Project Management and the New Leadership

Over the past few decades, organizations have been attempting to modify their traditionally functional structures to be more effective in the face of overwhelming changes in the business environment. These changes, brought about by an accelerated pace of technological and societal changes, pose a significant threat to an organization’s ability to meet market needs. One result of the accelerated pace of market change is the increased demand for non-standard (customized) solutions. The functional organization, which was designed to maximize efficiencies of operations work (repetitive work by the same resources) for mass production, and which thrives in relatively stable business environments, has been unable to effectively meet that demand.



Consequently, we’ve seen the evolution from functional organizations to what are known as matrix organizations – ones that, while attempting to maintain a functional structure, allow for the temporary formation of cross-functional project teams to address their “one off” business requirements. However, as customized solutions become the norm, even the matrix organization is becoming outmoded. A number of authors (Nick Obolensky, Alex and David Bennett) see an evolution to a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) organization – one that exhibits properties of emergence and self-organization in adapting to the quickly changing, uncertain, and complex business environment.

One legacy of the functional organization is hierarchic leadership; and it, in fact, predates the advent of the functional organization. Hierarchic leadership is recognized as “top down” leadership. It presupposes that those at the top of the organization have more knowledge (here defined as information that’s usable within a context) and that they can more competently lead those in the organization with less knowledge (the followers). Frequently, however, this model, while still in place in most business organizations, no longer works effectively. It too is being affected by mass access to information previously only available to those at the top of the organization. Equally consequential, however, is the fact that leaders sitting atop the organization are too far removed from the everyday work to be able to understand how an accelerating rate of change affects its inner workings. As a result, they can’t adequately lead the organization in a traditional sense. This problem is exemplified by the American television show “Undercover Boss,” described by its host network as one which

follows a[n]… executive as they leave the comfort of their corner office for an undercover mission to examine the inner workings of their companies.  While working alongside their employees, they see the effects that their decisions have on others, [and] where the problems lie within their organizations…

On his website, The Performance Improvement Blog, Stephen Gill notes that leading a networked organization is far different, and requires a different leadership approach, from leading a traditional organization.¹ Since most business organizations today are networked organizations, what then is an effective alternative to hierarchic leadership? One that has been proposed by Nick Obolensky ² is polyarchic leadership. The polyarchic approach differs from the hierarchic approach in that, instead of those at the top doing the analyzing and prioritizing of work, they need instead to question, coach, challenge, and support, while leaving the analyzing and prioritizing of work to those who actually do the work. Additionally, the abilities of those at the top need to change from directing and simplifying to those of listening, summarizing, and supporting those in the rest of the organization.

Of course, moving from a hierarchic to a polyarchic leadership approach is no menial task. Delegating leadership – letting go of perceived control – is not easy even under the best of circumstances. Doing so is even more difficult in times of uncertainty in the marketplace. Many a manager’s ego is caught up in the role(s) he plays in the organization. And the consequential perceived loss of control is something that many are not ready to deal with. This is a significant area to which project managers can lend their expertise to the organization.

To those of us who have managed projects for some time, the polyarchic approach is not at all novel. As project managers, we understand that we alone can’t possibly have all of the knowledge needed to make effective decisions at every level of the project. We lead without access to the normal levers of control. Our primary leadership role in the projects we manage is that of the integrator of the work performed by individual functions, and it requires that we defer to those within the project who have the appropriate knowledge within their specialties in order to make effective decisions. We understand the work that needs to take place within the organization by listening to those who will do the project’s work. We prioritize the competing demands of the project based on the needs of, and upon consultation with, our project stakeholders. We in fact practice polyarchic leadership on a daily basis. As project work (as opposed to operations work) becomes an increasingly more important part of an organization’s ability to provide value to its constituents in the marketplace, project managers can once again lead the way by introducing polyarchic leadership to the organization as a whole.

© 2011 allPM.com

Carl Belack (PMP, BS, MA, MPh) has over 20 years of experience as project manager and consultant. His focus for the past few years has been directed at enterprise project management, helping organizations to control project costs, identify and prioritize project portfolios, ensure cross-functional activity integration throughout the project cycle, maximize project resource utilization, manage project change, and seamlessly transition project results to steady-state operation.

 

 

Artykuł opublikowany dzięki uprzejmości International Institute for Learning, Inc.