chapter 3

Power and the Project Manager

An exercise often used in management training sessions on power is to begin by asking, “How many people here like power?” The class's typical response is interesting and instructive. One or two people immediately shoot their hands upward. The majority of the group shuffle about, look around at classmates, and finally raise their hands with a certain timidity, as if admitting that liking power is a fault to be confessed. Another small group resolutely refuses to raise their hands at all, often professing they simply do not like “controlling” or “manipulating” others.

This is one of the central problems with discussing power—few of us are entirely sure what power actually means. We understand its effects and occasionally are horrified by its blatant misuse, but we are uncertain of its actual characteristics. As a result, “power” lends itself to such misinterpretation and misunderstanding that it is difficult to discuss the subject objectively.

Power is the ability to get activities or objectives accomplished in an organization in the way one wants them done. Some definitions of power frame the term as a confrontational issue—the belief that power implies forcing someone to do something they would not ordinarily do. Another definition of power is more benign, stating that power is a mechanism to move an individual or company off dead-center.

Underlying these definitions of power is the belief that power “enables” some members of an organization to pursue objectives. Whether those objectives are for the good of an organization or are purely self-centered is another issue. Nevertheless, as part of any discussion of the project management process, it is important to understand the nature of power in organizations, its various bases, how one gets and holds power, and its potential effects on power holders.

Power vs. Influence

Influence and influencers are pervasive in our society. Television and radio advertisements, televangelists, and salespeople represent examples of some of the most common types of influence we experience daily. None of these influencers can force your compliance. Each of us has the power to change the channel or leave the store if we are offended or threatened by the influencer's message. Why, then, are many of these people so successful in raising money and gaining sales? In a different context, how can we explain the seemingly mystifying success some of our peers have in gaining compliance from other organizational members, often even without direct authority over them? The answer typically focuses on the greater ability to influence some of us possess relative to others.

Because influence is a key component of organizational life, it is important to distinguish between influence and power before considering the role of power in organizations. Many managers define power in terms of influence as a convenient shorthand. More appropriately, we can view influence as one's ability to get another to do something we want when there are no gross power differences between the two parties. That is, the influencer has no formal ability to “force” the other person to seek some goal or perform some task. From this definition, it is clear that there are some important similarities between power and influence—both are used to change another's behavior. The two constructs, however, are very different in some important ways. Each demonstrates that a thorough knowledge of influence tactics are important tools for better managing within the organization's political climate.

Table 3.1 demonstrates some of the relevant differences between power and influence. These differences are classified under three headings: scope and generality, strength of foundation, and tenure.

Scope and generality refer to the nature of how one uses influence versus power. Typically, successful influencers are situation-specific. That is, those who are adept at influencing others know intuitively when and under what circumstances to attempt to change someone else's behavior. Good influencers do not misuse or overuse their abilities because they know the more often they employ them, the more likely that co-workers will begin to refuse to comply with their wishes. Remember, the use of influence implies that one party does not have any formal authority to force a point of view on the other—compliance is purely voluntary.

 

In addition, good influencers rely almost exclusively on face-to-face meetings. There are two primary reasons for meeting rather than using telephones or other media. First, it is harder for the average person to refuse another during direct contact. Memos or telephone calls offer an impersonal approach, making it easier to refuse an influencer's requests. Second, good influencers are invariably adept at reading body language and other nonverbal responses from their “target.” Good influencers in action are constantly altering the “angle of attack” or promotional pitch as they perceive that one line of argument is either likely to be accepted or rejected. This sensitivity to the other individual's reactions is not possible without direct contact.

Power does not accept the constraints of situation and approach. When one individual has power over another, that person is in a position to operate without regard to concerns about scope and generality. The “boss,” or power holder, is in a position to force compliance regardless of the situation and via any means. For the power holders the telephone is just as effective as face-to-face meetings.

Another distinction between influence and power can be seen in strength of foundation. This concept refers to the fact that influence, in order to be effective, must be used well; that is, because one's base (or foundation) of actual power over another may be weak, effective planning, preparation, and role playing must be substituted to influence another.

