CHAPTER 9

Leadership and the Political Side of Project Management

LEADERSHIP AND POLITICS—for many people the two are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. After all, we adore our leaders and hate our politicians, don't we? Leaders are great people. Politicians are self-serving vermin. For our leaders, we want tickertape parades, lucrative book deals, and commemorative statues in local parks. For our politicians, we want speedy court trials and five-to-ten in the state pen.

Obviously, such a simplistic dichotomy quickly proves false because effective leaders are typically adept in the art of politics. Most of us tend to regard political activity with a sort of repugnance, finding the conduct of politicians to be both personally distasteful and organizationally damaging. There is an interesting paradox at work here, however. Common experience will demonstrate to both practitioners and neutral observers that for all our often expressed personal disdain for the exercise of politics, we readily acknowledge that this process is often one of the prime moving forces within any organization, for better or worse.

Political behavior, sometimes defined as any process by which individuals and groups seek, acquire, and maintain power, is pervasive in modern corporations. Examples can include activities as significant as negotiating for a multimillion-dollar commitment of money for a new project, to as mundane as determining who will attain a corner office, to as predatory as the willful attempt to derail another's career, to those as benign as deciding where the yearly office party will be held. The key underlying feature of each of these and countless other examples is that the processes by which we make decisions and seek power, the issues that we deem power laden, and the steps that we go through in order to maintain our position often comprise an emotionally charged sequence having important personal and corporate ramifications.

The field of project management is one that is particularly fraught with political processes for several unique reasons. First, because project managers in many companies do not have a stable base of power (either high status or overriding authority), they must learn to cultivate other methods of influence in order to secure the resources from other departments necessary to attain project success. Second, which is closely related to the first reason, projects often exist outside of the traditional line (functional) structure, relegating project managers to the role of supernumerary. Almost all resources (financial, human, informational, and so on) must be negotiated and bargained. Finally, many project managers are not given the authority to conduct formal performance evaluations on their project team subordinates, denying them an important base of hierarchical power. Without the authority to reward or punish, they are placed in the position of having to influence subordinate behavior toward engaging in appropriate behaviors. Consequently, they must learn important human skills such as bargaining and influence, conflict management, and negotiation.

Senior and successful project managers have long known the importance of maintaining strong political ties throughout their organizations as a method for achieving project success. Indeed, it is the rare successful project managers who are not conversant in and knowledgeable of the importance of politics for effectively performing their jobs. That point illustrates an important underlying aspect of the characteristics of political behavior: it can either be the project manager's firm friend or her most remorseless foe. In other words, whatever decision one comes to regarding the use of politics in the quest for project success, it cannot be ignored.

This statement does not have to make the reader uncomfortable. No one would argue that project managers must become immersed in the brutal, self-serving side of corporate political life. Clearly, there are so many examples of predatory behavior that most of us are leery of being considered politically adept. Nevertheless, the key point is that project management and politics are inextricably linked. Successful project managers are usually those who intuitively understand that their jobs consist of more than simply being technically and managerially competent.

Many companies spend thousands of hours planning and implementing a multimillion-dollar, or even multibillion-dollar, investment, developing intricate plans and schedules, forming a cohesive team, and maintaining realistic specification and time targets—all to have the project derailed by political processes. This is a pity, particularly in that the end result is often foreseeable early in the development of the project, usually as the result of a project manager's refusal to acknowledge and cultivate political ties, both internally to the organization and externally with the clients.

At some point, almost every project manager has faced the difficulties involved in managing a project in the face of corporate politics (Beeman and Sharkey 1987). Recalcitrant functional managers, unclear lines of authority, tentative resource commitments, lukewarm upper management support, and hard lessons in negotiation are all characteristics of many project manager's daily lives. Set within this all-too-familiar framework, it is a wonder that most projects ever get completed.

It is ironic that while project management theory has sought for years to find new and better methods for improving the discipline, power, and political behavior, one of the most pervasive and frequently pernicious elements impacting project implementation has rarely been addressed. Even in cases where it has been examined, the discussion is often so cursory or theory driven that it offers little in the way of useful advice for practicing project managers. Whatever our current level of understanding of power and politics in organizations, we must all come to the realization that their presence is ubiquitous, and their impact is significant. With this acceptance as a starting point, we can begin to address power and politics as a necessary part of project management and learn to use them to our advantage through increasing the likelihood of successfully managing projects.

AUTHORITY, STATUS, AND INFLUENCE

When one examines the sorts of options that project managers are able to use in furthering their goals, it is useful to consider their alternatives in terms of three modes of power: authority, status, and influence. This authority, status, and influence model has been proposed by Graham as a way to make clear the methods by which project managers can achieve their desired ends (1989). The model is valuable because it clearly illustrates one of the key problems that most project managers have in attempting to develop and implement their projects in corporations.

