It’s not news that across global industries there is a high, persistent rate of project failure. A Gartner survey found, for example, that only 48 per cent of digital transformation projects meet or exceed their targets. The reasons are often cited as budget overruns, scope changes or schedule delays. But these issues are simply an indication of something more serious – a systemic breakdown in project governance – often as a result of poor people management.

Project governance should guide and control a project so it stays on track and meets its goals. Governance processes define how decisions are made, who is responsible and how progress is monitored during a project. A lack of strong governance leads to confusion for people, while poor people management weakens control and structure. Together, they create a cycle that increases delays, mistakes and project failure.

Failing project governance and poor people management are closely connected because both affect how well a project is planned, led and executed.

So, let’s look at 3 connections between poor people management and poor governance.

 

1. The governance deficit in sponsorship and resource strategy

Project governance refers to those areas of corporate governance that relate specifically to activities linked to a project. Poor people management is a direct contravention of these principles at a senior level. Here are some of the causes…

Inadequate sponsor engagement

Governance requires the project sponsor to give consistent and clear leadership. But when there is inadequate people management at a senior level there is a lack of support to enable sponsors to provide the necessary leadership to a project. The project will appear leaderless. This apparent lack of engagement indicates to the rest of an organisation that the project isn’t a high priority, and this can result in team demotivation and limited resources. The inability of the Board to ensure sponsors provide the appropriate level of oversight is a key governance failure.

 

Portfolio-level resource mis-allocation

The governance framework should ensure that resources are used efficiently across a portfolio of projects. When it comes to resource allocation, poor people management becomes obvious due to the lack of prioritisation of resources. The result is that functional managers who are not supported by strong, central governance tend to hoard talent or assign those members of a team who are the least competent to high-risk projects. This means that in a somewhat paradoxical situation, key people are severely overloaded, yet critical roles remain empty. This can result in project failure because of dependency on key people in one project, yet a skills deficit in another project.

 

2. The cultural collapse of accountability and psychological safety

In order to be successful, every project needs a highly engaged, communicative culture. Poor people management fails to build such a culture and replaces trust and transparency with an aversion to risk. It’s perhaps no surprise then how often poor people management results in project failure.

Here’s why…

Erosion of accountability

Governance requires clear roles and responsibilities but when accountability is not enforce, this results in a lack of discipline and, more importantly, a culture where procrastination and avoiding responsibility are the norm. When a problem occurs in the project, which is, of course, inevitable on most projects, this results in a blame-game instead of looking for solutions.

 

Suppression of risk disclosure

Possibly the most dangerous consequence of this is the destruction of psychological safety. If a project team is concerned about reprisals or public humiliation when they raise concerns, then there is every chance that they will not highlight project risks, deviations or technical difficulties. Good governance must have transparency and a culture where early failure is incentivised as a route to success in every project.

The book “Black Box Thinking” by Matthew Syed (which I highly recommend) covers in detail the real dangers of not raising concerns and, in contradiction, the difficulties of creating an environment where this can be done with impunity. Everyone involved in projects could learn something from this book.

Focusing on process instead of results

Poor people management often comes down to a single-minded focus on formal processes and compliance. When project managers stress the process over the behaviours that drive performance, teams can become increasingly concerned about how they complete a task, rather than the outcome of that task – in other words they should be focusing solely on delivering value.

3. Mitigating systemic failure through organisational maturity

It’s clear then just how important it is to address the root cause of poor people management, and this requires strategic investment driven by the governing board. This investment should be aimed at raising organisational project maturity.

Organisations need to shift their project management framework so that it includes, and rewards, behaviour-based management. This should have a specific focus on better team consistency and communication skills, as well as technical proficiency. The ability of a project manager to inspire and develop emotional engagement from the team should be a key performance indicator.

In conclusion

Strong project governance establishes clear accountability, invests in vital human skills and creates a culture of transparent leadership. By recognising this critical connection between good governance and effective people management, organisations can improve their project delivery capability. What are they waiting for?