WHITE PAPER

NAVIGATING THE POLITICAL MINEFIELD OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Author: Andrew McGregor

Cohesion Project Management Solutions

Tel: +27 11 888 6616

Email: andrew.mcgregor@cohesion.co.za

P O Box 72443, Parkview, 2122. South Africa

ABSTRACT
This paper is intended to be provocative in that it subordinates traditional PM competencies and raises
the importance of people and organisational skills in being the true determinants of project
management capability.

Most PMs feel constrained in that their project teams are frequently staffed by people who (a) do not
report to them, and (b) have other, sometimes competing, priorities. We will also discuss the increasing
complexity of projects which result in geometrically increasing risk, potential benefit, uncertainty of
outcome, strategic dependency, and, most importantly in the context of this discussion, influence and
number of stakeholders.

In this paper we examine ways in which projects have evolved in terms of intention,
scope, complexity, risk, potential benefits and stakeholders. We review and challenge
current definitions of project management and go on to present a new, albeit informal,
definition of project management. Two frameworks for defining and assessing the
qualities of an effective manager are used to present a number of skills not traditionally
associated explicitly with project management.

The roles of authority, influence and leadership, plus ways in which they can be
developed are discussed in detail. We look at how the PM can develop power in non-
traditional ways, build relationships using “currencies” that can be used to buy support
later on, the critical elements of leadership in the PM context and how to develop
them.

An iterative stakeholder management process, developed by the author, will be

presented. It covers the development of a formal stakeholder management plan,
social network mapping and stakeholder identification, a multi-faceted stakeholder
assessment framework, stakeholder management planning, execution and review. A
discussion on extending stakeholder management skills is included. While this is a
disciplined process, we stress the importance of informal tools. There is obviously a clear
link to the project communications plan, which we distinguish from the project
manager’s political plan. We conclude with a discussion on managing project sponsors
and other executive stakeholders.

KEY WORDS:
Project management, Politics, Power, Influence, Roles, Leadership, Stakeholders,
THE RELEVANCE OF POLITICS IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The fundamental premise of this paper is that the project management community does not explicitly
recognise what the author believes to be the essence of project management. This is clearly illustrated
by a review of the definitions articulated in the literature.

A review of definitions of project management

The Project Management Institute (PMI), for example defines project management as follows.
“Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to a broad range of
activities in order to meet the requirements of the particular project. A project is a temporary endeavor
undertaken to achieve a particular aim. Project management knowledge and practices are best
described in terms of their component processes. These processes can be placed into five Process
Groups: Initiating, Planning, Executing, Controlling and Closing”.

The Association for Project Management (APM) similarly proclaims “planning, monitoring and control of
all aspects of a project and the motivation of all those involved in it to achieve the project objectives on
time and to the specified cost, quality and performance.”

An internet search of definitions produces more in a similar vein: key words and phrases that consistently
form the basis of definitions are
• controlled process
• techniques and systems
• scope, quality, time and cost
• schedules and tasks
• define goals, plan and monitor tasks and resources
• control costs and budgets
• manage work.

These definitions are not wrong, but do not do justice to the role, particularly when recent shifts in the
nature of projects are taken into account.

The nature of projects

In a paper presented to the PMSA 2002 Conference, the author demonstrated that projects have,
specifically in the commercial sector, become significantly more complex. Business projects have
evolved from the automation of existing processes, through the compilation and presentation of
information to typical projects in the current environment which have a strong business transformation
element. The complexity of projects, as measured in four dimensions, has increased exponentially
through this evolution.

The four dimensions of project complexity presented in that paper are:

Dimension Characteristics
of complexity

Linkage Alignment with business strategy

Contribution to benefits
Integration with other initiatives

Reach Areas of organisation or value chain impacted

Extent of impact

People People affected by change

Current competencies
Attitudes, motivation and know-how
Readiness for change

Time Time and effort to manage all dimensions to realize benefits

Change of dimensions over time
Metabolism of the business environment
In addition to complexity, there are other pressures on projects undertaken as agents of business change.
Examples are the demand for resources, given that organisations typically take on more project work
than they have capacity for, the demands on project decision-making resulting from the recent
emphasis on corporate governance and increasing executive focus on portfolio and project
management as tools for strategy realisation.

