Sunday, 05 August 2012 00:00

Poor Leadership, The Progenitor Of PMOs

Rate this item

(0 votes)

Image PMO not equal to Leadership Let me be perfectly clear, I hate PMOs. It matters not if you call them project management offices, program management offices, or portfolio management offices, they only spell one thing—poor leadership. Now those of you that know me, have heard this enough times that your eyes are rolling back as you mumble, "Here he goes again. Who set the bait in front of him this time?" However, I have confused people with a couple of PMO articles that might seem contrary.

The Role of a PMO

There are as many types of PMOs are there are PMOs, maybe more. Most are trying to combat some issue with struggling projects. There are, however, a very large percentage that are implemented just because it sounds neat. "Of course, we have a PMO, don't you?" I salivate when I hear that question. This person has inadvertently stumbled upon one of my biggest pet peeves. "So, what problem was it that you were trying to solve?" Their responses and my retorts are as follows:

The PMO allows us to implement a common process across all the projects. Process is about 20% of what it takes to run a project. It takes people, management, and leadership to make projects consistently successful. Process only helps since it provides the managers and executives a set of guideposts to judge a project. Using piles of process, they try to devolve projects into a checklist of activities, thinking that you can follow the steps and the project will be successful. They can ignore a project and occasionally swoop in asking for a new report. They cannot see whether the project is running efficiently or heading for ruin. Their goal is to be a one-minute manager.
The PMO ensures that we are properly prioritizing our projects. Now, wait just one second. At any well-managed company, the CEO sets the direction for the company. He or she works with the executive team (other C-Suite members) to develop the strategic and tactical plans to achieve those goals. Their progressive levels of planning and maintaining close coordination of all business units develops a list of projects and their corporate priority. Only if the executives are failing at prioritizing projects or communicating these priorities do we need a PMO to do this task.
The PMO removes roadblocks for the project manager. Granted, this is dearly needed support. In a properly lead company, internal roadblocks should be nonexistent (see bullet 2). Everyone should know his or her priorities with respect to one another. External roadblocks, risks, and issues, requiring "executive power" or additional resources (people, time, or money), are a reality and the PMO can be quite beneficial in addressing these. However, this is the project sponsor's job.

In so many words, the PMO is filling in for the void of leadership.

The Role of Leadership

**Want to read more?**

Business environments change daily making it difficult to keep initiatives aligned with the corporate goals. Without alignment the projects and initiatives fail to deliver value. Our Strategic Alignment: The Key To Project Success white paper addresses these issues and what need to be done to thwart them.
Look at the White Paper

Leadership, rather than reports, solves this problem. I am aghast at the number of companies where when asked for their strategic plan the only thing delivered is a blank stare. They have the revenue to keep their inefficiencies funded and cover up their lack of leadership. You can make money with minimal leadership as long as you have a great bunch of people selling anything they can. You can only grow and prosper, however, with an executive team's vision that sets direction and inspires and empowers employees.

Image of a naval fleet

Think of it in naval terms. The executive team is comprised of captains piloting a fleet of ships on a mission; each ship having its own crucial role and piece of that mission. None can survive on their own they must work in unison. They are not guided by a group of lieutenants telling them who should be in the lead and where to steer.

Ergo, Poor Leadership

Alas, PMOs are a necessity because companies have become leader deficient. Too much emphasis has been placed on corporate politics and the resulting executive teams are incapable of creating a vision, developing the plans, and inspiring their employees to meet those goals.

PMOs should be a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They are being used to fill the leadership void instead of educating executives in the complexities for running projects with interdepartmental dependencies. PMOs can institute the discipline to ensure projects get started at the latest possible date and that key resources are properly allocated when they are needed. The added bureaucracy that most PMOs bring, however, weigh the down the organization making it a lumbering giant, when what companies desperately need is leadership.

Want To Hear More?

If you would like to hear further debate on the subject, tune into the upcoming PMTV panel where Lindsay Scott, Dr. David Fraser and yours truly will answer the question Why do PMOs Fail?. Our hosts, Jon Hyde and Bernardo Tirado, promise this will be an exciting and educational event. It will be August 7, 2012 at noon BST (GMT +1). For all the Western Hemisphere early birds that is 7:00AM EDT or 4:00AM PDT. Yes, in the morning. If I can do it, so can you. However, it will be taped for viewing at a more reasonable hour.

