however, it’s the
persuasion or the influence to recalibrate the thinking of those who wield
power, that we can identify as the core of leadership. Somewhat unsurprisingly, many recently-certified
PMI certificate-holders lack the experience to exercise such leadership. Deliberately differentiating between process
and process-intent, telling it like it is and holding ground, succinctly
framing-up decision alternatives, communicating transparently with management’s
decision makers: these might be said to be prerequisites to translating effective
project execution into project effectiveness.
And business success.
Application: Ethics in Leadership
Recent events in the
financial sector have highlighted the issue of the ethical dilemma often faced
when increasing pressure to perform, deliver and maximize profitability butts
up against moral and ethical compliance.
It is quite common
for consultant to be given marching orders based upon ‘sales driven’ targets,
where estimates, requirements, contracts, etc., which are more aligned with the
objectives of the delivery organization (revenue plans, utilization needs, billable
hours, larger/longer engagements, follow-on work, etc.) and not
necessarily fully motivated by the client’s best interest.
Organizations that
consider project management a revenue generating, billable activity, rather
than part of a standard delivery and oversight methodology, usually put PMs in
the fundamentally ambiguous position of ‘singing for their supper’, often to
justify their own very existence on a particular project. Indeed, as research shows, the client’s perception
is more important than any quantifiable measure of success. This forces PMs to make decisions, even about
the overall validity and value of a project as a whole, where conflict between
their obligation to the client’s best interest (as summarized by the Code) and
the best interests of their employer cannot easily be reconciled.
From my
observational experiences over the last 15+ years, it seems that, at least
within the IT space, we as PM’s are often handcuffed from forcefully exercising
our moral & ethical responsibilities by the conflicted position of simultaneously
serving many different masters.
A way to address
this practical dilemma, the only way to address it, is through transparency to
all stakeholders. Potential for
conflict-of-interest is not particular to consulting; it’s inherent to all
business scenarios in which individual stakeholders represent multiple
overlapping organizational involvements, where concern for potential influence
cannot be discarded. While it is
disappointing that the PMI has stepped back from a subject matter where
unambiguous ethical guidance could have been of some considerable benefit,
there is no reason why project leadership should be impacted, if complete
disclosure is made. In fact, project
stakeholders will benefit, if project management embraces transparency at all
levels across the leadership hierarchy.
Conclusion
In a research whitepaper presented at the annual
NASA Cost Symposium in 2009, the authors “have
presented evidence that cost and schedule growth is pervasive and biased toward
underestimation.” This is hardly
unexpected, at NASA or elsewhere.
Most senior managers
are ‘can do’ type people: they regard themselves as optimists who must convey
that message to their team, if they are to successfully give their organization
the chance to succeed.
As a corollary, the
conclusions of NASA’s research, however, have wide-ranging applications: “If
unwelcome (even pessimistic) opinions are suppressed, while optimistic projections
are welcomed and rewarded, an organization's ability to think critically and realistically
will be undermined.”
According to Debbie
O’Bray, chair of PMI’s ESDC and a former chair of the PMI Board of Directors,
ethical responsibility “includes having the
courage to share bad news even when it may be poorly received. Also, when
outcomes are negative, [it includes the obligation to] avoid burying information
or shifting blame to others…. These provisions reinforce our commitment to be
both honest and responsible.”
Project success,
therefore, with respect to the project leadership role, is to objectively and independently evaluate
and assess, in order to guide and manage based on realism (rather than
optimism), providing stakeholders with unbiased recommendations, to maximize
the opportunities for effective and timely decisions.
I find this link to
be key. Processes and methodologies
merely provide a roadmap to the IT organization. Without the ability to act objectively,
decision makers are not likely to make optimal choices. It must be said that decisions must be made
proactively throughout the project life cycle, not just at baseline or at predefined
milestones. Whenever the external context changes, there is a need to pause and
reevaluate. The news might be ‘good’ or
it might be ‘bad’, but failure to act, even a delay in doing so, places the
project in jeopardy.
About the Author
Kristofer
Pierscieniak (BSCE, PMP, SSGB) is a Lead Consultant with CapTech Consulting. Over the last 15 years in the IT industry,
he has managed software development efforts for a number of Silicon Valley Fortune
100 companies: Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and Microsoft, among others. He has seen projects (and project managers) succeed
and fail. Based on hands-on experience,
Mr. Pierscieniak has come to view transparency as the common thread of success and
strongly believes that “telling it like it is” is the professional obligation
of all consultants.