The implications for project management

What are the consequences of the shifting nature of projects on project management? These are many
and varied and have not been exhaustively listed. A representative sample would include items such as
• Higher visibility of projects
• More uncertainty associated with projects, resulting in higher risk
• More demands on, and competition for, project team members, both from within and from
outside the project

Underlying all of these is that projects and project managers have more stakeholders, representing many
more interests than ever before. The role now demands far more in the way of working with people (not
managing them), both inside and outside the project. It is clear that the demands on the project
manager go far beyond those implied in the current definitions of project management.

Towards a new definition

This line of thinking prompted the author to look at a definition of the project management role that
captures that essence: “Project management is getting (important) work done through other people.”

In addition to multiple stakeholders, there is another key characteristic of project management that
distinguishes it from other management disciplines. It has to do with the fact that the people who are
needed to contribute to the success of the project typically report to a line manager who is not the
project manager. This is a function of good project management practice (line managers should not
manage projects) as well as being a function of the temporary nature of the project, by definition. It is
also common for many of the project resources to be allocated on an “as needed” basis, implying that
they are not assigned full time to the project and will have other, possibly more pressing, demands on
their time and effort. In addition to this, it is possible that project team members, particularly those who
are not dedicated to the project team, will look beyond the project for his or her ongoing career
development.

Thus we have a good basis for adding to our new definition of project management: “Project
management is getting (important) work done through other people, who (a) do not report to the project
manager, and (b) have other, possibly conflicting, personal and corporate priorities.”

Thus, we have two key characteristics that characterise project management: (1) multiple and diverse
stakeholders, and (2) lack of (hierarchical) authority. These two characteristics are the basis on which the
role of the project manager needs to be reviewed.

SHIFTS IN THE ROLE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Looking again at the traditional definitions of project management, the role of the PM seems to be
characterised by activities like
• Controlling project performance and budgets
• Prioritising
• Planning
• Reporting
• Coordination
• Scheduling tasks and resources
While these are important, it is submitted that they are nowhere near sufficient for a project manager to
be successful in the contemporary projects environment. Far more important are activities relating to our
new definition of the project management role. Examples of these are
• Balancing and mediating conflicting demands
• Conflict resolution
• Team development
• mediation
• Negotiation
• Stakeholder management

Not only should these be identified as important roles of the project manager, they should be recognised
as representing the major portion of the role. The iceberg in the attached diagram represents the role, as
it should be defined, of the project manager. The ship is the project that is jeopardised far more by the
mismanagement of the socio-political elements of the project manager’s role, than by the technical
elements.

Figure 1 – Technical and Socio-cultural components of project management

CAPABILITIES REQUIRED OF PROJECT MANAGERS

What, then, does the project manager require to play this role effectively?

Simple answer? A PMP does not cut it!

We have seen a number of PMP-qualified project managers who were unable to build a team, manage
their sponsor or mediate a contentious issue. They simply do not have the temperament, training or
mindset.

The project manager’s role requires two very distinct aspects.

1. Project management, in the traditional sense, is still very much a part of the PM’s arsenal. The
competent project manager must be able to plan and expedite tasks associated with the formal
and traditional understanding and definition of the role
2. To these skills and activities must be added a new range of capabilities. These have a strong
business orientation, more informality, more general management and above all working with,
and garnering support of, people in and outside the project team and sometimes the
organisation as a whole.
These are compared and contrasted in Table 1 below

Traditional (PMBOK®) capabilities New capabilities

Focus on how Focuses on why & what
Develop comprehensive, realistic and Sets vision, tone & direction
technically correct plans
Delegate tasks Exercise influence
Exercise control Inspires innovation, passion, responsiveness
and commitment
Delegate and monitor the completion of Develops enthusiasm & commitment
tasks by others
Administers processes (like issues registers) Mediates and resolves conflicting interests
Focus on delivering the required project Thinks about business outcome
outputs
Does things right Does the right thing
Table 1 – Comparison of traditional and emerging capabilities required of project managers

