Change Management Is Really Conflict Management

 

Let’s admit it: change (ProjectManagement.com’s theme for October) only really comes about within a Project Management Office (ProjectManagement.com’s theme for November) when ideas and agendas collide, or are mis-aligned in some fashion.

If everyone within the PMO was in complete agreement with both the technical agenda and its implementation approach, along with the rest of the macro-organization, then nothing would need to be changed.

The Nash Equilibrium would be in perfect, well, equilibrium – no advancement in capability maturity would be made. Barring trajectory-altering events from outside the organization, that ship will sail on its current course indefinitely.

Alas, such business environs never exist, at least not for long (and, by “for long,” I mean intervals measurable in microseconds). There will always be mis-alignments in agendas and ideas, not to mention those outside the PMO but within the macro-organization, as well as outside event intrusions.

In a sense, the whole point of management, contrary to the asset managers’ notion that it is to “maximize shareholder wealth,” is to handle these agenda mis-alignments in such a way as to maximize the benefit the organization, or, at the very least, to minimize their negative impacts. S

o, if we assume that conflict, or shall we say competition between ideas and agendas, are inherent in the formulation of business models and management approaches, it stands to reason that some attention needs to be focused on exactly how PMO directors handle such collisions, since that approach can (and will) have a direct bearing on PMO success or failure.

I have observed, broadly speaking, two modes of dealing with competing/conflicting agendas and ideas within organizations, and their impacts on the macro-organization and the PMO specifically.

One of these modes I hold to be the most beneficial, both towards resolving problems faced by the PMO and its owning org; and the other, which I view as rather toxic, leading to unnecessary strife, poor problem resolution performance, and, ultimately, PMO decline, if not collapse. I’ll address the beneficial one first.

I believe that the optimal method of managing competition and conflicting agendas in a business environment is (ironically) what I will call the Adversarial Approach. This is where any notions of how a given problem’s solution should be formulated is challenge-able by any member of the Project Team, given that such challenges are offered on a good-faith basis and grounded in legitimate management science theory, valid premises, and supported by verifiable (or, at least agreed-to) facts.

My favorite Niels Bohr quote is one delivered to a young physicist, “Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.” In the quest to solve a problem, no one should be afraid of suffering repercussions for putting forth an idea that they genuinely believe might provide a solution.

In this sense, what I’m calling the Adversarial Approach is similar to what happens in courts of law, where strict rules of evidence and law are enforced in order to maximize the odds of arriving at the truth and, subsequently (and hopefully), justice.

In the PMO version of this approach, elements of the technical agenda and implementation approach are fielded, scrutinized, and eliminated or resolved, until what remains is a foundation for formulating the business model and management approach to the issues being addressed.

Compare and contrast this approach with the other, one that I will name the Isolate-and-Diminish style. This version is marked by assigning validity, not to the superior idea or agenda, but to the person making the case for any given decision (a sure-fire way to determine if the PMO is engaged in this mode of problem solving can be observed when the Subject Matter Experts get into a conference room to discuss the technical agenda. If any of them recite their credentials prior to discussing the problem’s particulars, it’s almost certainly an Isolate-and-Diminish-tainted org).

If the PMO Director is incapable of accepting criticisms or challenges, no matter how well-intentioned or relevant, then those with the best ideas will be quickly cowed into silence, lest they suffer repercussions for daring to disagree with their “superiors.” Such organizational environs turn toxic quickly, since perks are usually given to those who make their managers feel good, and those who don’t tend to become isolated from the rest of the Team.

Once isolated, their status often experiences degradations and diminishments, as their reputations suffer at the hands of their more cooperative colleagues. I believe that it’s notable that this corporate culture is a perfect environment for the Jungle Fighter[i] archetype, who heavily depend on ex parte conversations to advance their careers, while the Craftsman and Gamesman archetypes are repelled by this manner of resolving competing ideas.

Look, I’m not naïve (at least I try not to be): I’m fully aware that in many PMOs (and organizations in general), the coin of the realm isn’t talent or merit, but displayed loyalty to the executive’s agenda.

Even so, organizations in general, and PMOs in particular, that use the Isolate-and-Diminish model for conflict resolution are on a toxic path to dysfunction. If you are in a position to set, or even influence, the manner of evaluating competing notions within your PMO, avoid Isolate-and-Diminish.

And, if you find yourself in such an org, you might want to find a way out. Poorly-managed idea competitions and conflicts will simply make things harder all the way around.


[i] Maccoby, Michael, The Gamesman: The New Corporate Leaders, Simon and Schuster, 1976.