Power, on the other hand, gives a manager a strong base from which to operate. The manager with power does not have to be constrained to exercising that power in clever or situation-specific ways. He or she tells another to do something and that subordinate is bound to comply. Further, because the power base is strong, power holders do not have to be particularly sensitive in using their authority. “Do it because I say so!” may be all the information the power holder is required to convey.

Another difference between power and influence is its tenure. Power is much longer lived than influence. Because influence is situation-specific, it is used sparingly. To overuse influence, particularly with any individual or group, is often to lose it. On the other hand, power lasts. Managers occupying higher positions in an organizational hierarchy have practical power over those in a lower echelon.

How can managers recognize influence tactics, particularly when those tactics are directed at them? Or, put another way, given these distinctions between power and influence, what are some of the more common forms of influence? There are several common approaches to influence, with three underlying characteristics; each works best in face-to-face settings, they are situation-specific, and they implicitly assume the influencer cannot directly force his or her will on the other person. Among these common approaches are:

Persuasion—simply arguing the merits of one's position with another. Persuasion suggests that if the one person will simply give a fair hearing to the influencer, he or she will be won over on the strength of the argument.

Ingratiation—the art of flattery, cajolery, or a search for common ground to win favor and gain another's willingness to cooperate. Ingratiation, as an influence tactic, offers the simple argument that it is easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar. For example, a project manager working for the Chrysler Corporation made a point of saving all personnel notices like transfers, promotions, and awards of advanced degrees. He filed them away and prior to calling on another manager or executive for the first time, always read up on relevant information concerning that person. Thus, he knew their educational background, where they were from, and something about their work history. This tactic gave the project manager a terrific source of common ground and talking points, making contacts cooperative and supportive of his needs.

Another interesting example of ingratiation as an influence tactic has been termed the Theory of Wooden Nickles [1]. One of the smartest moves for new employees is to do a favor for the boss’ secretary, the custodian, and the manager in human resources who performs job studies. To illustrate, one bright young engineer once made a point of fixing a squeaky pencil sharpener that several other engineers had demanded the custodian repair, a job he had tried and failed at several times. That simple act of helping the custodian was reciprocated more than once as the custodian went out of his way to find ways to show his appreciation. Over the course of the next year, the young engineer received a private office and needed pieces of office furniture, all scouted out for him by the same custodian he had helped.

Pressure—a form of influence that applies external considerations as a supplement to the message itself; for example, time constraints. Pressure tactics frequently seek to limit the target's freedom of choice or movement in order to gain compliance. A salesman who claims a product will be on sale for a limited time is hoping the added pressure of the time constraint will reinforce the influential message.

Guilt—a powerful but sometimes overlooked form of influence, guilt implies a relationship based on obligation between two parties. As a result, one may attempt to sway the other by an appeal to this sense of duty or obligation, regardless of whether obligation actually exists.

Sources of Power

An early, extremely influential study in organizational behavior sought to characterize the various “bases” of managerial power that one can potentially possess. Although slightly modified over the years, the basis of this study is still important to our understanding of exactly how managers can acquire power. French and Raven [2] point to two distinct bases of managerial power: personal and positional. Personal power, they argue, refers to the power that comes to an individual from a number of sources. This sort of power is manifested through a manager's relations with others in the organization. Positional power, on the other hand, is the power accrued through formal organizational authority channels.

There are a number of different forms of personal power, which managers can acquire in varying degrees. Among the more well-known personal power bases are referent power, expert power, information power, and connection power.

Referent power refers to the situation where other organizational members like someone and want to be like them. The power-holder acts as a reference point for others. Referent power is a significant, often used, form of power. Advertisers use of star athletes to endorse products illustrates the fact that a large percentage of people in our society are swayed by the opinions of those they hold in high regard. Adolf Hitler's charismatic presence and oratorical abilities gained him a measure of personal power long before he became first chancellor and later dictator of Nazi Germany. And within organizational circles, examples of referent power can be found at all levels of the organization. When members of a loading dock gang gravitate toward a friendly or physically large co-worker, we find evidence of referent power. When a junior manager willfully confronts a superior and is lionized by co-workers for having the guts to stand up to the boss, he is experiencing a level of referent power. In all of these examples, the power-holder is one who has the ability to sway the opinions of others through the dynamism of personal power—power that is evidenced by the regard with which the power-holder is held by other members of the organization.