Much has been written on the sorts of power that individuals have. One framework suggests that each of us have available two distinct types of power: power that derives from our personality (personal power), and power that comes from the position or title that we hold (French and Raven 1959). Let us define authority as this latter type of power, one that accrues from the position we occupy in the organization (positional power). In other words, the positional power base derives solely from the position that managers occupy in the corporate hierarchy. Unfortunately, the nature of positional, or formal, power is extremely problematic within project management situations due to the temporary and detached nature of most projects, vis-à-vis the rest of the formal organizational structure (Goodman 1967). Project teams sit outside the normal vertical hierarchy, usually employing personnel who are on loan from individual functional departments. As a result, project managers have a much more tenuous degree of positional power within the organization. Other than the nominal control that they have over their own teams, they may not have a corporatewide base of positional power through which they can get resources, issue directives, or enforce their will. As a result, authority, as a power base, is not one that project managers can rely on with any degree of certainty in most organizations.

Likewise, the second mode of power, status, is often problematic for most project managers. Status implies that the project manager, due to the nature, importance, or visibility of his project, can exert power and control over others in the corporate hierarchy, as needed. Unfortunately, while some project managers do indeed posses an enormous degree of status due to the importance of their projects (e.g., the project manager for the Boeing 757 program, or the project manager for the recently completed Chunnel), the vast majority of project managers toil in relative obscurity, working to bring their projects to fruition while receiving little public recognition for their work. Although it would be nice to think that most project managers can rely on status as a form of power and control over resources to enhance their project's likelihood of success, the reality is that very few projects or project managers can depend upon their status as a persuasive form of power.

This, then, leads us to the final form of power or control that project managers may possess: influence. Influence is a form of power that is usually highly individualized. That is, some individuals are better able to use influence to achieve their desired ends than are others. One of the best examples of influence is the power that an individual possesses because she has a dynamic personality or personal charisma that attracts others. For example, well-known athletes are popular choices for endorsing new products because of the personal charisma and referent appeal that they hold for the public. Other examples of influence include informational or expert power. To illustrate, if only one member of the project team has the programming or computer skills that are vital to the successful completion of the project, that person, regardless of her title or managerial level within the organization, has a solid base of influence in relation to other members of the project team.

The key point to bear in mind about influence is that it is often an informal method of power and control (Thamhain and Gemmill 1974). Project managers who use influence well in furthering the goals of their projects usually work behind the scenes, negotiating, cutting deals, or collecting and offering IOUs. Influence, as a power tactic, is most readily used when managers have no formal positional authority to rely on. Hence, they are forced to use less formal means to achieve their desired ends. Influence is most widely seen as a power tactic in situations in which there is no obvious difference in authority levels among organizational members.

Developing influence through enhancing our referent powers is a key goal for all transformational project leaders. The larger question, how to enhance referent power, must be considered if we are to improve our abilities to influence others when we lack any formal power mechanisms. Kouzes and Posner have developed a set of leader behaviors all aimed at advancing a manager's referent power (1995). They note that effective leader behaviors include the following.

• Willingness to challenge the status quo—leaders constantly seek to operate in progressive, rather than traditional, modes.
• Creating and communicating a vision—they appeal to their teams through establishing a sense of mission and purpose.
• Empowering others—they give their team members the opportunities and support to succeed publicly.
• Modeling desired behavior—leaders are not hypocrites. If they expect commitment to the project, they lead from up-front, not through driving others to compliance.
• Encouraging others—a key feature of transformational project leaders is their natural enthusiasm and positive outlook. They work to improve their team's commitment through encouragement.

All of the above features of leadership behavior, as identified by Kouzes and Posner, are intended to enhance the leader's referent power and, ultimately, his ability to influence others (1995). It is important to also bear in mind that almost all project teams will have multiple emergent referent leaders. There are a number of people who have the ability to influence their peers through establishing some basis of referent power and using it as an informal type of power within the project team. Project leaders should expect to see these people emerge from the team and work with them, rather than viewing them as power rivals. Together, these multiple referent leaders can go far toward influencing both team members and interested project stakeholders in ways designed to enhance the likelihood that the project will succeed.

