The Illusion of Control in Business Projects

The Tension Between Control and Complexity

In the world of business change, particularly in projects involving significant transformation aided by IT solutions, a persistent tension exists: the need for control versus the unpredictable and often chaotic reality of organisational change. On one side, organisations require clear budgets, strict timelines, quality assurances, and defined deliverables. On the other, projects unfold in dynamic environments where requirements shift, unforeseen constraints emerge, and human factors disrupt even the best-laid plans.

Traditional project management methodologies suggest that with sufficient planning, stakeholder buy-in, and clear governance, the project can be delivered smoothly. Amongst others, in last week’s article, we already saw that, as Ralph Stacey’s *Complex Responsive Processes of Relating* highlights, organisations are not neatly structured systems but evolving networks of human interactions. Control is an illusion, and leadership must shift from enforcing compliance to enabling coherence in an inherently complex environment.

To illustrate this, consider the case of a multinational corporation with a highly federated structure. Each country or business unit operates as a largely autonomous entity, with its own P&L, HR processes, and payroll systems. The corporate centre sets high-level strategic direction, but its influence over individual units is limited. Now, the organisation has embarked on an ambitious project: implementing a global Human Resources Information System (HRIS).

The Fiction of Predictability in Project Management

Project management frameworks, from PRINCE2 to Agile, promise varying degrees of control over business transformation. They offer structured methodologies to define scope, allocate resources, and manage risk. While useful, these approaches often give rise to a false sense of certainty.

Take, for instance, an enterprise-wide IT implementation. Before the project begins, a rigorous business case is developed, complete with financial justifications, implementation timelines, and measurable benefits. Everything seems calculated. Yet as soon as the project gets underway, the reality of conflicting priorities, shifting stakeholder expectations, and unexpected technical dependencies begins to unravel those meticulously crafted plans.

In the HRIS case, the corporate leadership team expected strong alignment with the new system’s benefits. After all, a unified HRIS promised better talent visibility, improved reporting, and stronger compliance. Yet, early interactions revealed resistance:

Managing the Tension: When Control and Complexity Collide

Given this reality, how can leaders strike a balance between control and adaptability? Instead of enforcing rigid processes that ignore the natural messiness of change, business leaders must develop a more nuanced understanding of control—one that acknowledges unpredictability while maintaining coherence and strategic direction.

Define Control as a Living Process, Not a Fixed System

Control should not be about rigid adherence to initial plans but about continuous sense-making. Rather than obsessing over whether a project is ‘on track’ according to outdated criteria, leadership teams should focus on whether it remains strategically aligned with organisational needs.

For example, in the HRIS project, instead of treating budget adherence as an absolute measure of success, leaders assessed whether funds were being spent in ways that provided the most value given evolving circumstances. Similarly, deadlines were seen as guiding markers rather than immovable constraints that forced suboptimal decision-making.

Embrace Feedback Loops Over Command-and-Control

Rather than issuing directives from the top and expecting them to be implemented flawlessly, successful project leadership encourages iterative feedback loops. In Agile software development, for instance, user feedback is incorporated throughout the development cycle, allowing for mid-course corrections. However, this philosophy should not be confined to IT teams alone—finance, operations, HR, and other business functions must also participate in continuous sense-making.

In the HRIS project, early pilots in smaller regions surfaced integration issues that would have derailed the wider rollout. By incorporating feedback loops, the organisation was able to adapt its approach and support local needs while maintaining strategic alignment.

3. Use Governance as a Guiding Framework, Not a Straightjacket

Governance is essential in large-scale projects, but it should be seen as an enabler of adaptability rather than a mechanism for rigid enforcement. Traditional governance models assume that strict adherence to milestones and deliverables equates to project success, but this ignores the reality that certain issues cannot be fully anticipated at the outset.

In the HRIS initiative, a centralised governance model was initially ineffective because local teams deprioritised integration work in favour of more pressing business needs. Instead, a **federated governance model** was introduced:

Our experience shows that this in itself is a useful governance model, that we will discuss in a future session,

Shaping Leadership Mindsets for Complexity

To truly embrace this approach, business leaders must rethink their role. Instead of acting as enforcers of control, they must become facilitators of organisational adaptability. This requires a shift from certainty-based management to a more experimental, learning-based approach.

• Encouraging Adaptive Conversations – Leadership teams must foster ongoing discussions where employees at all levels can surface emerging challenges.
• Recognising the Limits of Metrics – KPIs and dashboards create an illusion of control by measuring only what is easy to quantify. Leaders must look beyond the numbers and pay attention to qualitative signals, such as shifts in team morale, stakeholder engagement, and user feedback.
• Accepting the Necessity of Trade-offs – Transformation projects demand difficult choices. Balancing cost control with long-term value creation, or efficiency with adaptability, requires leaders to acknowledge trade-offs rather than pretend that all objectives can be met simultaneously.

Conclusion: Leading in the Uncertain Space Between Structure and Chaos

The reality of business projects—especially those involving IT-driven change—is neither fully controllable nor entirely chaotic. The challenge for leaders is to navigate this space without falling into the trap of false certainty or complete surrender to disorder.

By applying the principles of complexity thinking, organisations can create environments where control exists not as a rigid mechanism but as an evolving process—one that allows businesses to adapt to emerging challenges without losing sight of their broader strategic goals.

"In a decentralised world, authority means little. The real power lies in shaping the conversations that drive change." (quote by the author)