A framework for specifying and assessing project management competence

A useful framework for specifying any role has been proposed by Murray-Webster and Hillson (Murray-
Webster, 2002). Competencies are classified in terms of five categories Personal characteristics,
Experience, Attitudes, Knowledge and Skill, leading to the acronym PEAKS. The PEAKS framework
provides a
• a clear definition and distinction of terms defining the elements that comprise
competency
• a set of key attributes describing project management competence
• a variety of objective mechanisms for assessing individual levels of the various
elements of project management competence

A full discussion on the application of the framework is outside the scope of this paper, but it is useful to
consider that all elements must be present for true competency. These are developed in the following
different ways.

Personal characteristics - “Who am I?” Natural preferences and traits

Experience – “What have I done?” Acquired
Attitudes – “How shall I respond?” Chosen responses
Knowledge – “What do I know?” Learned
Skill – “How ably do I demonstrate…?” Developed experientially
Table 2 – The PEAKS framework

In populating this or any other structure for defining project competency, it is essential that the “new
capabilities” listed above are carefully considered and that competency development programmes are
designed and implemented to develop all elements.

THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POLITICAL PLAN - A SAMPLE OF TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

This section describes a number of tools and techniques that may assist project managers in developing
more influence, political acumen and leadership. It is not exhaustive, but rather represents an orientation
or way of thinking about the socio-cultural components of the project management role.

Planning
Ultimately, it comes down to planning. A well-worn, yet nevertheless appropriate saying warns us that
“by failing to plan, we plan to fail”. We need to develop plans for the socio-cultural components with just
as much thought and rigour as we do the technical. While certain of the activities are informal, they are
nevertheless planned and executed with discipline. We even urge our project managers to “plan to be
spontaneous”!
Stakeholder analysis and management planning
It is absolutely vital to adopt a formal stakeholder management approach. An example of one adapted
from the PMBOK® Guide (PMI 2004) is summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Stakeholder Management Process

Each of the components needs to have specific actions and review points in the project schedule as well
as specific tools to add rigour and consistency. Two examples of these follow.

The first question in the process is “who are our stakeholders? Stakeholder identification starts with a
definition of a stakeholder. We define a stakeholder as “Any individual, organisation or group that is
directly or indirectly involved in the project, has a vested interest in, or has the ability to influence, the
project or its outcome. It is clear that, with a broad definition like that combined with a short, proactive
brainstorming session, most projects will ultimately have scores of stakeholders. The process could be
aided by discussing the following
• Whose agreement or approval will we need?
• Whose opposition could keep us from achieving our objectives?
• Whose cooperation will we need?

We obviously cannot and would not want to devote equal amounts of time and energy to all identified
stakeholders and we need a mechanism for highlighting those who require the most focus, without
completely forgetting about the others. So another pertinent question is “Where does the real influence
lie?”

A useful tool is adapted from the principles of the project risk management matrix and is illustrated in
Figure 3. It recognizes that the potential for a stakeholder to influence the project is not just a factor of
how close to the project that individual is or how interested, but also on the ability of the individual to
exercise influence.

Figure 3 –
Stakeholder
analysis matrix

Having placed each stakeholder (individual,

organisation or group) onto the matrix, it is important
to note the reasons for the position allocated. It is
also important to recognise that positions may
change over time; hence the process in Figure 2 is
iterative.
A formal stakeholder analysis will have answers to the following questions for each stakeholder:
• Degree of influence
• Reason for degree of influence
• Degree of interest
• Reason for degree of interest
• What is my current relationship with this stakeholder?
• Do any differences exist between us?
• How does s/he view the project (supporters, indifferent, antagonists)?
• What issues and problems do they have?
• What risks are associated with this stakeholder?

Having completed the stakeholder analysis, the rest of the process will be largely, but not entirely, driven
by the communications plan. The essence of stakeholder management is to be proactive. Seek out
opportunities to communicate with, manage expectations, exceed requirements and gain involvement,
support and acceptance.

