Individual Reputation
Individual reputation is how an individual is perceived in the organization and, therefore, impacts relationships and power with their subordinates, peers, and managers. For senior managers, this includes their relationship with the board.
This book is making the case that unrecognized composite projects present risks greater than their strategic value might suggest. Level 3 tactical projects are not big enough to affect the organization or make the news externally. Level 1 strategic projects are recognized as being big enough to impact the business and so, typically, have strong governance. This makes them less likely to fail, and when they do, the symptoms are noticed and eventual failure anticipated, even if sometimes the outcome is still spectacular. Unrecognized composite projects may not have the governance and so, may fail spectacularly and unexpectedly. Cost, time, and scope do not often make the news, but a quality failure might. This means that for the managers involved, unrecognized composite projects represent increased risk to personal reputation. We are particularly concerned with managers acting as sponsors, work-stream leaders, and subject-matter experts.
We discussed earlier the difference in cultures between projectized departments and business-as-usual (BaU) departments and what things are valued in each environment. We see this is reflected in the personal characteristics that are valued in managers and how individual reputations are built.
Project managers are valued for their ability to respond to an ever-changing situation and be highly tolerant to uncertainty—they are doing something that has not been done before. Things can be bruising for project managers when tasks do not come in on time or do not work as expected. Project managers must be task-focused, and to solve problems, need to be politically aware and cool under pressure. They must excel at communication and motivating others who they can only influence and not command.
For people drawn from the business, the BaU job is about consistency and efficiency. The focus is on avoiding mistakes rather than innovation. Personal reputation centers around being a safe pair of hands, someone who can get things done, and the go to person for a subject. Careers progress by having ever more people and resources to run efficiently and by ever more autonomy over those resources. This is granted only when things do not go wrong. A normal life in a project replete with issues, risks, delays, and calls for extra cash is not familiar and comfortable with people used to BaU challenges. Particularly, at the board level, people are expected to hit targets and so, asking for more time or money is excruciating for sponsors and business leads. This is not an experience they will expose themselves to lightly. They are likely to want involvement in projects to the extent they enhance prospects for their main career in the BaU environment. This means enhancing not undermining their reputations.
You might think being part of a successful project can only enhance reputations. It is likely, but composite project involvement may just be overlooked and go under the radar. It is particularly likely the sheer amount of effort required will not be appreciated.
Disappointing or failed projects certainly do not grow reputations, especially for those highly involved with the project such as project sponsors and business leads.
So, how robust are the reputations of such BaU managers? What is their risk? This depends on where they stand at the time.
Strong reputations generally survive a problematic composite project because it is only part of the manager’s remit, which is otherwise performing, or if the project is perceived to be difficult. However, for someone building a reputation, this will not be the case and they might suffer a serious impact.
So, from the perspective of BaU managers, they might perceive composite project involvement has asymmetrical risk. They suffer reputation damage if it fails, their career takes a hit, but may achieve little upside if it succeeds.
Project managers need to be aware of this dynamic when trying to influence such managers. But also, organizations need to be aware of this dynamic when setting up composite projects and drafting reluctant BaU managers. It may have invisible costs in terms of performance of the project and well-being of the managers.
Story: Reputation, Reputation, Reputation
The following story is not really a story—it is an illustrative scenario showing the impact of a badly performing project on individual reputations.
Project Kark Rash in the Prologue is fictional example of a project that underperformed and affected both BaU and the team’s well-being. The project team members are unlikely to volunteer for another project, but their reputations would probably remain intact. However, the reputations of the project sponsor, the business lead, and the project manager would probably not.
It is not that they would be fired—it is more subtle than that. After all, these are good managers, and they would have made sure their BaU objectives were achieved. The meetings with senior stakeholders would have been very uncomfortable as they reported issues and requested additional budget, or time, or a reduction in scope. Sometimes, stakeholders perceive these requests as failure, and so. there would have been an air of disappointment around the room.
To their peers, they are associated with a project that has become a laughingstock, even if their day job is performing fantastically well. Yes, they would have had a bit of a laugh and joke about it, but the perception sticks.
It is a fact of life that many projects run into problems; we have been in these meetings and observed these conversations. We also see how tricky it is for those individuals at the time and understand their concern about the effect on their next opportunity for promotion.
Impact on the Individual
We have discussed that for people drawn from BaU, their job focused on consistency and efficiency does not prepare them for a composite project environment full of setbacks and change.
What are some other features of the composite project environment that pose difficulties for the BaU staff?
- • Operational staff are used to resolving problems quickly, then moving on to the next one. They are busy, and their time is not their own; it is dictated by events in many cases. They may be frustrated by the slow pace of the project environment.
- • They inevitably experience conflict over time choices between BaU and the project. They may feel stress from the pressure of being chased for both and paid (appraised) for only one.
- • BaU staff may bring with them emotional scars from earlier outside initiatives that did not deliver or brought them grief.
- • Project timescales are often different to operational timescales.
- • Projects need to be set up properly, and that can take some time. Operational staff cannot understand why “we can’t just get on with it.”
- • They work with people who are not their direct reports. They are used to the levers that come with direct organizational authority. Responsibility without direct authority can be stressful if that is not what you are used to.
