On Why PMs Get Stymied (Part I)

 

When last week’s blog, the one where I relay a story about a “manager” who had a Ph.D. in a technical field, but really didn’t know much about management, attracted more comments than I usually see, I realized I had touched on something of a sensitive subject. For those PM-types who are tasked with heading up a Project Management Office (PMO) with the objective of either advancing the PM capability within the macro-organization, or even introducing PM to the org, a whole host of seemingly irrational issues lie in wait to hinder or even derail your efforts altogether. While these issues may appear to be irrational, they do, in fact, have some rationale behind them, but they’re rather dark. I’d like to spend some time pulling back the curtain on these motives behind the PMO’s opposition. By no means am I guaranteeing a remedy to them – I’m just wanting to do some clarifying. It helps to know your opponents.

Prior to evaluating motives, let’s take a look at some of the more common tactics employed by those who seek to undermine the PMO’s mission. Virtually all of the opposition the PMO Director will encounter will be covert, and yet still highly effective. So, in no particular order, here are some of the ways the opposition will resist the expansion or advancement of PM.

1. The Silent Veto/Slow Roll. Back when I was writing the monthly back-page column for PMNetwork, I had the opportunity to get to know the other columnists, including the brilliant Bud Baker, now a professor emeritus at Wright State University. While researching my first book, Things Your PMO Is Doing Wrong (PMI Publishing, 2008), I communicated with Professor Baker about the phenomena I called “the silent veto.” This occurs when the other members of the macro-organization, especially the highly-placed members, tell you to your face that they’re happy to support your initiatives as you set up your PMO; but, when the time comes to actually do something, they’re strangely absent. Bud offered that his version of the silent veto was called “the slow roll,” which is similar, but with an insidious twist. Those who promise support actually provide some, but not really enough to attain the next level of capability maturity. Instead, these false allies will gauge just how much organizational leveraging would be needed to achieve the next milestone, and simply wait you out. They know that you won’t make it without their robust support, but they also know they can’t be perceived as failing the PM initiative, so they do actually help, just not enough and not in time.
2. The “It’s Too Difficult” Objection. This is one we PM-types kind of do to ourselves. By insisting on a robust PM capability, often without even considering the Quality, Affordability, Availability – pick any two configuration of the organization, those outside the PMO can actually have a point when they assert that the amount of time and energy needed to attain such a state isn’t worth the investment. The infuriating thing here, though, is that I’ve been hit with this condemnation even when the cost/schedule performance systems being proposed were extremely simple, and easy to implement.
3. I’ve also encountered the opposite of #2, the objection that, if the cost/schedule performance system is truly simple and easy to implement, then it can’t possibly deliver accurate or relevant information. Numbers 2 and 3 represent something of the classical Catch-22: if it’s not too expensive, then it’s a cheap imitation of the real thing, which is, by their definition, too expensive.
4. The “Too Small” Dodge. Ironically, the same people who will insist that their project work is too small to bother with a cost/schedule performance measurement system will typically be rather sensitive to overpaying for car repairs. They don’t object to performance measurement on principle, they just don’t think they should be subject to it, hence the old saw “project teams detest performance measurement because it vividly shows their lack of performance.”
5. The Low Risk Parry. A derivative of #4, the manager employing the Low-Risk Parry will attempt to assert that their project work is so routine and template-like that the use of a performance measurement system would be entirely superfluous. GTIM Nation knows of my disdain for risk management (no initial caps), on the basis that it consumes resources but return nothing of value, but this is a case where it’s actually damaging to PM writ large. By employing the risk managers’ (no initial caps) jargon, they are actually arguing against the use of PM techniques. The kicker is that they often get away with it.

Of course, there are other tactics, but in my experience these are the most common. Feel free to add the ones that irritate you the most in the comments section. Next week, in Part II, I’ll seek to reveal the motives of the people who tend to hinder PMs just on principle, and explore possible counter-measures.