Communications management planning

While communications management is one of the PMBOK® knowledge areas, we believe that there is
room for enhancement in this area, specifically in the area of informal communication.

Before we get there however, the stakeholder analysis leads directly into the communications plan, with
the addition of these items to the list above:
• What does the project require of this stakeholder?
• What sources of influence do I have relative to this stakeholder?
• What does this stakeholder require of the project? How often? In what forum or medium?

In addition to the traditional communications management as presented in PMBOK®, we advocate a far

greater emphasis on informal communication mechanisms and employ a number of tools, including a
few simple “do’s and don’ts” to keep people informed and engaged.

Plan time to meet informally with as many stakeholders as possible as frequently as possible to maintain
familiarity, sustain friendships, discover opportunities to do favours and understand the needs and
motives of others. Through frequent communication, the PM is able to alleviate concerns about the
project, dispel rumours and champion the cause of the project. With solid relationships as a foundation,
PMs are far more effective when it comes to reminding people of commitments, garnering further
support and raising concerns.

The key is to build relationships before they are needed. Without prior, easy interactions around
nondecisive issues, an encounter when the stakes are high is going to be more tense, unforgiving and
harder to reach a successful outcome.

Informal communication tips, tricks and traps

These are ideas that project managers may find useful. They are intended as ideas for discussion and
prompts for further ideas. What is important is that project managers must realise that they can only get
work done by the project team by building relationships first and managing projects second. Thus, what
follows represents a mind set as much as a toolbox.

• Do get personal. Many project managers are too desk bound, relying far too much on email,
status reports and project risk, issues and decision registers. They may have an “open door” policy
and encourage people to bring them issues that need attention. To them no news is good news.
We believe that this leads to “squeaky wheel” syndrome and is inappropriate for savvy project
management in the contemporary environment. Effective project managers are seen spending
significant amounts of time on the ground with the project team but also regularly interact with
suppliers, vendors, top management, and other stakeholders.
• Obey the four rules of email
1. If it is at all possible for your email to be misconstrued, it will be. And even if it isn’t possible, it
probably still will be.
2. Never send an email with clenched fists.
3. If you forget rule 2, never forget this: DON’T COPY ANYONE if you are “making a point”.
4. Use email for three things:

Confirm what has been said in person or by phone

To share good news (copy everyone!)

To distribute documents and notifications
• Develop a caffeine addiction. Resolving issues, asking for favours (or even giving them), or simply
building relationships is best done in an informal setting. “Can I buy you a coffee”, or something
similar, should be a standard phrase that a project manager uses several times a day to get
people into an informal, neutral setting.
• Become a down-and-out PM. Good project managers have dirty shoes, typically well worn, from
all the walking around to see as many stakeholders as possible on their own turf. Management
theory once called it MBWA. One of our top project managers is homeless; he literally does not
have a desk despite having overall responsibility for a multi-year 50,000 work-day project, with
over 100 project resources in different countries. Through face-to-face interactions he is able stay
in touch with what is really happening on the project and to build relationships needed for project
success.
• Use SMS software. We recommend the use of SMS to keep people informed about project
happenings. This does not replace any other medium but rather supplements it.
• Think out of the box. One of our PMs was really struggling to get any response from an important
stakeholder over several weeks because she was so busy. Eventually, he sent her a hand-written
note with an energy drink; an excellent way of diffusing a potentially tense situation with
unpredictability and humour.
• Don’t allow decisions to be taken in project meetings. This is counter-intuitive, but at a senior
level, is a very useful tool. Strategic project decisions are seldom made in steering committee
meetings. The savvy project manager will lobby with key decision-makers in advance of the
meeting, ensuring that decision-makers are fully informed about the issues, that the opportunity is
taken to facilitate the decision-making process and that a public forum such as a steering
committee is a smooth, unconfrontational event where decisions that have already been made
in people’s minds can be ratified.
• Develop relationships in unlikely places. An example of this is a key tool in building relationships
with sponsors and senior stakeholders. You are not going to be building a relationship with people
you cannot get to see because their “gatekeeper” is too efficient. Secretaries and personal
assistants can be amongst your most influential stakeholders and relationships with them need to
be cultivated with utmost care.
Sources of power and influence
Many project managers have complained that they have no authority to get the job done. This point of
view is understandable because, as mentioned earlier in this paper, project staff typically do not have a
reporting line to the project manager. Thus it is true that project managers due not have power over staff
in the sense of a traditional reporting line. We refer to this as positional or hierarchical power.