What is the implication of the authority, status, and influence model (see Figure 20)? Graham notes that the nature of project management work, the manner in which project managers and their teams are selected, and the relationship of projects to the formal organizational hierarchy force project managers to rely to far greater degrees on their abilities to cultivate and effectively use influence as a negotiating and power tactic than either of the other two forms of power. Formal, broad-based authority rarely exists for project managers to use in furthering their projects’ ends. Likewise, while some projects and/or project managers have the status to gain the resources that they need, it is much less likely that the typical project manager can learn to develop the skills to use influence as a power tactic. The key is realizing that influence is a form of corporate political behavior that can be utilized for the benefit of the project and, ultimately, the organization. In order to better understand the relationship between the use of informal influence tactics and political behavior, we need to explore in some detail exactly what organizational politics implies.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF PROJECT POLITICS

An understanding of the political side of organizations and the often intensely political nature of project implementation gives rise to the concomitant need to develop appropriate attitudes and strategies that help project managers operate effectively within the system. What are some of the steps that project managers can take to become politically astute, if this approach is so necessary to effective project implementation?

Understand and Acknowledge the Political Nature of Most Organizations

Research on politics and organizational life demonstrates an interesting paradox at work: the vast majority of managers hate engaging in political activities, believing that they waste time and detract from the more important aspects of their jobs. On the other hand, these same managers acknowledge that, while they do not like politics, politicking is an important requirement for business and personal success (Gandz and Murray 1980). The underlying point is important: we have to acknowledge politics as a fact of organizational and project life. Denying the political nature of organizations does not make that phenomenon any less potent. We realize that, in offering this view, we run the risk of offending some readers who are uncomfortable with the idea of politics and believe that, somehow, through the combined efforts of all organizational actors, it is possible to eradicate the political nature of companies or governmental agencies. Unfortunately, practical experience does not bear out this view; politics are too deeply rooted within organizational operations to be treated as some aberrant form of bacteria or diseased tissue that can be excised from the organization's body.

The first implication argues that before managers are able to learn to utilize politics in a manner that is supportive of project implementation, they must first acknowledge: its existence, and its impact on project success. Once we have created a collective basis of understanding regarding the political nature of organizations, it is possible to begin to develop some action steps that will aid in project implementation.

Learn to Cultivate Appropriate Political Tactics

This principle reinforces the argument that although politics exists, the manner in which organizational actors use politics determines whether or not the political arena is a healthy or an unhealthy one. There are appropriate and inappropriate methods for using politics. Since the purpose of all political behavior is to develop and keep power, we believe that both the politically naive and shark personalities are equally misguided and equally damaging to the likelihood of project implementation success. A project manager who, either through naiveté or stubbornness, refuses to exploit the political arena is destined to be not nearly as effective in introducing the project as is a project team leader who knows how to use politics effectively. On the other hand, project managers who are so politicized as to appear predatory and aggressive to their colleagues are doomed to create an atmosphere of such distrust and personal animus that there is also little chance for successful project adoption.

Pursuing the middle ground of political sensibility is the key to project implementation success. The process of developing and applying appropriate political tactics means using politics as it can most effectively be used: as a basis for negotiation and bargaining. Politically sensible managers understand that initiating any sort of organizational disruption or change due to developing a new project is bound to reshuffle the distribution of power within the organization. That effect is likely to make many departments and managers very nervous, as they begin to wonder how the future power relationships will be rearranged. Politically sensible implies being politically sensitive to the concerns (real or imagined) of powerful stakeholder groups. Legitimate or not, their concerns about the new project are real and must be addressed. Appropriate political tactics and behavior include making alliances with powerful members of other stakeholder departments, networking, negotiating mutually acceptable solutions to seemingly insoluble problems, and recognizing that most organizational activities are predicated on the give-and-take of negotiation and compromise. It is through these uses of political behavior that managers of project implementation efforts put themselves in the position to most effectively influence the successful introduction of their projects.

In a recent article on project management and the nature of power, Lovell makes a similar point in arguing that effective project managers must work to maintain constructive political alliances with powerful senior management and influential department managers (1993). He further notes that the persuasive skills and political acumen of a seasoned project manager will allow him to understand and make use of the organization's power environment, the positions of the various stakeholders, and the times and means to develop and maintain alliances, and how to move around political roadblocks. All of these are skills that require objectivity and sensitivity from project managers in order to be done successfully.

Understand and Accept WIIFM

One of the hardest lessons for newcomers to organizations to internalize is the primacy of departmental loyalties and self-interest over organizationwide concerns. There are many times when novice managers will feel frustrated at the foot-dragging of other departments and individuals to accept new ideas or systems that are good for them. It is vital that these managers understand that the beauty of a new project is truly in the eyes of the beholder. One may be absolutely convinced that a project will be beneficial to the organization; however, convincing members of other departments of this truth is a different matter altogether.

