A client recently landed at a well-known company with a strong “team culture.” He started his new job as program manager, taking on a large project that was already two years late and had gone through three other program managers before him. My assessment of the project was that it should not have taken more than about 20 months to complete with this level of resources available on it. The project team was large, matrixed organization with about 200 people from different functional areas, many working in offshore locations to boot!
Once he surveyed the scene after starting his new job he came to see me and told me the project’s history. He then asked me how he could succeed on a project of this type with such history. I asked him how major decisions were made to keep the project moving in the forward direction and on track. His answer did not surprise me at all based on what he had already told me about the project’s structure, the politics, and the company’s culture. He told me that not only major decisions are made based on team consensus, but even relatively minor ones face the same fate, taking forever to move forward, only to achieve mediocre outcomes.
When the decision-making process devolves down to consensus building the organization is run as a democracy, with each team member claiming their First-Amendment rights (right to free speech). The problem is that in a deeply-rooted culture, where everyone’s view is taken into account, carefully weighed against all others, and then decided upon can only result in mediocre decisions at best—inordinately delayed—because of the inherent consensus-building requirement. It did not surprise me that even minor decisions, such as who should have what level of access on the project plan was debated for weeks before coming to some compromise agreement. This decision was not central to the project’s progress, but became a critical path until everyone was happy.
So, what is the alternative? Simple! Although teams must be respected and each individual must feel that they belong to that team, running a project on democratic principles bodes disaster, as my client is finding out. When I looked at the profiles of his predecessors I found them to be successful and competent project leaders in other companies where they had worked before joining this company. So, it is the culture that makes it difficult for competent people to perform and to deliver what is expected of them.
Here are some of the guidelines for working with teams and keeping them on track without delaying a project or without losing your job:
- A company needs to recognize that to drive a project with leadership and to keep it on track require a single source of accountability. This accountability comes from making someone responsible for their assignment. This person must have the necessary expertise to drive the project, including an ability to influence others with a point of view that compels them to line up, or to debate and then agree.
- There is no substitute for expert decision-making! Asking everyone what they think on any particular issue does not increase the quality of that decision; it often makes it worse, because when asked, most people will express an opinion even though it may have no merit!
- The project leader must have the wherewithal to understand the project’s complexities, the depth of thinking to understand experts’ views, and an ability to take a stand to move in a certain direction that will benefit the project. It is virtually impossible for all team members to understand all aspects of a complex project in a way that will allow them to participate in meaningful decision-making.
- Each team member’s role must be clearly defined with accountabilities clearly spelled out at the time when a detailed project plan is made.
- During the early project planning meeting everyone must be informed how the project will be run, who is accountable for what, and what role the entire team plays in its success.
- In many cases, debate begins after a key decision is made. Wrong! Good decisions are made with prior debates. The project manager must show leadership to have enough savvy to bring the right people and thought leaders in the decision-making process and then merely communicate that decision to the rest of the team. The debate must end once the decision is announced.
- It is the project manager’s role to socialize a critical issue so that alignment is in place when a key decision is announced. Fewer the surprises, the better off the team is to move ahead with such key decisions.
- The project manager must conduct sanity checks at critical junctures and make adjustments to the project management process. It cannot be a dictatorship.
- A comprehensive project plan must be used as a dashboard displaying appropriate information to the team members. Often, it is being in the dark that makes people nervous, and makes them feel as though they are merely a cog in the wheel.
10. Be open to team members’ inputs when they bring issues. Often, merely taking the time to listen to their concerns is all that is needed to assure them that they are on a winning project and that their concerns are being addressed.
Good luck!