Project Managers from ABC and XYZ, which are located on the opposite side of the same street, differ in how they report project status: The PMs from ABC are forthright with their sponsors, and the PMs from XYZ are evasive.
Why do the PMs at ABC and XYZ have opposite approaches to reporting status?
Their very survival depends on providing information according to the rules of their corporate culture. The cardinal sin at XYZ is failing to support the fantasy. The cardinal sin at ABC is failing to inform management about changes and their impacts.
Let’s explore. Each company has the same number of PMs, and each PM at ABC has an identical twin working at XYZ so their isn’t any differences in capability. All the PMs from both companies participate in the same intensive training on risk management.
What’s the impact of corporate culture on applying the risk management training? The risk management done by ABC’s PMs will be clearly superior to that done by XYZ’s.
Why? Let’s hear from Demarco and Lister :
It’s okay to be wrong, but not okay to be uncertain.
If that rule describes your company, you’re sunk.
The rules says you may miss your promised delivery date—even miss it by a mile—but in the months and days leading up to that date, you’re not allowed to express any doubt that you will indeed deliver on time. Failure is tolerated as long as you don’t commit the capital crime of admitting beforehand that you might fail. Another expression of the rule is that you can ask for forgiveness for being late (afterward) but you can’t ask for permission (beforehand).
Until the people at XYZ whose opinions count the most recognize the impact of the culture on the work product and seek to change the culture, their investment in training will return only frustrated employees back to the business.
Reference
Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister, Waltzing with Bears: Managing Risk on Software Projects, ISBN 0-932633-60-9, p. 42
Leave a Reply