Conflicts in PM

Kwiyuh Michael Wepngong
Yes, I’ve experienced this, and I’ve learned that not every deviation is a mistake, but every deviation requires dialogue.

When a project we designed is handed over to someone else who starts steering it away from its original design, the emotional impact is real: frustration, a sense of being undervalued, even a loss of trust in leadership or in the process.

But before reacting, I usually ask myself three critical questions:
1. Did the context change?
Very often, what looks like a deviation is actually a response to new conditions that emerged after the design phase — new stakeholders, constraints, risks, or opportunities.
2. Was it communicated?
The lack of alignment is often a system failure, not a personal one.
If there are no mechanisms to preserve the original intent of the project, changes become opaque and reactive.
3. How can we preserve the intent even with adjustments?
My regenerative approach prioritizes purpose over form.
If the deviation still leads to the intended impact (even by different means) it may be worth listening, understanding, and integrating.

Practical tip:
I developed a model called RCPCV™ – Regenerative Decision Cycle, where one of the steps is “Verify” — ensuring that any decision made (in this case, a deviation) remains aligned with the original intent, and that everyone involved understands and supports it.

The discomfort of change can become a moment of co-creation - if mutual respect, listening, and shared purpose are present.

I’ve faced this before. Instead of reacting defensively, I focused on dialogue understanding why changes were made and aligning on the project’s value. Sometimes priorities shift, and adaptability is key. But I also documented original rationale so lessons weren’t lost. Balance pride of design with stewardship of outcomes.

I’ve faced this situation before, and it required a mix of diplomacy and clarity. First, I scheduled a one-on-one with the new manager to understand their vision and explain the original design intent. Then I framed my concerns in terms of project outcomes, risks to scope, cost, or stakeholder trust, rather than personal ownership. In some cases, I also pulled in governance tools (like the charter or approved scope baseline) to realign the conversation. It wasn’t about defending ‘my’ design but about safeguarding the project’s value. What worked best for me was shifting the discussion from control to collaboration.