I woke up this morning to an interesting tweet from APM Hong Kong Branch
This was in response to me suggesting that stakeholder management should be compulsory. The suggestion by APM Hong Kong cannot be faulted unless…
When I read the tweet I immediately thought of a conference I attended as a delegate and someone from the floor spoke about having to use ‘contra-behaviour’ (sorry about the jargon) to achieve their ends. He was a management trainer who saw in a group of managers a lack of assertion and leadership.
In order to get them to change their behaviour to be more effective leaders he had to tell them about their own behaviours. He had to tell them which behaviours could prove beneficial in a particular situation. He cajoled, and coached before changing his style to being more supportive and encouraging, and eventually letting go.
Last week was interesting in relation to this issue. I was working with a group of sponsors and in the room were the group directors with directors from a company within the group. An issue of style came out:
- Group – poor project management maturity; this is despite having a large numbers trained in project management. The overall emphasis was do as you please in relation to project management
- Company within the Group – much better project management maturity which resulted from making all aspects of their project management approach compulsory.
There is nothing wrong with the project management maturity route. It’s a very good approach. My concern is that it needs ownership from the top. It needs sponsors to recognise they have a key role to play (and much, much more). With some companies maybe making it compulsory will increase maturity?
My suggestion in a previous blog was to make stakeholder management compulsory. I would go one step further by making it compulsory for those companies that have their own project management approaches. To actually use them to ensure their level of maturity does improve e.g. no business case = no project, no update reports = no more funding etc.
Now there’s food for thought. Any views?