What these project managers do not realise is that there are other forms of power that they must
develop to make up for the lack of hierarchical power. The table below lists the various sources of power
and influence, that a project manager may be able to use (each situation should be assessed). Some
ideas for use in a project setting are included.

• Reward Power
Holder can “give” something to
ensure/obtain compliance.
• Legitimate Power
The target responds to “what is right” in
terms of our social norms.
• Expert Power
Based on credentials, knowledge,
reference groups or individuals.
• Referent Power
Association with other, recognized
power holders
• Team Power
Teams (not groups) more powerful than
individuals. Team composition is crucial.
• Information/Knowledge
Single most powerful source of power.
Can most easily influence another’s
position with facts.
• Personal Power
Based on charisma. Synthesises all other
sources of power. Training in negotiation
can augment it.
• Corporate Power
Position of the project w.r.t. many issues,
such as priority, perceived and real
value of the project and executive
support.
Rewards may financial, but savvy project managers are
good at thinking up ways in which non-financial rewards
can also be employed. These can be light-hearted and
even verbal. A certificate or email expressing
appreciation for good work fits into this category
Without discrediting team members publicly, project
managers can use this to urge the team to follow-up on
their undertakings (“Did you do what you said you would
do?”)
Qualifications, such as PMP. Ability to demonstrate an
understanding of stakeholder issues and industry
knowledge.
Important reason for networking: build relationships with
key opinion leaders and influencers
Key competency of savvy PMs: ability to develop a
cohesive, motivated team
Another key reason for interacting with people on a
personal level: you get to understand what is really
happening on the project
This is as much a function of confidence as anything
else. It comes from being in control and knowing where
support will come from when needed.
The result of developing the trust and support of key
stakeholders and opinion leaders, particularly at senior
levels of the organisation.
Managing upwards
In one sense, managing relationships with senior stakeholders, such as sponsors, steering committee
members and business customers is a special case of stakeholder management, and in another sense it is
a whole topic for discussion on its own. This section will lean towards the latter view; nevertheless the
reader is urged to remember that the basics still apply when managing upwards.

The context for this discussion is based on the following premises:

1. Projects are agents of business change
2. Business change is, in turn, driven by company strategy.

We define three broad categories of management:

• Operational management, that is responsible for day-to-day operation of the business.
Key drivers here are quality, efficiency, repeatability, status quo.
• Strategic management, that is responsible for the future of the enterprise: not where we
are but where we need to be in future. Key drivers here are change and innovation.
• Project management, that is responsible for introducing change in a controlled
environment. Key drivers here are risk management, coordination, facilitation.

Project management can therefore be seen as a key enabler of strategy realisation.

The consequence of that is that project managers, more so than operational managers, frequently
operate in the world of senior executives who are more closely involved with the future of the business
than their operational management team. Projects tend, correctly, to get more visibility than operations:
they consume most of the capex budget, they are the “ticket” to future prosperity and they carry the
biggest risk (to the company and to individual careers) if they go awry.

Given that picture, it seems reasonable to expect that project managers would be “trusted advisers” to
top management. It could be argued that project management is a good preparation for occupants of
the executive suite.

The reality, however, is that we are failing. Project managers are not being embraced by top
management as partners in strategy realisation. Project managers are not being promoted into C-level
positions. There are very few Chief Project Officers. It seems that, just as women and minority groups
suffered “glass ceiling” syndrome in the 1970s and 1980s, there is a project management glass ceiling.
Why is this? We think it comes from the perspectives of both the project manager and the business
executive.