A second form of personal power is expert power. This is the belief that the power-holder has some expertise or knowledge that others need to perform their jobs. An example of expert power can be found within the R&D departments of many organizations. Individuals who are generally regarded by their peers as having expert knowledge will typically wield far more real power in the laboratory than the designated lab manager, particularly if the designated manager is not perceived to have as great a level of expertise.

Informational power is another form of personal power, similar to expert power. It is defined as the belief that the power-holder either possesses or has access to information necessary to perform a job. Some managers serve as the conduit for all forms of organizational information. Whether that information is conveyed in memos, gossip and hallway rumors, or direct access to upper management, these individuals hold power because they possess this information. Other organizational members are willing to defer to them to the degree that they perceive that this information, whether gossip or activity-based, is relevant and useful for their own work and organizational survival.

The final type of personal power is known as connection power. The power of connections is clear in all organizational settings. Some individuals, regardless of their formal position, possess tremendous power due solely to their connections to powerful people. The classic adage, “It isn't what you know, it's who you know,” succinctly states the importance of connections as a source of power with peers and superiors.

Each of the personal power bases have a common feature—the “power” found in each derives directly from human relationships. By definition, unless one willingly explores relationships with peers and superiors in organizations, one cannot reasonably expect to develop any form of personal power.

These personal power bases offer project managers a wide range of options. Not everyone is blessed with a magnetic personality making it easy to cultivate and maintain referent power. Likewise, some people are adept at creating a network of powerful connections while others, either through personality or external circumstances, do not have similar opportunities. On the other hand, acquiring information or developing expertise is within the control of most managers and should be explored as alternative bases of power.

Positional power, as opposed to personal power bases, is specifically derived from the position a manager holds within the organizational hierarchy. As a result, we often think of positional power as a manager's more “formal” base of power. Included in positional power are the bases of legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power. Legitimate power is the hierarchical authority managers can “legitimately” expect to wield as a perquisite of positions they occupy in the chain of command. Reward and coercive power are the natural manifestations of the legitimate authority that one who occupies a position with organizational power should naturally have as part of that power—the dual rights of reward and punishment.

Within the arena of project management the whole issue of positional power becomes problematic. Project managers in many organizations operate outside the standard functional hierarchy. While that position allows them a certain freedom of action without direct oversight, it has some important concomitant disadvantages, particularly as it pertains to positional power. First, because cross-functional relationships between the project manager and other functional departments are ill-defined, project managers often quickly discover they have little or no legitimate power to simply force their decisions through the organizational system. Functional departments usually do not have to recognize the legitimate right of project managers to interfere with functional responsibilities. In these cases project managers hoping to rely on positional power to implement their projects are quickly derailed.

Secondly, in many organizations, project managers have minimal authority to reward their team members who, because they are temporary subordinates, maintain direct ties and loyalties to their functional departments. In fact, it is depressingly commonplace for project managers to not even have the opportunity to complete a performance evaluation on temporary team members. Clearly, in such an environment, project managers’ promises to subordinates of rewards for outstanding performance are at best tentative. Likewise, project managers may have minimal authority to punish inappropriate behavior. They discover, in short order, that they have neither the ability to offer the carrot nor threaten the stick. The implications here are clear: project managers hoping to effectively lead a temporary project team composed of cross-functional subordinates are almost always forced to develop strong influence skills and cultivate personal power bases as a tactic for enhancing their status and credibility.

Other Sources of Power

In addition to the sources of power French and Raven identified, more recent research has pointed to additional sources for developing power in an organization. These different power tactics offer project managers several specific ways to enhance their power.

