Helping sponsors caught between a functional rock and a project hard place

Project managers get their fair share of abuse, but being a project sponsor is no picnic either.

In most organizations, project manager is both an organization position and project role so there can be a strong alignment between the functional and project responsibilities for PMs.  On the other hand, the sponsor role in all except projectized organizations tends to be a project role only, so sponsors suffer the same challenges that project team members face in terms of being caught between their operational and project responsibilities.  In the case of a team member, this challenge is easily enough addressed through effective prioritization of their workload by their functional manager working hand-in-hand with their project managers.

It’s not that easy for sponsors – not only will they have operational duties which might compete with their project responsibilities for their availability, but even the decisions they make will vary depending on whether they are wearing their functional manager “hat” or their project sponsor one.

An example is the situation where the performance of the sponsor’s direct reporting staff on a project is not meeting expectations.  If the sponsor is wearing their sponsor hat, he or she should support the PM in resolving the issue such that the project does not suffer.  On the other hand, if the sponsor elects to wear their functional hat, the sponsor might focus on what’s best for their team which might not always result in the same level of support.

This situation will certainly frustrate PMs, as they might perceive this behavior as a type of professional schizophrenia which adds yet another element of uncertainty (in other words, risk) to their projects.

It’s a good idea to set expectations up front with sponsors regarding their roles in a similar fashion to what the PM would be expected to do with team members, and to reinforce these expectations regularly.

Acknowledge the needs of the sponsor to meet their functional management responsibilities, but present tangible or quantifiable impacts that will occur if they do not exercise their project sponsor “muscles” when essential.  PMs should also be careful when picking their battles – if they constantly force their sponsors to act in favor of the project, over time this will erode the operational or managerial effectiveness of the sponsor.

As with most “soft skills” challenges, empathy, objectivity and “walking a mile in the shoes” of sponsors can help a PM to understand the challenges sponsors face and to come up with more effective ways of presenting risks, issues or decisions to achieve desired outcomes.

“Today, my (PM) jurisdiction ends here”

The title of this article is the quote from John Cleese’s character, Sheriff Langston, in the movie Silverado.  While this was uttered during a humorous sequence, it comes to mind whenever I witness a project manager imposing self-created limits on the extent of their influence.

In lower maturity organizations, PMs are often asked (or volunteer) to take on activities which are clearly the responsibility of other stakeholders just to keep their projects on track, and I’d be the last person to suggest that a PM should constantly be overstepping job boundaries that have been clearly defined as this will just reinforce inappropriate behavior on the part of others, and usually results in overwork and reduced job satisfaction for the PM.

On the other hand, the challenge with managing to the triple (or quadruple) constraint is that it can encourage a very clinical focus that runs counter to the “art” of project management.  A PM who blatantly ignores scope, schedule, cost or quality constraints is definitely not acting professionally, but neither is one who rigidly adheres to them while demonstrating a lack of perspective on the project’s outcomes.

So with tongue (only partially) planted in cheek, here’s my top five list of signs that you’ve been spending too much time living in what Bill Maher would term “the Bubble“?

1. You fend off pleas to look at the big picture by using your job summary and WBS like dueling weapons
2. Your favorite expression is “throw it over the wall”
3. You’ve requested that your PMO’s change request template be modified to accommodate six digit change request IDs.
4. You’ve kept a lawyer busy developing iron-clad “rules of engagement” contracts with peers from other departments
5. The (project) operation was a success but the (product) patient died

Reducing the impacts of (in)decision making

While resource unavailability, scope creep or change resistance are all key players in the Injustice League of project management super villains, one of the most corrosive and yet subtle threats is related to decision making.

This insidious evil usually materializes on two fronts:

1. Delays resulting from analysis-paralysis, a perceived lack of priority in making the decision or a lack of clarity on the context for the decision
2. Flip-flopping on the decision itself

The impact of these two threats can be a combination of project delays, cost overruns, frustration on the part of project managers and their teams and (most troubling) a perceived lack of credibility in the capability, professionalism or maturity of decision makers.

This issue can become so deep rooted in some organizations that it becomes part of the culture – this makes it that much more difficult for a project manager to address.

So what can be done to address it?

1. Formalize it – it’s a lot easier to ignore a decision if it’s presented informally.  Presented as a decision request with a clear definition of expected time frame for completion and the impact of not making the decision by the stated deadline makes it harder to avoid.
2. Set the stage – Sometimes the perceived criticality of a deadline results in project managers requesting a decision in advance of sufficient analysis having been conducted.  This can increase the likelihood of analysis-paralysis or subsequent decision flip-flopping.  The time sensitivity of a decision needs to be weighed against the potential impacts of making a rushed decision, and this can help a project manager decide how much effort should be spent on laying the groundwork for the decision.
3. Right-size it – some decisions involve too few stakeholders in the review & approval process.  These will often result in flip-flops.  Others (usually due to the best of intentions) will involve too many decision makers. These will either result in delays or worse in the tyranny of the majority.  This is where the benefits of proactive stakeholder analysis become evident – part of this analysis should identify the types of decisions that certain stakeholders should be engaged in.
4. Review it – as part of a project’s closeout process, review decisions that were made and start to quantify the percentage of decisions that were made late (and resulted in project impacts), or those that were made, and then re-made (and re-made and re-made…).  These metrics can provide a PMO with the quantitative evidence required to change behaviors.  This approach is even more effective if the impact of poor-decision making are also quantified and tracked over time.

While there are always going to be certain decisions that will need to be reversed based on new information, or take longer than was expected to be made, some of these tips might be useful gadgets to add to your project manager’s superhero “utility belt”!