We must understand that other departments, including project stakeholders, are not likely to offer their help and support of the project unless they perceive that it is in their interests to do so. Simply assuming that these departments understand the value of a project is simplistic and usually wrong. One of my colleagues, Bob Graham, likes to refer to the principle of WIIFM when describing the reactions of stakeholder groups to new innovations. WIIFM is an acronym that means: What's in it for me? This is the question most often asked by individuals and departments when presented with requests for their aid. They are asking why they should support the process of implementing a new project. The worst response that project managers can make is to assume that the stakeholders will automatically appreciate and value the project as much as they themselves do. Graham's point is that time and care must be taken to use politics effectively, to cultivate a relationship with power holders, and make the deals that need to be made to bring the system online. This is the essence of political sensibility: being level-headed enough to have few illusions about the difficulties one is likely to encounter in attempting to develop and implement a new project.

Try to Level the Playing Field

Functional line managers often view the initiation of a new project with suspicion because of its potential to upset the power balance and reduce the amount of authority a line manager has with her staff. To a point, these concerns are understandable. A project team does, in fact, create an artificial hierarchy that could compete with the traditional line managers for resources, support, status, talented personnel, and other scarce commodities. However, it is also clear that organizational realities, which mandate the need for project managers and teams, also need to set these individuals up with some degree of authority or status to do their jobs most effectively.

We have previously suggested that authority and status typically do not accrue to project managers in most organizations. One approach to giving project managers a measure of status vis-à-vis the formal functional hierarchy is to give them the ability to conduct performance appraisals on their project team subordinates. On the surface, this suggestion seems to be simple commonsense and, yet, it is often resisted in organizations. Line managers want to maintain their control over subordinates through keeping sole right to this evaluation process and, hence, may resist allowing project managers this measure of equal footing. Nevertheless, it is a powerful tool because it sends the clear message throughout the company that projects are valuable, and project contributions among team members will be remembered and rewarded (Payne 1993).

Learn the Fine Art of Influencing

How does a project manager succeed in establishing the sort of sustained influence throughout the organization that is useful in the pursuit of project-related goals? A recent article highlights five methods that managers can use for enhancing their level of influence with superiors, clients, team members, and other stakeholders (Keys and Case 1990). They suggest that one powerful method for creating a base of influence is to first establish a reputation as an expert in the project that is being undertaken. This finding was borne out in research on project manager influence styles (Thamhain and Gemmill 1974). A project manager who is widely perceived as lacking any sort of technical skill or competency cannot command the same ability to use influence as a power mechanism to secure the support of other important stakeholders or be perceived as a true leader of the project team. One important caveat to bear in mind about this point, however, is that the label of expert is typically a perceptual one. That is, it may or may not be based in actual fact. Many of us are aware of project managers who cultivate a reputation as technical experts. Unfortunately, in many of these cases, when faced with a true technical problem, the expertise that they have taken such pains to promote is shown to be woefully inadequate, perhaps even obsolete. A reputation as an expert is very useful for gaining influence; truly being an expert helps immeasurably with a project manager's credibility.

A second technique for establishing greater influence is to make a distinction between the types of relationships that we encounter on the job. Specifically, managers need to make conscious decisions to prioritize their relationships in terms of establishing close ties and contacts with those around the company who can help them accomplish their goals, rather than on the basis of social preference (Keys and Case 1990). Certainly, there are personality types and interest groups toward whom each of us are more prone to gravitate. However, from the perspective of seeking to broaden their influence abilities, project managers need to break the ties of habit and expand their influence abilities and their social networks, particularly with regard toward those who can be of future material aid to the project.

The third tactic for enhancing influence is to network. As part of creating a wider social set composed of organizational members with the power or status to aid in the project's development, canny project managers will also establish ties to acknowledged experts, or those with the ability to provide scarce resources that the project may need during times of crisis. It is always helpful to have a few experts or resource-providers handy during times of munificence. We never know when we may need to call upon them, especially when resources are lean.

A fourth technique for expanding influence process is that it only works when it is done well. In other words, for influence to succeed, project managers seeking to use influence on others must carefully select the tactic that they intend to employ. For example, many people who consider themselves adept at influencing others prefer face-to-face settings rather than using the telephone or leaving messages to request support. They know intuitively that it is far harder than through an impersonal medium. If the tactics that have been selected are not appropriate to the individual and the situation, influence will not work.