- • Some of the frustrations of project life include changing timescales, inter-department working where they do not have the line management to back them up, and finding themselves involved in a struggling project. An issue for many is that sometimes, their unexpected project homework falls outside of their plan for the week.
- • One of the most stressful things for all people is a sense of not being in control of one’s life. BaU managers may feel this when they have been effectively conscripted onto the project, possibly because the senior management has decided they are the most knowledgeable and experienced person in the subject matter. Stress is amplified if they are not fully behind the project or fear it may fail.
- • The project methodology can be an issue too. It is common for people running operations to understand the need for good governance, but still be frustrated by it. In rare cases, it could be the other way around. Certainly, the unnecessarily rigid adherence to detailed project methodology is not good for the project. For example, how does a project manager schedule a resource that is already 100 percent committed?
- • All these stress factors are magnified by lengthy involvement. More than 3 to 9 months on a project can start to feel like a life sentence.
Projects can, of course, have a positive impact on individuals. Association with successful outcomes can boost careers. Morale and motivation can be enhanced by the challenge and exposure to something different and new. Also, projects help managers adapt to the new and as the cliché change is a constant is probably true; this is an important skill. Notwithstanding the glow from being part of successful projects, perversely, people will learn more from a difficult and problematic project than from an easy one. They just might not appreciate it at the time.
But, the risk for organizations is that projects have a negative impact on individuals. The negative impacts are mostly related to managers already working at capacity, being handed additional project work to fit in with their schedule. This effect is increased when the project starts to have difficulties forcing unplanned extended periods of long working hours.
It is reasonable to assume people come to work to do a good job and are usually diligent and will carry out their work on both BaU and the project, but time pressures can lead to skimping or neglecting BaU responsibilities. This can often be an issue if project deadlines clash with the BaU diary, for example, at the month end. This can mean reputation impact for their core role, as discussed earlier. Performance assessment goals are likely to be around this and not the project, especially if the line manager is not benefiting from the project. These conflicting priorities between bosses is particularly stressful.
The time commitment and mental capacity issues do not just relate to the project tasks the BaU manager is assigned. Any project requires them to learn the project way of working—meetings, work packages, reporting, and so on. The governance process may be unfamiliar and frustrating. They may have to learn the terminology and concepts of this new discipline: critical path, dependencies, risk management, and the rest.
A composite project is even more complex, as it involves managing time and priorities between BaU and the project. It also may involve working with other team members juggling time, but with a different monthly BaU cycle. For example, we have seen a company month end that requires some teams to work flat out on the run up to month end, while other teams run flat out the week after.
A failing composite project exaggerates all the demands and adds others. There will be extra work for the project, potential unpaid overtime with loss of time from the BaU day job. They have to re-plan their BaU diary, do more delegation, use more backfill resource, and limit the support they can give to their BaU team. It is rarely feasible for the regular BaU tasks to be canceled or even delayed, and line managers sometimes refuse extra time on project work and limit the time spent to the time originally agreed. The staff member can feel a risk to their sense of professionalism with respect to achieving deadlines or producing quality work.
Under pressure, managers may project outward, impacting morale and motivation, which can infect the staff around them. Alternatively, managers may project internally, which manifests as stress and anxiety with corresponding consequences for physical and mental health. These consequences may not manifest immediately, making it hard to connect to the cause. Mental health issues can fester for a very long time before erupting in sickness days or resignation.
Negative impact on individuals is likely to manifest as negative impact on the business at some time. The most visible is sickness days or staff turnover. But, there is less visible pain. Managers may never want to do another project again, or they start resentful or unmotivated next time round.
Story: Contact Center Concern
The following story illustrates many of the features of the composite project environment that poses difficulties for the BaU staff. In this example, several of the project team members had to contend with life on a project, while at the same time, their job roles were changing.
A large UK organization embarked on a project to consolidate multiple call centers into a new operation. One of the authors took on the role of project manager, starting from the point a supplier was named preferred bidder, until the new consolidated operation was live.
The organization decided to pull together call centers from its business units, under a new supplier. This was a significant shift in strategy and came with challenges because the business units did not all support the consolidation. They marketed themselves as unique businesses and were suspicious of changes to combine back office functions.
In addition, the current managers were fairly hands on with the operations, even though the staff worked for their suppliers. The new strategy meant that these managers would become supplier managers, rather than operational managers. For example, instead of managing a large local call center, they would be remotely managing the new supplier.
As is sometimes the case in a difficult business change, the key stakeholders and project team members were not all supportive of the change, or the effect on their roles. On top of that, they were a vital part of this lengthy, composite project because of their unique operational knowledge and experience. At a time when people in their own teams were most unsettled, they were having to spend time on critical project tasks. It is easy to understand the pressures and internal conflicts.
The tensions of this situation led to some people being quite difficult to work with on the project. They challenged the principles behind the plan at every stage. They were highly critical of the inbound supplier, right from their appointment and throughout the implementation. In meetings, while remaining professional, they were very disruptive. The project leadership team were kept busy trying to keep on track and avoid a mutiny.
In this case, despite the difficulties, the consolidated call center opened on time and the necessary changes were made to the old organizational structure. But, most people involved were left rather bruised from the experience.
On refection, the key learning from this project was that it is vital to try to really understand the impact of the change on all those whose support you need. You must think hard about how they might be feeling and how they might react as part of the project team.