One important method for acquiring additional power is through centrality. Centrality refers to the knowledge that those who occupy central, or visible, positions within an organization naturally acquire a degree of power over other less visible members. Canny managers seek to locate themselves centrally in an organization and surround themselves with a network of allies and loyal subordinates. For example, clearly a manager will develop more power through being assigned to a job at corporate headquarters rather than a small satellite office. The more central the position, the more others must go through that person to achieve their own needs; hence, the more power that individual will wield. Managers must walk through the avenues of power if they are ever to accrue their own power.

Another method for gaining power is by maintaining a reputation for nonsubstitutability. That is, the belief—whether true or erroneous—of other key organizational members that the manager occupies some position or performs a task that is indispensable. If other managers depend upon some individual for their own resources or other services, that person will have a greater degree of authority. A classic example of this point is found within many organizations that have a substantial computer operation or use a large-scale MIS system. Those involved in these organizations quickly discover that certain computer experts seem to have power far beyond their position simply because they are the only people who can make the computer work, generate needed information, or provide vital logistical support services.

The Effects of Power: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Pursuing and maintaining power is not always a positive experience, nor does everyone who has power use it wisely or for the greater good of the organization. In assessing the effects that acquiring and using power can have on managers, one business writer [3] used the framework from a well-known western movie, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. In the movie, three rather ruthless men compete with each other for a fortune in gold. In corporate life, managers often compete with each other for power. Unfortunately, as we allow ourselves to become caught up in this pursuit, we may not be aware of the effects of power on our own lives.

The Good

Quickly, what is good about power? When most managers consider that question, they usually conclude that power gets things done. Power is the engine that drives the organizational machinery. Without it there is little or no incentive to make necessary changes, initiate projects, or push the organization into uncharted but potentially lucrative waters. Power gives managers the ability to move the machine forward, and it is a vital component of any manager's repertoire. As McClelland noted in his research, successful managers have a greater need for power than for affiliation; that is, they understand that it is more important to maintain control than it is to be personally liked.

The Bad

One of the negative consequences of wielding power is its effect on us, both as managers and human beings. Slevin [3] noted, “Power has its price.” The quest for power in organizations is emotionally and physically draining; one writer noted that the drive for success is one of the greatest sources of anxiety in our society [4]. Why does power do this to us? The quest for power is, by definition, fraught with conflict. One cannot gain power without gaining advantage, usually at another's expense. Over time, this quest has severe implications for our mental and physical health. The “good news” evidence of our stress will appear in very noticeable ways. For example, changes in behaviors, physical side effects (ulcers, hypertension, high blood pressure), and psychological effects (depression, aggression, etc.) all serve as powerful signals that somewhere we have gone off the track. Our body and mental apparatus operate as a “circuit breaker” mechanism to signal we may be experiencing some of the bad effects of power.

The Ugly

The ugly side of power offers a potentially frightening message—power changes us. It leads to noticeable and real changes in our attitudes about ourselves and others. Most of us have heard Lord Acton's famous aphorism, “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This insight is not new, the ancient Greeks had a term for the effect that power has on creating an overweening pride and self-absorption—hubris. Sophocles’ play Oedipus Rex demonstrates the effect that ugly power can have on ordinary and even heroic individuals.

For many people acquiring power is intoxicating, they begin to experience an altered mind-state in which they see themselves as superior to others. At the same time, while craving the approval of subordinates and other less powerful individuals, they also begin to denigrate these people because they do not have the same level of power. The ugly side of power gives us an exalted view of ourselves and transmits feelings of contempt for those we deem “less worthy.”

Slevin has noted four specific ways in which power can corrupt:

1. People acquire a “taste for power” and relentlessly pursue more power as an end in itself. In the movie Wall Street, the character played by Charlie Sheen, Bud Fox, had a climactic meeting with Gordon Gecko, the insidious and manipulative financier played by Michael Douglas. At a pivotal moment, Fox asked, “How much is enough, Gordon? How many yachts can you water-ski behind?” Clearly, there was no reason for Gecko to continue pursuing his predatory ways except that it was a style he had always employed. “Ugly” power-holders often have the same outlook. Power, itself, becomes the goal, not the means to another objective. In the process, the power-holders lose sight of the end for the process, amassing as much power as possible.

