A Big Problem for Project Managers… Ownership

This is Chapter 1 in a series of articles describing what I believe to be the Most Important Characteristics of Successful Project Managers (PMs). These articles are based on material that I presented at a local PMI conference several years ago, and are motivated by my desire to share a bit of knowledge from my 20+ years of managing projects and closely interacting with stakeholders. If you benefit from these principles or can apply them in any way, my mission will have been accomplished! Thanks for reading, and please add a comment if this material resonates with you.

The Problem

A frequent complaint by stakeholders is the failure of their PMs to fully Own the Project. I will explain what I mean by this, how this perception can develop, and how it can be avoided.

Attitude

Attitude is the key to this concept of Project Ownership: PMs must genuinely believe that they are accountable for everything that occurs on their project. Nothing is out of bounds. Nothing. I am not saying that PMs have absolute control over everything on their projects. In fact, PMs often have direct control over very little, but they have the opportunity to influence everything. PMs are the leaders of their teams and the ones ultimately accountable to their stakeholders. This attitude of ownership and accountability is the single most important characteristic of a successful PM – all other qualities flow from this belief. When a PM demonstrates this quality of Project Ownership, it reveals self-confidence, while at the same time building the confidence of the project team and the stakeholders in the PM's leadership ability. Owning the Project makes all the difference for a PM – let’s see how it's done (and not done).

Victim-PMs

Developing an attitude of Project Ownership may be more difficult for a PM to develop than one would think - not because it is a difficult concept, but because it appears to be so simple. If most PMs believe they are already doing this and doing it well, why do their stakeholders disagree? Usually, it is because the PM’s phrasing and messaging is subtly laced with an attitude that deflects accountability. When queried later, PMs will claim that this was certainly not their intent, but, nevertheless, this is what their stakeholders perceived from them. These PMs have effectively cast themselves as victims on their own projects, becoming what I call Victim-PMs. This is a big problem, since no PM wants to be perceived this way by his/her stakeholders. Victim-PMs develop their reputation by directly or subtly blaming (sometimes in a passive-aggressive manner) other people or circumstances for project hiccups like schedule misses, budget overruns, or missing requirements. Stakeholders sniff out this type of blame-shifting language easily and quickly, while it often remains a blind-spot to a PM.

An illustration of this concept can be found in the movie Apollo 13, you remember, the “Houston, we have a problem” movie. One scene recounts tense interaction between the three astronauts after the unexpected explosion of one of the oxygen tanks. I’m not sure how accurately the movie portrayed the real-life dialogue of April 1970, but we’ll go with it for illustration purposes. Astronaut Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) levels a subtle, back-handed accusation against fellow-astronaut Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon) regarding the protocol he followed for stirring the oxygen tank. In other words, something went wrong and the fingers immediately started pointing. Sound familiar? Fortunately, astronaut Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) stepped in to re-direct the conversation in a more productive direction, and then he led the team safely back to earth. Someone had to be the grown up, see the bigger picture, and own the situation. Jim Lovell didn’t come up with all the great solutions himself, but he facilitated the process by working closely with his team and communicating effectively with his stakeholders, Mission Control. In case you are curious, the root cause of the explosion had nothing to do with Jack Swigert not following proper procedures. I think Jim Lovell knew that, but that is not the point – during a crisis, leaders emerge and lead their teams regardless of where the fault lies.       

What Stakeholders Want

Stakeholders want confident PMs who demonstrate leadership and accountability, even during project chaos (the so-called fog of war) created by unforeseen problems. Stakeholders want a Jim Lovell leading their projects. They understand that things do not always go as planned, but they want PMs who will say, “I’ve got this… and I have a plan!” Of course, this is easier said than done as Mike Tyson famously articulated, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” But… PMs have an opportunity to really shine as leaders after getting punched in the mouth.

Of course, a PM’s response to this painful blow will certainly require deviation from the original project plan, but Owner-PMs know there is always more than one way to an endpoint. If PMs fail to seize the opportunity to lead during chaos, they can be perceived as poor leaders who possess little motivation to solve difficult problems or as not being serious about meeting project commitments. In the extreme, stakeholders will feel that the PM is actually trying to transfer the problem to them for a solution (never a good idea, by the way). This can greatly erode stakeholder confidence in the PM, which is not a good thing, since maintaining stakeholder confidence is the foundation for every successful PM. If a stakeholder loses confidence in a PM, the PM's days are probably numbered.

PMs must learn to think, speak, and act as though everything that occurs on their project is, indeed, under their responsibility.

•  Yes, this even includes unforeseen vendor and supplier problems
• Yes, this even includes unforeseen technology related problems
• Yes, this even includes owning a project plan that the PM didn't originally create (e.g. PM transferred mid-Project)

Stakeholders expect this behavior and are not interested in a list of excuses when things don’t go as planned. What they are interested in is people of action who can calmly plot a revised project plan, while also displaying a high sense of urgency and emotional intelligence. Even though PMs are often the single point of contact for stakeholders, they must learn to work with their teams to plot the best path forward when things go sideways. The PM is not a lone wolf, but the leader of a cooperative team where all input is to be valued. The revised project plan should place a priority on mitigating the new challenges AND preserving original project commitments. While complete mitigation is not always possible, stakeholders desire to see this type of motivation in their PMs.

Course Correction is Possible

The goal of this article is to help PMs understand the key elements in making the transition from a Victim-PM to an Owner-PM, one who is out-in-front and leading when unforeseen problems occur. Many PMs do not even know that they are being perceived as Victim-PMs, so an honest self-examination and outside input is critical to this transformation. Finding trusted mentors in both the peer and stakeholder categories will accelerate this process – this has been critical in my own development as a PM. The good news is that Victim-PMs don’t have to stay mired in that muck. Once the need for course correction is realized, this attitude can be easily changed – I have seen it happen multiple times. This is fixable!

Continuing the Conversation

Have you been around PMs who displayed the characteristics of a Victim-PM or an Owner-PM -- what effect did either have on you as a team member or as a stakeholder? I am interested in hearing your comments. 

Best Regards, Bill