Finally—and closely related to the fourth point—successful influencers are socially sensitive, articulate, and very flexible in their tactics. For example, in attempting to influence another manager through a face-to-face meeting, a clever influencer seems to know intuitively how best to balance the alternative methods for attaining the other manager's cooperation and help. The adept influencer can often read the body language and reactions of the target manager and may instinctively shift the approach in order to find the argument or influence style that appears to have the best chance of succeeding. Whether the approach selected employs pure persuasion, flattery, and cajolery or use of guilt appeals, successful influencers are often those people who can articulate their arguments well, read the nonverbal signals given off by the other person, and tailor their arguments and influence style appropriately to take best advantage of the situation.

Develop Your Negotiating Skills

An often-neglected aspect of the project managers’ job involves negotiation. They are forced to negotiate on a daily basis with a variety of organizational members and external groups. Nevertheless, with the exception of some seasoned project managers who have developed their skills the hard way, through trial and error, most project managers are inherently uncomfortable with the process. Further, because they find it distasteful, they have never sought to actively improve their negotiation skills or learn new techniques and approaches.

Negotiation is an often distasteful side effect of the project management process. All project managers, in order to improve their influence abilities, must hone their negotiation skills. As part of this task, we need to learn to recognize the tricks and ploys of our opponents who sit across the table from us. Once we learn to anticipate and recognize their techniques, it becomes easier for us to develop appropriate responses, that is, those with the greatest likelihood of succeeding. The key is to use a form of principled negotiation in which you search for fairness, win-win outcomes, and mutually acceptable solutions (Fisher and Ury 1981). A negotiation is not an opportunity to take advantage of the other party. It is a chance to gain the best terms possible for your side while seeking to address the other party's interests, as well. As such, all negotiations should be treated as long-term deals, whether or not this is the case. When we recast a negotiation as a bargaining session between long-time colleagues, it changes the dynamic from one of manipulation and coercion to one of mutual problem solving.

Recognize That Conflict Is a Natural Side Effect of Project Management

Many managers react to conflict with panic. They view any squabbling among team members as the first step toward team disintegration and ultimate project failure. This response is natural and understandable; after all, it is their responsibility if the project fails. As a result, the most common reactions to intrateam conflicts are to do everything possible to suppress or minimize the conflict, hoping that if it is ignored, it will go away. Unfortunately, it almost never does. Conflict, left to fester beneath the surface, is simply a ticking time bomb and will almost always go off at the worst possible time later in the development process. If willful ignorance does not work with conflict, what does?

Project managers need to better understand the dynamics of the conflict process. In fact, we need to recognize conflict as progress (Pinto and Kharbanda 1995). The natural results of individuals from different functional backgrounds working together are professional tension and personality friction. In suggesting that project managers adopt a more sanguine attitude about conflict, we are not arguing that all conflict should be ignored. Nor would we suggest that all conflict must be either immediately suppressed or addressed. Instead, project managers need to use their discretion in determining how best to handle these problems. There is no one best method for dealing with conflict. Each situation must be dealt with as a unique and separate event.

Try to Have Fun with Politics

On the surface, this principle may surprise some of our readers. We make this point in order to indicate the importance of developing a level of comfort with organizational politics. Successful leaders enjoy the challenge and (for some) even the game of influencing. Certainly it is not something we can willingly avoid, except at a potential cost to our projects. The fact of the matter is that if one is to successfully conclude her project, she must engage in influence and political behavior. This statement is undoubtedly frustrating to some, especially technical experts who often have a worldview that suggests that facts should speak for themselves. The plain truth that we have to understand is that nothing will speak for us and our position quite as well as ourselves—not the facts, nor what is right or should be done.

CONCLUSION

Politics and project management are two processes, which, while very different, are also inextricably linked. No one can go far in project management without understanding just how far politics will take him in his organization. It is in confronting their frequent failures at getting projects successfully implemented through traditional power means that most managers are forced through expedience to adopt methods for influence and politics. These are not bad terms, in spite of the fact that the majority of managers in our organizations do not enjoy employing political means to their ends, and they do not understand the political processes very well. Too many of us have learned about politics the hard way, through being victimized by someone who was cannier, more experienced, or more ruthless than we were. Given that our first experiences with politics were often unpleasant, it is hardly surprising that many of us swore off political behavior.

For better or for worse, project managers do not have the luxury of turning their backs on organizational politics. Too much of what they do depends upon their ability to effectively manage not only the technical realms of their job but also the behavioral side, as well. Politics constitutes one organizational process that is ubiquitous; that is, it operates across organizations and functional boundaries. Politics is often seen as inherently evil or vicious; yet, it is only in how it is employed that it has earned so much animus. All of us, bearing the scars of past experiences, understand the potential for misuse that comes from organizational politics.

Portions of this chapter were excerpted from Power and Politics in Project Management by J. K. Pinto, Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA (1996).