2. Access to power tempts people to illegally use institutional resources as a means of enriching themselves. Power-holders cannot discern between their own success and that of the organization they represent. Ultimately, they may not even care. The blurring of the lines between what is “mine” and what belongs to others is a very real problem because it reflects the twisting of “ugly” power-holders’ priorities. Jim Bakker was a highly respected television evangelist who had built the PTL Club into a major, multimillion-dollar organization. Along the way, he forgot his role in the organization and began to treat the PTL Club as his own private source of funds and other perquisites. Bakker's fall from grace, brought on by the warping of his perceptions, is perhaps best summed up by a former associate who had known Bakker since his early days in the ministry. “Jim Bakker,” he said, “is someone who started out loving people and using things and by the time of his arrest he was loving things and using people.”

3. People are provided with false feedback concerning their own worth and they develop new values designed to protect their power. Those trapped in exercising the ugly side of power begin to surround themselves with a sycophantic crowd that continually reinforces the power-holder's self-delusionary perceptions. Bad news is conveniently forgotten or watered down so as not to interfere with this self-deception. Followers are generous with flattery and positive feedback and the power-holder may literally lose touch with the larger reality. In such a situation and surrounded by false feedback, it is hardly surprising the leader begins to conclude, “I am superior and more effective than those around me.” Consider Manhattan hotel operator Leona Helmsley's remark, “Only the little people pay taxes,” as an example of the sort of delusionary thinking that results from living in such a false reality. These thoughts often signal someone well on their way to the dangers of hubris.

4. People with power devalue the worth of the less powerful and prefer to avoid close social contacts with them. A fascinating side effect of ugly power is how it alters power-holders’ opinions of others, especially those who are most constant in their flattery. One would suppose the power-holders would crave and value their followers’ praise. Unfortunately, that conclusion is only half-correct. “Ugly” power-holders do, indeed, require an unending stream of praise and positive feedback, but at the same time they begin to devalue the feedback itself because it is offered by “inferiors.” The contempt that “ugly” power-holders display for their followers in spite of, or perhaps because of, the unending litany of praise is another insidious side effect of ugly power. We need such praise but have nothing but contempt for the praise giver.

Ugly power is frightening in its corrupting potential. It is particularly frightening because, unlike the bad side of power which gives us physical and emotional signals of distress, ugly power, by definition, implies the power-holder has changed to such a degree that he or she becomes unaware they are caught in its throes. It creates managers with such egotism and self-inflated delusions that one would suppose the lessons would be clear for future managers. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It seems each generation of manager must learn their own lessons, sometimes the hard way. The good news is that those who are truly operating as “ugly” power-holders are a relatively small percentage of managers. The bad news is that for them, power has become an intoxicating end unto itself that is recreating them in an exceedingly unattractive form.

Power itself is neither good, bad, nor ugly. Power enables organizations and offers project managers opportunities to enhance their positions and their projects’ chances of success. How power is used and its effects requires project managers to treat it with substantial respect, understanding what power can do for and do to those who wield it. Perhaps the first and most important analysis project managers need to make is an “internal check” to acknowledge their own needs and past experiences with power. As long as managers are willing to make an honest self-appraisal of their uses of power and reasons for acquiring it, they are likely to continue to use it in positive ways that work to their own and to the organization's advantage.

Suggestions for Improving Your Power

What are project managers to conclude from the above discussion on power? Clearly, they can take away important insight for improving their own power base in what is often seen as a powerless job. Understanding the unique constraints faced by most project managers, there are some practical ways to begin expanding the power in the project management position.

Make Yourself an Expert

One of the best, and often overlooked, methods for improving personal power lies in tapping into expertise. Although not everyone is charismatic and interpersonally acute and able to achieve referent power, practically every project manager does have the capacity to expand their power through the perceptions of others about their expertise. This power base can be readily acquired by those with the self-discipline to learn the technology of the project they are overseeing. Many project managers have failed in their assignments simply because their teams quickly realized that while they may have had a modicum of technical project skills, they did not understand the unique nature of the project well enough to give team members confidence in their decision-making abilities. Many project managers have lost all credibility with project team engineers because they could not speak to the technical problems associated with their projects.

