Project Managers need to guard against setting up an environment where bad news never reaches them. They need to praise and encourage those who communicate risks before they become issues, issues before they become problems, and problems before they become project failures.
Some managers remind me of the Clinton trial in the Senate, following his impeachment in the House.
The Senate set up a rule requiring Ken Starr to keep all the records and evidence in another building. Bringing it to their offices without an invitation would have violated protocol.
Then the majority of senators refused to go view the evidence. A few who did view it said they came away weeping, and the rest (having refused to view the evidence) said that they lacked evidence sufficient to convict.
Does your comfort zone tempt you to maintain willful ignorance? Does your character allow reliance on plausible deniability? The PM has accountability for project success, which any lack of awareness may bring about; but that accountability extends to achieving success ethically.
Some managers remind me of the Clinton trial in the Senate, following his impeachment in the House.
The Senate set up a rule requiring Ken Starr to keep all the records and evidence in another building. Bringing it to their offices without an invitation would have violated protocol.
Then the majority of senators refused to go view the evidence. A few who did view it said they came away weeping, and the rest (having refused to view the evidence) said that they lacked evidence sufficient to convict.
Does your comfort zone tempt you to maintain willful ignorance? Does your character allow reliance on plausible deniability? The PM has accountability for project success, which any lack of awareness may bring about; but that accountability extends to achieving success ethically.
I wonder: Do PMs ever include ethical lapses as project risks?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment