How should PMOs operate when decisions are influenced more by relationships than by formal structures?

A best practice is to have a priority list from 1- x form all of the demands and projects. When a new item is added it should also go to the priority list in the proper ranking.

A new project that will generation $100M in revenue should be listed higher than a project that breaks even, with all other things considered.

If the CEO comes in and says I want this new shinny object to be #1 priority, they of course can override the priority criteria,. but the PMO will still have the documentation to show that there was an override to the normal prioritization.

When relational dynamics outpace formal governance, a Project Management Office (PMO) must pivot from acting as a rigid "gatekeeper" to acting as an "influential broker."
Here is how to operate effectively:

• Map the Shadow Organization: Identify the actual decision-makers and key influencers who hold relational power, not just the names on the official org chart. Build trust with them through regular, informal one-on-one alignment syncs before formal steering committee meetings.
• Translate Data into Relational Value: Don't just throw standard KPIs and red/amber/green (RAG) status reports at leaders. Tailor your project data to speak directly to their specific pain points, strategic goals, and professional reputations.
• Introduce "Light-Touch" Guardrails: Instead of forcing heavy, bureaucratic processes that leaders will simply bypass, introduce lightweight, frictionless templates (like a 1-page business case or a simple 3-item risk ledger) that protect project governance without slowing down relational momentum.

The Bottom Line: In a relationship-driven culture, politics always trumps process. Use your formal structures to quietly document, validate, and de-risk the decisions that have already been made through informal relationships.