Two contrasting examples best illustrate this point. In the 1980s two dynamic Silicon Valley firms were seeking to move from their original, entrepreneurial management styles into more professional and bureaucratic management practices. Both had been dominated by the vision and personality of their founders and had grown dramatically, to the point where the founders no longer had the time nor the inclination to manage the corporations on a day-to-day basis.

In seeking replacement CEOs, both companies went outside the computer industry, believing that a good manager can manage anywhere. In the first case, the organization was at the zenith of its power—appearing in 1981 as one of companies cited for “excellence” in Peters and Waterman's groundbreaking book, In Search of Excellence—when the founder stepped down. The new CEO, whose previous position was with a textile firm headquartered in New York City, came in and from the first day began stirring up the company. He demanded significant changes, many of which flew in the face of the original corporate culture and value set. Although he had no computer experience, he made several strategic moves that took the company away from its area of expertise and embroiled it in new battles on unfamiliar territory. Along the way, he succeeded in alienating his design staff and engineering departments, as they realized that despite all his public talk, he had no technical background nor any interest in learning how the technology worked. The organization entered a period of rapid decline, falling from industry leadership to filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in less than five years.

The second firm also went outside the industry in hiring its new leader. Although initially not an expert in the company's technology, the new CEO spent over six months learning the computer business and more importantly, learning computer technology, satisfying the engineering departments that they had a CEO who truly understood all aspects of the business. In acquiring expert power, this CEO was able to implement his ideas with a minimum of internal resistance, make significant strategic moves, and ultimately, lead the company into a new era of profitability.

What were the names of the two companies, one a lesson in failure and the other a continuing success story? Atari Corporation and Apple Computer. While it would be overly simplistic to suggest the only difference in these success and failure stories was the new CEO's willingness to become an expert, it also cannot be dismissed as purely coincidental. Expert power is important and can be acquired—and it must be maintained. There is nothing that will excite the contempt of technical team members faster than the perception that the project manager is either not an expert or is faking his expertise.

Find Ways to Promote Your Project

Centrality is an important facet in acquiring power. Occupying a position central and visible to other corporate members can offer managers a nice “leg up” in establishing a base of power. The same principle holds true for a project. If a manager promotes his or her project as central to or important for organizational goals, that manager is in a better position to operate with a degree of power on their side, particularly in bargaining and negotiating with other department heads. One important caveat to this: In arguing for centrality, it is important to maintain personal credibility. It is a mistake for a manager to “over-hype” a relatively low-level project in the hopes of gaining just such a position of centrality. This is a classic example of the boy who cries “wolf” too many times. Other managers have a sense of the importance of various projects and to overuse the claim that a project is “critical” to the organization will eventually sacrifice a project manager's credibility. Use this approach sparingly.

Don't Be Afraid to Promote Yourself

Every ambitious manager should find ways to become involved in activities with visibility. Personal reticence, the opposite of excessive self-promotion, serves managers no better in pursuing project goals. Some of us are loath to engage in personal advertising, believing that we should let our actions speak for themselves. This position is understandable, but usually wrong-minded. Managers have to come to an understanding of the difference between egotistically hyping achievements out of proportion and sitting stoically on the sidelines “waiting for the coach to put us into the big game.” In promoting ourselves, there is nothing wrong with making clear to other, significant organizational members that we bring a solid track record to our projects and expect support and cooperation. The principle that applies here is that of nonsubstitutability—we are trying to demonstrate that as project managers we occupy our positions for good reason, are competent, and the right person for the job.

As a personal exercise, think of those considered to be “fast trackers,” that is, those who seem to be moving rapidly up in corporate hierarchy. And realize one important criterion for fast tracking is the willingness to use self-promotion to an appropriate degree. Fast trackers want others, particularly top management, to know they are fast trackers. Their self-promotion is not simply the result of an ego run rampant, but an understanding that the more others perceive them as “up and coming,” the more they will, in fact, move up the promotion ladder.

