How to quickly and professionally resolve executive misunderstandings during digital transformation deployments.
Digital transformation teams suffer dysfunctional consequences when project sponsors shirk their roles. Projects flounder when sponsors are absent, hide deliberately or are unsure of their responsibility.
Ideally, project managers collaborate with project sponsors and stakeholders to position projects for success, reduce risks and mitigate the impact of various issues that arise during project deployment. Project sponsors are assigned by senior management to ensure the planned business benefits are delivered. Project managers manage the work of the project team and report to their project sponsor.
In reality, however, project sponsors often let down their teams and add risk to projects in many ways. Here are eight common project sponsorship missteps and how project managers can politely and diplomatically resolve them (and as much as expressing anger is tempting, it’s never helpful).
Sits on recommendations
The project sponsor refuses to act on team recommendations to resolve issues. In some organizations, it’s better to waffle than risk being blamed for the wrong decision. But in digital transformation projects, delays in waiting for a decision are always more expensive than correcting a decision that turns out later to be incorrect.
Instead of becoming angry, project managers can address this problem through diplomatic coaching of the project sponsor. Diplomatic coaching involves patiently explaining the adverse consequences on the project’s outcomes the project sponsor’s actions or inactions will cause. Diplomacy is required because the project sponsor is typically a powerful person in the organization and does not respond well to blunt criticism.
Project managers do not let the absence of a decision delay the project schedule. They proceed on the assumption that the recommendation will be accepted eventually.
Refuses coaching
When project managers try to make diplomatic suggestions about how the sponsor could better fulfill their role and support the project, the sponsor claims to be too busy or suggests the project manager can handle the issue independently.
Project managers address this refusal professionally by diplomatically assigning project sponsors small, tactical tasks to gradually increase their involvement, and then thank them when the tasks are complete.
Fails to support the project manager
Suppose the project manager feels the project sponsor doesn’t support them. They sense they will be blamed for project shortcomings. In that case, an experienced project manager will begin to think about how to exit the project quietly. Such an outcome can reflect poorly on the project sponsor’s carefully cultivated reputation, the project’s progress, and the team’s effectiveness.
To avoid this situation, project managers seek assurance that project sponsors will support them and the team in the following ways:
- Communicating and selling the digital transformation project benefits among the project sponsor’s executive peers.
- Publicly supporting project recommendations to stakeholders when complex issues inevitably arise.
- Proactively support the project work.
Pushes scope additions
On multiple occasions, the project sponsor has proposed surprising scope additions for approval by the steering committee. There was no prior discussion with the project manager. These additions would add value but are clearly out of scope as defined in the project charter for the digital transformation project.
The project manager politely reminds the project sponsor of the agreed scope management process and has an analyst on the project team complete the proposed scope addition form for review by the project sponsor. Project sponsors usually never review the form, and the idea dies quietly.
Contradicts agreed decisions
The role of project sponsors includes emphatic support of the agreed decisions in conversations with other executives. If it becomes politically expedient to support the contrary view, some project sponsors are tempted to make a U-turn, claim they weren’t part of the decision, and blame the project team.
The project manager should politely remind the project sponsor of the agreed decision and ask the project sponsor if the original decision needs to be reversed. If so, the project manager assigns an analyst on the team to complete the proposed scope change order with an estimate for review by the project sponsor and as a decision record. The form privately embarrasses project sponsors, who quit articulating the contrary view.
Criticizes the project manager
We’ve all observed project sponsors who are smooth political operators. They are reluctant to accept responsibility for anything. They are experts at deflecting criticism and blame. When minor project problems appear, they quickly criticize the project manager, ignore the team and distance themselves.
In this situation, a project manager will become angry and conclude they have been hired as the convenient scapegoat should a problem occur and not, as claimed, as a project manager with a mandate to deliver the project.
Project sponsors who play these political games cause project team turnover and failure. It’s often best for the project manager to lobby the stakeholders to assign another project sponsor.
Commits to a ridiculous project completion date
Sometimes, project sponsors believe they can impress their peers on the executive team by committing to an overly aggressive completion date for the digital transformation project without consulting the project manager.
Naturally, the project manager is angry about not being consulted and the real possibility that the project will be viewed as a failure when it can’t achieve the unrealistic date.
A solution to this problem that avoids embarrassing the project sponsor is to replan the project to create a release that can be achieved by the aggressive date, declare that a success, and then work on the rest of the project after that date.
Criticizes the project
When discussing the digital transformation project with stakeholders, some project sponsors express hesitancy about the benefits and criticize the performance of the project team.
Instead of becoming angry, the project manager should diplomatically explore the project sponsor’s hesitancy about the business case. The project sponsor’s commitment is typically strengthened if the hesitancy can be resolved.
If the project sponsor and manager cannot resolve the hesitancy, they should cancel the project immediately. Continuing will only waste money and perhaps lead to conflicts between the team and the stakeholders.
Project managers can often improve the performance of project sponsors with diplomatic coaching about how to best fill the role, explaining the role of the project manager and describing the value of collaboration.