Read 17112 times

Tagged under

Related items

Filling Execution Gaps: How Executives and Project Managers Turn Corporate Strategy into Successful Projects

What Filling Execution Gaps Covers

Filling Execution Gaps

by Todd C. Williams
ISBN: 978-1-5015-0640-6
De G Press (DeGruyter), September 2017

Project alignment, executive sponsorship, change management, governance, leadership, and common understanding. These six business issues are topics of daily discussions between executives, middle management, and project managers; they are the pivotal problems plaguing transformational leadership. Any one of these six, when improperly addressed, will hex a project's chances for success. And, they do—daily—destroying the ability companies to turn vision into value.

Check it out on Amazon or the Filling Execution Gaps website

Without the foundation of a common understanding of goals and core concepts, such as value being critical to success, communication stops and projects fail.

Without change management, users fail to adopt project deliverables, value is lost, and projects fail.

Without maintaining alignment between corporate goals and projects, projects miss their value targets and projects fail.

Without an engaged executive sponsor, scope increases, goals drift, chaos reigns, value is lost, and projects fail.

Without enough governance, critical connections are not made, steps are ignored, value is overlooked, and projects fail.

Too much governance slows progress, companies cannot respond to business pressures, value drowns in bureaucracy, and projects fail.

Without strong leadership defining the vision and value, goals are not set, essential relationships do not form, teams do not develop, essential decisions are not made, and projects fail.
Filling Execution Gaps: Building Success-Focused Organizations

Executives define vision, strategy, and goals to advance the business. Projects enable companies to meet those goals. Between strategy and projects, there is a lot of work to be done—work that lays the foundation for project and operational success. Through experience and research, six common gaps exist in organizations that inhibit project success—an absence of common understanding, disengaged executive sponsors, misalignment with goals, poor change management, ineffective governance, and lackluster leadership.
Get Recognized as a Leader: Four Core Leadership Actions

Leaders make decisions. This requires a core set of actions to gather the best information, hear out the concerns of others, and making a decision that everyone will follow—even if there is not unanimous agreement with the decision. Although there are hundreds of actions leaders must take, there are four core actions that all great leaders do—listening, dialog and discussion, selling a vision, and eliminating blame. This session will discuss those actions in a roundtable format that we call a "What Would You Do?" session. In these sessions, the presenter acts as a moderator spending 10 to 15 minutes per topic working with the audience talking about what the action is, how to best do it, and hearing from the group on how they have carried out the action. This brings significant audience interaction, involvement, and broader education.
Build Your Leadership Style: Six Leadership Strategies

Salespeople, Project managers, and business leaders, to name a few, need to change their leadership style for every situation. Situational leadership is more important for these roles than nearly any other role in an organization. Central to this leadership style is commanding the six core strategies—directive, expert, consensus, engaging, coaching, and affiliative. These sets leaders the foundation for building the most appropriate leadership style for the conditions surrounding the current events, people in the room, and external conditions. In this roundtable session, which we refer to as a "What Would You Do?" format, the audience debates the use of each strategy as the presenter poses various conditions and dilemmas that face leaders daily. This creates an educational, interactive and entertaining presentation that builds cohesiveness in your group and relationships that last long after your event.
Strategy-Execution Gaps
The statistics on strategy execution are dismal:
- 59% of middle managers fail at resolving conflicts in corporate strategy.
- 45% of middle managers cannot name one of the top five corporate goals.
- 64% of cross-department/functional issues are poorly resolved.
And maybe as you could expect from this:
- 53% of companies cannot react timely to new opportunities.
You do not need to be a rocket scientist to know that this trajectory is not going to launch most companies’ latest strategic plans successfully. In fact, these data might make you feel that middle management would be better suited as test dummies for the next generation of manned space-vehicle. Granted, the data show there is a dearth of leadership in middle management, but the executive tier has a culpable hand.