A young manager, for example, at a large auto manufacturing company became involved in that organization's Headquarters Management Club. Eventually, he volunteered to become Club Chairman. Although the duties contributed to his workload at corporate headquarters, the benefits he derived from the post, in terms of contacts made, were invaluable. He arranged for a company vice president to be a spotlight speaker at each meeting, leading to these influential people knowing his name and speaking with him on a first-name basis. Later, as a project manager, he had the unique ability when facing problems to gain immediate access to powerful individuals who could work on his behalf.

Project managers need to be willing to adopt a similar attitude of self-promotion, because such behavior serves the goals of their projects. As top management and functional managers perceive that the project manager is nonsubstitutable, they also begin to approach resource bargaining sessions on a more equal footing. While excessive “hyping” is liable to backfire as others begin to feel threatened, self-promotion done in moderation is an important source of organizational power. “Walking the walk” is crucial: “Talking the talk” makes subsequent actions easier.

Enlist a Sponsor's Support

An important source of power derives from connections. Project managers should work to gain the support of a champion from within the organization hierarchy, preferably one who is significantly higher up the chain of command. Pinto and Slevin [5] discussed the importance of project champions as a key determinant of successful implementation. Both research and experience support this contention. In the majority of cases where a project was completed in a timely and relatively smooth fashion, it is possible to point to the support and active promotion of a senior manager.

A project sponsor needs to do more than send a memo to other functional departments, stating his or her support. True championing behavior consists of a willingness to intervene in development when necessary, contact other managers to enlist their cooperation, secure additional resources when crises occur, and serve as the head cheerleader for the project at high-level meetings. If such support is actively communicated, it can serve to ease many difficult situations in the implementation.

For example, one project manager and his mentor, the program director, had created a highly successful partnership. The project manager worked strenuously to “sell” a project to higher authorities. When they expressed a willingness to put the project on the books, his boss would visit each departmental vice president and ask what they were personally going to do to support the project. There was an underlying, veiled threat that unless the executive provided resources and political support, the program manager would not authorize the project to succeed. In this way, the two acquired both the financial resources and the political “pull” to ensure that their projects would be successfully implemented.

Work to Establish Some Positional Authority

One of the favorite complaints of frustrated project managers is trying to operate with no formal authority. “No one will listen to me,” “I have no pull with the functional managers,” and, “Team members routinely put my requests on the back burner when their bosses snap their fingers,” are all complaints stemming from the same source of frustration: lack of any formal, positional power. When considered in its proper context, it should never be surprising to project managers that they are often low person on the authority totem pole. And project team members often have two competing messages that are mutually exclusive: “I need you to work full-time on this project” versus “Forget the project. This week I need you full-time in the department.” Every subordinate is going to make their choice based on self-preservation: Who has the power to reward and sanction me? In most organizations, that power rests exclusively with the department manager.

Rather than accept this limiting factor, project managers need to find ways to level the playing field between themselves and the team members’ functional bosses. One method is to negotiate, as an early condition of taking on a project, the promise of being permitted to complete a performance evaluation on team members. While an obvious option, it is surprising how few organizations currently operate in this manner. Part of the reason for this is that functional managers actively resist surrendering any authority, fearing it will weaken their discretionary power. On the other hand, this is a chance for project managers to force upper management to actively back up their implied support for the project. Without the ability to offer rewards and punishments, even nominal ones in the form of a performance evaluation, project managers will never be in the position to operate with any real degree of status vis-à-vis their project team.

Summary

Power is a complex, fascinating topic. Many of us are uncomfortable with it, fear it, or fear those who use it. This chapter has shown that power itself is simply a benign component of the organizational process. Bad past experiences with power or with those who had power over us tend to make us wary of employing power ourselves, oftentimes due to the belief that there is something unsavory about “controlling” the behavior of subordinates and project team members. Project managers need to develop a better understanding of the importance of a constructive attitude and learn how and how not to use power, then it can be better used, rationally and with minimal disruption to the organization. All projects depend on the responsible, effective use of power in order to be successfully concluded.