The project manager’s mindset

Project managers have a different mindset. Project managers focus on delivery of the project output
(the product of the project). To them, excellence is represented by the delivery of good technical
solutions. Business executives, on the other hand, focus more on the business benefits or outcome of the
project (the promise of the project. The project organisation is, by definition, separate from the
operational world. It is, for example, a temporary organisation. This difference is illustrated in Figure 4,
below.

Figure 4 – The project can only deliver a tool

Our own behaviour, as a project management community, reinforces this division. We are tactical
beings, who do not think or act strategically. We cannot repudiate this assertion in the face of:
• The definitions of project management discussed at the beginning of this paper
• Our inward focus and bias towards tools and techniques (attendance at any industry forum will
attest to this)
• Our industry accreditation, the PMP, which actively encourages by-the-(PMBOK®)-book project
management
• The majority of our time being spent “in the trenches” putting out technical fires.

The business executive’s perception

Project management has, in the opinion of many executives, failed to deliver.
Numerous studies provide evidence to suggest that there is more chance of failure than
success in large scale projects and programmes. The famous Chaos Report, for
example, published by the Standish Group found that only 26% of projects are
successful, with success rates of large projects and programmes as low as 19%. Another
study found that “The average loss was $13million per project, with the largest single
project failure costing $213million”. Reports such as this ensure that project managers
do not command the respect that they need to operate effectively at executive level.

The perceptions of project management in the executive suite are also coloured by a
number of prejudices. These have to do with organisational structure and culture,
barriers caused by simple differences and a lack of understanding.

The fact is that, with exceptions, we do not have the trust or respect of business executives. Some of the
reasons are not our fault, but they are there, nonetheless.

How to break through the project management glass ceiling

The most important thing is also very difficult. We need to develop a profound shift in perspective. The
different worlds described in Figure 4 are fundamental. Making the transition is non-trivial and even with
determination will not be possible for many of us. Pellegrinelli et al (2003) showed that a person’s
competence consists of, and is inseparable from, their conception - the way they conceptualise their
job. The conception held by an individual governs the awareness, appreciation and actions of that
individual. Conceptions form a hierarchy in which higher-order conceptions (in our case the
strategically-orientated business executive) can recognise and appreciate lower order conceptions (the
tactically-orientated project manager) but, crucially for this discussion, lower-order conceptions do not
recognise or appreciate behaviours, attitudes and actions emanating from the higher-order conception.
Elevating conception levels will require significant effort, non-routine, experiences that provide
dramatically different realities (many different roles, in multiple organisations and/or different countries),
prompt deep reflection and questioning of one’s own approach.

Deliberately setting oneself up for dramatically different experiences, in-depth business coaching,
development of global skills and strategic awareness are things that we need to do explicitly in order to
start developing insights into the perspectives of our senior managers and to be able to interact with
executives on equal terms.

In parallel with that, we need to develop trust in the role we are expected to play. That is to deliver
results, specifically solutions that genuinely meet the needs of our business counterparts, linking our
delivery to strategic business objectives. We need to demonstrate true leadership and develop
outstanding communication and persuasive skills. Very importantly, we need to learn the language of
top management
CONCLUSION
This discussion provides a way of thinking and a few supporting techniques to help project managers to
be more effective. It may ultimately go further. In taking aim at the PMI definition of project
management, we are in fact questioning how competence in project management is understood and
what competencies should be identified and developed. The unique position of project managers from
the positions of authority (or lack thereof) and the number and influence of stakeholders makes project
management one of the most demanding of occupations. Typical competency development and
assessments programmes only scratch the surface when it comes to defining the true role of the modern
project manager.
REFERENCES

Murray-Webster, Ruth and David Hillson, paper presented to PMI Europe 2002, The Project Management
Festival, Scaling the PEAKS of Project Management Competency, 2002

Pellegrinelli, Sergio, David Partington and Malcolm Young, paper presented to PMI Global Congress –
Europe 2003, Understanding and Assessing Programme Management Competence, 2003

Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®
Guide), 3e, PMI, 2004