Commitment and Performance: Steering the Course towards Success

With no doubt, integrating performance and commitment is a crucial task to ensure successful project delivery. Managers tend to assume that performance and commitment go hand in hand and these variables are normally discussed in terms of causal relationships. It is not surprising then to see how recovery efforts tend to focus on performance-based initiatives when turbulence affect the project trajectory. Unfortunately, employee commitment is overlooked and not analyzed as an independent variable that can influence the journey to project success.

Employee commitment and performance can be affected by forces, internal and external, to the project and the organization. Therefore, identifying these forces is crucial to enhance the chances to materialize results in line with the project objectives. Furthermore, since complexity and uncertainty evolve along the project life cycle affecting employee’s effectiveness [See Note 1], it is necessary to permanently assess the health of the project environment, timely uncovering systemic problems that could induce project failure or validating whether current success is truly sustainable.

Based on our observations, we have categorize four type of project environments by looking at how performance and commitment influence project activities at different degrees. We have call these environments a- On a Beam reach (high commitment and high performance), b- Latent Waves (low commitment but high performance), c- Foggy Sea (high commitment and low performance) and d- Divergent Paths (low commitment and low performance). This simple classification allows visualizing key project enhancers and inhibitors associated to stakeholders, encouraging managers to permanently question the status quo to either timely correct the project trajectory or maintain the course towards project success:

On a Beam Reach: In this optimal environment, both commitment and performance contribute to a stable navigation that assists the journey to project success. A clear project culture is embraced driving stakeholders’ behaviors and results, making project strategy sustainable. Robust tools and mechanisms assist strategic adaptation when complexity and uncertainty emerge. Stakeholders, allocated in the right tasks, have a clear view of their contributions to the project deliverables and understand their role in the project strategy, often stimulating them to go above and beyond the activities in their job descriptions [2]. As a result, high morale in the team creates an environment of pride based on accountability that is self-reinforcing.

Although this is the best possible environment, project managers must be vigilant and timely address natural behaviors associated to repetition (e.g.:complacency!) in order to avoid falling into “path dependence” associated to previous success. It is imperative to be alert to potential threats, anticipating surprises and correcting direction to overcome obstacles while capitalizing on elements that can enhance the project strategy.

Critical self-assessment questions:

· Are there any foreseeable events (internal or external) that could affect the project culture in the near future?

· Do we have clear mitigation strategies for identified risks? How was contingency determined?

· Have we ran any exercise to expose possible “unknown unknowns” (e.g.: scenario planning) in the project?

· Which continuous improvement practices can the project best capitalize on to optimize results?

· Is there any change in the project configuration (e.g.: people, units, functions) that leads to increased effectiveness?

· Do we have mechanisms to maximize the contribution / expertise of project stakeholders?

Latent Waves: Sudden turbulences can make loads shift and even fall if not secured, slowing down the journey and/or compromising the destination. In this environment, results are achieved, but attitudes and behaviors are not indicative that can be sustained in the future. Stakeholders are engaged in a transactional relationship, normally motivated by monetary compensation, with no sense of belonging to the project or the organization. As stakeholders are motivated by performance, silo-based attitudes progressively affect team cohesiveness. The potential of the project to generate optimal solutions based on aggregation of efforts is diminished and rigidities impair rapid adaptation when required.

Economy plays a key role in this environment: In economic upturns, skilled employees have the alternative to change employers for more attractive conditions. In economic downturns, employment conditions tend to deteriorate and skilled employees are just doing what they are paid for, waiting for a better opportunity to “jump off the ship”. Therefore, it is necessary to find the right mechanisms to strengthen the dyad performance-commitment at both organizational and personal level.

Critical self-assessment questions:

· Are we in an economic upturn or downturn?

· Besides monetary compensation, what else is attractive in our project / organization?

· Besides monetary compensation, are we adequately rewarding our personnel?

· What are our competitors doing to attract and retain personnel?

· Are we under-utilizing people? Are we challenging the employee?

Foggy Sea: As there’s no clear view of the journey, inefficiency and confusion emerge as key characteristics of this this environment. There is a sense of commitment and even a project culture, but specific attributes are source of frustrations and rework among stakeholders including dysfunctional tools, inefficient processes and sudden changes among others. Unclear tactics make the project strategy difficult to execute and interim objectives become moving targets. Changing priorities affect the performance and morale of individuals that need to rapidly adjust activities to deliver suboptimal products. Progressively, complacency contributes to deteriorate the project culture reducing the chances of success.

Critical self-assessment questions:

· Have we invested enough time and resources in designing the project strategy?

· Do we have a solid grip on the project risks?

· Do we have a robust communication strategy across the team? Is everybody aware of the tactics and their aggregated contributions to the project strategy?

· Do we have the right tools to support project activities? Are they efficient?

· Do we have a robust change management process? Does it consider changes in attitudes and behaviors?

· Is our people properly trained for their tasks?

Divergent Paths: This is the worst possible environment. As its name states, project and stakeholders move in different directions making the possibilities of success close to none. Multiple factors, such as poor project strategy, lack of project culture and inadequate human resourcing, create a negative mix that affects the project trajectory. For instance, when projects compete for funds and poorly defined scopes are sanctioned, the project organization and supporting mechanism are not properly set. Staffing, driven by budgets constructed on weak cost estimates, don’t reflect the full picture of the scope the project was intended to accomplish.

As these project advance in time, pressure from senior management cascade to the project team creating a downward spiral and recovery comes at high cost and time extensions. Part of the recovery efforts include the construction of a project culture that clearly map processes, activities and employee’s capabilities with the project strategy, setting a trajectory to completion.

Critical self-assessment questions:

· Does the project scope have enough maturity to be executable?

· How robust is the project plan? Is it accessible to all levels in the project organization?

· How do we communicate with stakeholders?

· Do we have a well-defined project structure? Are the project mechanisms (processes, procedures, tools, etc.) helping or inhibiting project activities?

· Is there a clear project culture? Are we fostering collaboration as a key ingredient for success?

· Have we established clear and realistic performance expectations and metrics?

· Do we have the right people in the right task? What are the capabilities of our employees?

· Is the project attractive to the project stakeholders?

Recognizing that each project is unique, the key questions suggested in this article are generic and should be used as guidance to dig deeper in their particular situation. It is imperative for a project manager to know the team and understand the environment the project is operating in, ensuring an equilibrium where employees are committed and results are sustainable and constantly materialized. Results are essential but project success is based on people and the stability of their interrelationships.

As a final thought, project managers must be able to critically analyze their projects using both insider and outsider perspective. This will enable him/her to identify variables that affect the trajectory towards success, activate the necessary recovery mechanisms progressively develop and enhance the skills to look ahead, anticipate roadblocks and react to turbulence, ensuring current results are truly sustainable and rapidly adjusting the trajectory when necessary. As the rōnin Miyamoto Musashi (1548-1645) said:“Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy, it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things”

Notes:

[1] In one of our featured articles, we evaluate organizational strategy and employee engagement, providing guidance to capitalize on the key mechanisms to navigate project complexity. For more information, see: https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pmwj79-Feb2019-Tain-capitalizing-on-complexity-in-modern-business-featured-paper.pdf