Government is a hierarchical beast – there’s no getting around that. We talk about empowering everyone to be bold, but everyone is tied to a job classification, and that’s how they’re recognized: by the box on the org chart.
In such an environment, voicing concerns – especially about delivery risks – can feel like career suicide.
But speaking truth to power in government projects isn’t just a matter of courage — it’s a matter of delivery. Projects fail when leaders don’t get the full picture.
There is a way to speak truth to power in government projects.
You just have to master the skills.
Why It’s So Hard to Speak Up in Government Projects
Those who have risen in the ranks of the public service have done so not just because they put in the time and effort – it’s because they’ve believed in the public service, and in contributing to the public good.
It might sound corny, but we all know how challenging the public service environment can be – and the only way people work long hours over years and years is through belief in the cause.
And belief in the work they do.
As a result, it’s not surprising that people get defensive about their ideas – or the ideas to which they’ve committed weeks or months of hard work.
If we criticize the focus of their effort, what would that say about their purpose?
Layer on top of that the dozens of other team members, the other senior leaders, the committees, the oversight boards…
Countless silent thoughts throughout the days and weeks and months that say, “This is important: don’t stop.”
It’s no wonder that no one likes to hear bad news – because the motivation often runs much deeper than just showing up to punch a clock.
Understand Their Motivations — Then Keep It Neutral
Having said all of it, our primary responsibility is to deliver value for money – not protect feelings.
So while it’s important to understand why these conversations might be difficult, that doesn’t mean we should avoid them.
Keeping our audience’s motivations in mind is essential, however, and we should always aim to keep the conversation in neutral territory.
How do we do that?
The easy part is to avoid any use of possessive pronouns. We don’t tell people, “You approved this,” or refer to “Your team’s decision to…”
Referring instead to “It was decided that…” or “When the project moved into the next phase…” slides the conversation back into the factual. We stop pointing at actions that people took, and put the focus instead on the machinery of the project – moving parts, not personalities.
We’ve already said that the outcome is the most important part, so let’s keep the conversation there.
Use a Constructive “What If” Framing
Once the project has been positioned as something to be seen as from a distance, we can then begin to examine it from all sides.
Everyone is familiar with the pros of the decisions that were made (or are being contemplated), but is enough energy being devoted to the other side of the fence?
Launching into even a generic corporate-speak attack such as, “I disagree, we need to also consider X,” will immediately prompt a defensive response. No matter how polite we are, no matter how much context we attempt to establish, it will become personal.
But you can present criticisms without them really coming from “you.”
Instead, use an imaginary strawman as the counterbalance the conversation needs.
Rather than speak your concerns yourself, simply search for a type of critic or group that might object, and suggest that they might object – and get in the way.
“I completely understand why this is the natural way to go forward,” you could say, “but the ABC Team might be concerned about doing X instead of Y, and they could delay approval if we don’t listen to them. What would we say?”
By entertaining objections as a question, it opens the door to transparently debate the issue – without getting personal.
Truth to Power Is a Leadership Skill, Not a Career Risk
I’ve learned a lot about leadership through my experiences with my own bosses over the years. I’ve had some great examples to inspire me, but I’ve probably had more than my fair share of negative experiences that I swore I would never bring into my own leadership style.
As many people have, I’ve worked with some leaders who are extremely protective of their ideas, and who will fight anyone who questioned them – some almost viciously.
Unfortunately, I’ve also been someone who’s taken his work very seriously, and was never satisfied with shrugging my shoulders and just saying, “Oh well, it’s what the boss wants.”
Trying to bridge potentially explosive conversations while staying loyal to the truth has not always been an easy journey.
But it has been a productive one.
And with my fair share of practice, I can honestly say that I am comfortable broaching any objection with any leader, knowing that we will be able to tackle the issue productively.
Speaking truth to power in government projects isn’t just possible — it’s essential. Because the real danger isn’t conflict.
It’s silence.
Want more practical insight on how leadership behavior shapes risk in public sector projects?
Subscribe to The Insider Lens — a weekly guide to navigating real risks, including how (and when!) to speak truth to power in government projects.
