Why Culture Is the Most Dangerous Risk in Government Projects

When reviewing the post-mortems of government project failure across the globe, some common themes always emerge.

But culture knocks all of them off the podium – failure’s champion almost every time.

The Real Root Cause of Government Project Failure

Other oft-referenced issues are valid, of course:

• We hear of old and outdated technology powering the work.
• Political interference that changes direction mid-stream.
• A thousand different approval checks that can’t accomplish more than drag out the work beyond its “best-before” date.

And many others.

They’re all legitimate issues, and ones that I’ve highlighted as major issues on more than one occasion.

But they’re all surface-level issues, the tips of a single iceberg that lurks below almost every government project problem.

Why Bad Decisions Persist in Public Sector Culture

Underpinning almost every public sector project’s bad decision is a breakdown of either ambition or process.

Ambition because we want the cheapest sticker price, regardless of how much fixing it will cost down the line.

We don’t craft deliverables according to what’s needed, we craft them according to what we think we can do, given the list of a thousand problems that we’ll happily develop for anyone that will listen.

And the process breakdown occurs when all of the above thinking is allowed to move forward. When everyone around the table knows that something is lacking, but they endorse it anyways.

And none of that occurs unless it’s culturally acceptable.

The Tyranny of Templates: When Oversight Replaces Outcomes

The public sector culture relies on rote functions.

We fill out project plan templates because oversight bodies require them.

We develop dashboards because oversight bodies require them.

We populate risk registers because oversight bodies require them.

We engineer milestones to align with oversight committee dates – because oversight bodies require them.

How many “have tos” are the drivers of major project activities?

At what point are we shifting the project away from what it needs, and focusing more on what the government machinery needs?

There’s much more we can squeeze out of our efforts.

Culture Doesn’t Need to Be Actively Bad — Just Passive

Culture doesn’t need to endorse ineffective behavior.

An ineffective culture doesn’t need its senior leaders to send out weekly memos that insist on lower productivity. An unambitious culture doesn’t need to hire all of the worst performers, and actively push out its stars.

Poor culture simply needs to hold its nose and let the worst results happen.

And it’s not an easy issue to pinpoint, it really isn’t.

Most public reviews and audits point to the technical and tactical issues that arose. “Framework X had gaps,” and “Contractor Y was paid without delivering Z milestones.”

And this makes sense: not only are they the most easily identified problems, but they’re the most concrete areas to which we can target possible solutions.

Audits Target the Visible — Culture Hides Beneath

The truth is that I’m not sure that government project culture – as a deep-rooted, universal behavior – can ever be fixed.

There is no action plan that can bring it from Point A to Point B within a single politician’s election term.

And even if it could, leadership within the public service – and atop the project – will likely change several times before anything could take root.

Boy, that makes me sound like a pessimist, doesn’t it?

But I’m actually not: truth be told, every time I hear about a new government transformation project, I still get excited — because I know there’s always a chance to lead differently.

Not only do I think that a project can succeed within the current culture, but I believe that every project manager can create their own culture of success that infects and takes over its immediate surroundings.

Can Government Project Culture Be Fixed?

Culture starts at the top.

There have been far too many speeches about how we can all spread the culture we want, and that great culture can start at the bottom – but any shushed mid-level employee will tell you different.

So if we’re not at the very top of the organization, we won’t have much leverage.

But a member of the project leadership team?

We can change everything.

Strong project leadership in government can change all of this — not by adding more rules, but by building ambition, truth-telling, and clarity into the team’s daily rhythm.

The oversight machinery will still make all of their demands, and we’ll have little choice but to feed the beast. (As an aside, how sad is it that “feed the beast” is not only a common expression, but the modus operandi that drives so much activity?)

But what does the project need?

How do we shift the mindsets of all of the team members to drive every single ounce of effort toward that end result – with no compromise, with no moderated ambition?

Real Leadership Can Build a Culture Within the Culture

Perspective is one of the biggest drivers of culture, and when we focus our attention on obligations and compliance, that’s exactly where our efforts will lead us.

It becomes less of “what can we deliver?” than “how can we make sure that the committee is okay with everything?”

If the committees only want to hear what’s going “right,” then fine: give them what they need.

But within the team, a real project leader will ask hard questions – and insist that they’re answered.

A real project leader won’t shy away from problems because they know that problems will always arise, and they’re the only things that could prevent the project from landing.

A real project leader will live the courageous ambition that every team member secretly wishes they had in their leader.

They will then believe in the leader.

And they will believe in the project.

And the culture within the culture will fight every single day for its success.

If we want real outcomes from government transformation projects, we need to stop treating culture as a side issue — and start treating it as the core delivery risk.

If you’ve worked in public sector transformation, I’d love your take. What gets missed when projects go sideways? Drop your thoughts in the comments — and let’s skip the politics.