The Insider Lens is a weekly newsletter on leadership, risk, and delivery in public sector projects. Get practical insight every Friday — sign up here.
While we’ve been watching a fair bit of, um, “drama” play out between a certain political leader and a business magnate, I’ve been thinking a lot about power dynamics, and how so much can change with just a large personality.
It reminded me of an extraordinary meeting I attended a few years ago, in which two sides of the table seemed to swap both positions and leverage.
All because of charm.
How the Room Got Rewired
The government had been giving money – a lot of money – to a consortium to develop new innovative methods of applying technology. The series of partnerships had been forged with lots of splashy announcements, and it was meant to be flagship program that would do nothing but send the economy soaring.
Except, several years in, there was no demonstrable progress.
And so the head of the consortium was invited in to talk about the program, and perhaps become more “motivated” to start delivering more meaningful progress.
All of the most senior leaders in the organization were there (as an audit executive, I was there as an observer), and there was one single person from the consortium in attendance.
It was about 20 to 1.
But the math didn’t account for personality.
Enter the Showman
There wasn’t really any space for questions, as the guest immediately began describing the “progress” with such enthusiasm that it was impossible to believe it hadn’t already been a roaring success.
He compared the current state with what could have been without their efforts, and painted a contrast so stark that the organizational heads were practically shaking their heads at how lucky they were that this consortium had come along.
But then the real kicker came.
They were still tragically behind on all of their goals, and it wasn’t because of their strategy, or their execution.
It was the government’s fault.
Other governments, he told us, had given much, much more to develop this technology. And everyone around the table would be responsible if those “other” countries grabbed the reins and dictated success for the rest of the world.
The delivery of the speech was bombastic, impassioned, and almost angry.
And the result could be summed up by the response of the organizational head:
“What can we do to help you?”
From Pressure to Permission
Big personalities will always have the ability to sway committee meetings away from meaningful targets – such as objectives and real results – and toward the “context” and the “stories behind the scenes” and so much other noise that serve only as distractions.
As senior project managers and leaders, we have to find a way to steer the conversation away from these distractions.
Now, some project meetings – like this one – are so steeped in political dynamics that it can become really tough to turn the conversations back to the actual project dynamics.
But most project meetings are much smaller and less politicized, and are often held between the project team and internal senior management (sometimes inter-agency senior management).
There are generally far more opportunities to speak about the project needs versus what the government wants.
As I’ve said many times, steering committees and oversight committees should serve the project manager just as much as the governance function.
They’re great opportunities to obtain buy-in and strategic advice.
Veering Away From Project Steering Committee Failure
The goal for every project manager should always be to keep committee meetings laser-focused on the project objectives versus the current state.
This includes substantive risk conversations and potential issues, but it does not include explaining away problems, and re-directing the focus toward favorite or sensational issues.
How do we do this?
Once we’ve gotten to know the personalities of the members, it should become standard operating procedure to brainstorm with the team about what types of challenges to expect – and then develop meaningful, productive responses. Not “explanations,” but tactical replies that move the conversation forward.
(This activity should be performed before even the first ever presentation, but after getting to know the committee members well, it becomes even easier.)
And above all else: the conversation should always be about the project, not the personalities in the room. That might mean that we might have to swallow some hard observations, but absorb them for the good of the project.
Or it might mean speaking truth to power.
Either way, managing personalities in the room is essential to ensuring the project hogs the spotlight instead of the people around the table.
If you’re having challenges dealing with the personalities in your governance function, I’d love to hear about it – just reach out and let me know the hurdles you’re trying to overcome.
