18 Cowardice

Cowardice is generally defined as lack of courage or resolution. In project management, individuals may display cowardice while fulfilling different roles throughout the project lifecycle. For example, the project manager may be reluctant, unwilling, or incapable of summoning the courage to tell the project sponsor that a proposed pet project will have disastrous consequences for the organization.

The Sin

Courage entails a basic concern to do the right thing despite the costs in situations of threat and danger. Courage enables a project manager to maintain integrity and avoid guilt and shame. It also serves as a form of moral inspiration and exemplary role-modeling to other stakeholders. Courageous project managers do not cower before superiors, do not curry favor with associates by belittling upper management, do not shrink from confronting associates with constructive project criticism, and do not cave in to pressures when the going gets tough during the project lifecycle.

In contrast, project managers who display cowardice demonstrate a loss of self-control that undermines moral virtue in themselves and others. Weakness of will is a failure to live up to self-imposed moral standards; it entails a willful lapse of commitment and intentions. For example, a weak-willed project manager may begin the fiscal year with a resolve to treat people on the team fairly, but within a few weeks, the project manager backslides, exhibiting favoritism and forgetting to be impartial in performance appraisal decisions.

The inner conflict experienced by a weak-willed project manager between ethical judgment and the will to act eventually erodes employee confidence in the sincerity of the project manager’s commitments to fairness. Associates who are victimized by weak-willed project managers in turn lose respect for the project manager; even worse, they may assume that weak-willed, inconsistent conduct is acceptable and act accordingly. Weak-willed project managers and their teams eventually resort to making excuses and scapegoating to protect themselves from legitimate criticism.

A Case of Cowardice

I was involved with a proposed project that covered a span of three years and involved a succession of four project managers. Not one of the project managers had the courage to confront the project sponsor and address the advisability of the project in the first place.

The sponsor claimed that this cost-cutting project was important to the organization and was high on the list of things that had to be accomplished. When reports from the field indicated that recalls and rework were escalating because of substandard parts purchased in order to cut costs, the sponsor denied, trivialized, or used these reports to strengthen commitment to the pet project. Three of the four project managers were fired for being ineffective, and the fourth retained his position by never passing on the negative field reports.

It is not easy to act courageously when the sponsor is prepared to fire the project manager who does the right thing by telling truth to power. An arrogant, stubborn, and vindictive sponsor who does not listen to project feedback, whether positive or negative, must be resisted for the good of the organization and to ensure the proper allocation of resources to other feasible projects.

Danger Signs

Indicators that there is a problem with cowardice often start at the outset of a project. For example, if the project manager withholds initial critical comments regarding the feasibility of the project or its benefit to the organization as a whole, there’s a problem. The project manager should have the competence and confidence of her convictions to speak freely and openly at the outset.

When the project charter is formed and ratified, it is important for the project manager to explicitly ask the project sponsor: “What happens when I bring bad news?” If the project sponsor does not want to hear any bad news, that is a danger sign that the project manager will face adverse consequences for truth-telling.

If the project manager does not pass on negative feedback regarding the project to the sponsor out of fear of repercussions, he does not have the courage to challenge the sponsor with relevant project information. The project manager must have the resolve to face and present project facts rather than cower to sponsor fiat.

If the project manager does not have the respect of the team because they realize that her cowardice is making them invest limited resources in an infeasible project advocated by a bullying sponsor, a sullen silence will begin to spread and team members will become more cowardly in an effort to survive in that work environment. A courageous project manager not only strengthens his own character but also cultivates the readiness of his team members to act responsibly and earns their respect.

Solutions

Cowardice is a common reason that projects drag on too long or fail. A project manager’s reluctance to speak truth to power about infeasible projects is partially a function of the person and partially a function of the workplace climate. Leadership development training programs that involve top executives, middle managers, and floor supervisors—and that place a high value on personal and organizational character development—will provide a supportive context for project managers to take courageous actions. The project manager and other organizational leaders need to take advantage of training programs that focus on building leadership character.

When the problem involves the sponsor, frank discussions need to take place. A masterful project manager completes feasible projects and builds stakeholder consensus along the way by courageously addressing issues as they arise at all levels.

Tips for Fighting Cowardice

Speak truth to power. If the sponsor says—or demonstrates—a reluctance to listen to negative project feedback, the project manager should find a way to communicate that feedback and act on the basis of facts rather than cower to sponsor fiat.

Encourage team members to speak truth to power. A courageous project manager encourages team members to bring both positive and negative feedback. All team members must face facts—the sooner the better.