Context is Everything:

A Lesson in Perspective and Decision-Making in Project Management

Reading time: 5 minutes 

Recently I had the privilege to mentor one-on-one several managers in an engineering company who decided to implement a more powerful project management system. This intervention was deemed necessary because the respective introduction of the new system led to significant disruptions within the company. 

This story explores the tumultuous rollout of a complex project management tool within an engineering firm, showcasing how varied perspectives can lead to misunderstanding and inefficiency. Here, we witness the same scenario through the eyes of different stakeholders: an engineer, a team leader, a project manager, an operating director, and a CEO, each interpreting the situation through their own contextual lens. I thank the organization that permitted me to share this experience. Names are changed, however the essence of the circumstance is preserved for the purpose of this article.

The Decision

was made. By the end of the second fiscal quarter, the engineering firm would conclude the pilot project: using a new project management system, implementing it in the company's biggest project and stabilizing project management processes in the respective project. 

This move was touted by senior management to streamline operations, improve project tracking and level up the project management capability, preparing the company to be considered a mature engineering player in their sector of activity. The implementation phase was set to start soon, a decision pushed top-down and backed with the promise of enhanced efficiency and scalability.

A couple of months into the project, things got more complicated. The company also decided to conduct project management in the old and new systems, since all other projects would still be run in the old one. 

With senior management fully immersed in the management of new and existing clients, a void of communication emerged creating the premises of a big disconnect between the vision for and importance of this change.

Therefore, the key people running this pilot project turned quite soon from being enthusiastic to being frustrated for different reasons depending on how they read and perceived the situation. In this article, I will further present how the limited understanding or formulation of the context leads to wrong perceptions and emotional disconnect of the key implementation people from the main objective, creating the premisses for nurturing negative energy and resentment rather than enthusiasm and will for cooperation, and leading to resistance to change in the absence of an appropriate communication. 

Perspective 1: George, the Planning Engineer

For George, the seasoned planning engineer knee-deep in the intricacies of his current projects, the introduction of the new system was untimely. With critical deadlines on the horizon, George viewed this new software as an additional layer of complexity rather than a tool to aid his work. George is overwhelmed by having to work in the old system promptly, learn something new and apply this new knowledge against the clock. He became aware of the need to change significantly their practices of scope management and felt little supported by the team leaders. 

Perceived Reality: An unwelcome disruption likely to cause delays and complicate his workflow. No vision about why was this necessary. 

Emotional Response: Anxiety and irritation, stemming from the anticipation of having to navigate a steep learning curve. Happy to learn something new but unhappy to apply it.

George’s conclusion was the change was not only inopportune but also disadvantageous, clouding his view of any long-term benefits.

Perspective 2: Sophia, the Team Leader

is responsible for budget adherence, scope management and resource allocation.  She saw the financial side of this rollout and realised that the new system would require changing the in-house practices of scope breakdown to a more refined level, creating the premises for a lot more admin work. Not to add that only very few senior engineers would have had the understanding of it, and she was uncertain whether these in-house experts would collaborate to share their knowledge. She seemed also sure the project manager would not accept these budget overruns and she was painfully putting undeclared overtime to fall into the initial budget, secretly hoping “the transition would prove not possible and everything would revert to normal”.

Perceived Reality: An unplanned expense risking her team's productivity and resource availability. Perceived difficulties in having to define a new scope break-down structure, doubting her ability to handle the more senior technical experts to cooperate. She decided not to talk to the project manager about the situation thinking these were only her problems.

Emotional Response: Frustration and stress, fueled by the sudden need to put in overtime and deal with the additional admin effort required by the run of the new system. 

Sophia's focus on the immediate budgetary impacts blinded her to the strategic intentions behind the software's implementation. She thought she was helping the project manager by not communicating her observations and decisions and was completely oblivious to the fact that it was an objective of this implementation to find out the differences between the operation of the two systems and understand the implications at the business level.

Perspective 3: Victor, the Project Manager

felt sidelined. The decision to implement the new system was made without his input, despite his role in overseeing the transition to it and reaching a stable operation in daily use. This oversight made the system seem like a mandate rather than a tool selected for its practical merits.

Perceived Reality: A top-down decision undervaluing Victor’s and his team's insights on project management tools.

Emotional Response: A sense of being ignored and of not being able to make a difference in such an important decision, dampening his motivation and making him act like a robot rather than remaining curious about how this implementation impacts the project management processes.

Victor's discontent stemmed from his belief that his practical experiences and needs were disregarded in the decision-making process and he is kept at a level where he cannot have a say in the strategic decision.

Perspective 4: Emily, the Operating Director

was preoccupied with selling the idea of the new system to the company’s major client and is doing her best to convey confidence and ability in the discussion with the representatives of this Client. She feels in the middle between the expectations of the client, the pressure for the change received from the CEO and the daily questions from the engineering and project management. While at a rational level, she understands the need for implementation, she is on high alert since she becomes more and more aware of the level of process changes the new system would entail. She feels the organization has not achieved yet enough project management maturity to be able to sustain a shift to a more complex level.

Perceived Reality: A strategic step that is too early, which could divert focus from strengthening the actual project management capability of the company (based on the old system) to something perceived as just a mere implementation of new software. 

Emotional Response: Apprehension and vigilance, concerned that internal focus on the new system could mean a loss of focus for the project management processes that were already in place and an increased admin project work that would decrease the existent competitive advantage of the company.

Emily's perspective was dominated by operational considerations such as unexpected changes in processes and the higher admin expenses of running the project management in the new system, shifting her initial support into challenging team leaders and the project manager about the quantity of change suggested by the latter to be needed in the project management processes.

Perspective 5: David, the CEO

had a clear vision for integrating the new system. David was also the sole shareholder of the company. He believed this tool was critical for the firm’s growth and operational efficiency, essential for scaling up and tackling larger and more complex projects. He was certain the increased project management capability would allow his company to become a known player in a more lucrative engineering sector. His continuous effort was to create new business opportunities and demonstrate the company’s capability for attracting and building the trust of potential clients.

Perceived Reality: An essential step forward to ensure a more certain future for his company, given this system was the norm in the respective sector. Things were moving ahead too slowly.

Emotional Response: Frustration over the resistance he felt from his team and the pace of implementation; a need to push even harder to make these changes happen.

David saw the big picture but failed to grasp the depth of the disruptions or the emotional responses his decisions had evoked among his staff.

The Crescendo of Misunderstandings

As the implementation unfolded, each layer of the organization reacted based on individual perceptions, leading to a crescendo of frustrations and misjudgments. George felt overwhelmed, Sophia stressed about having to put up with so much overtime, Victor felt ignored, Emily worried about the success of the implementation, and David was frustrated by the lack of cohesion and progress.

This happens when each of the key people involved in the implementation holds just a portion of the big picture. Neither was fully connected to the real reason why was timely and meaningful for the company to go through this experience, and therefore neither understood their role in the mentioned implementation.

Each held a separate perspective, a different reality that made them react differently but all in the sense of resistance. With none of them seeing the entire big picture, each fell into the net of their own narrative: i.e. each listened more to their perception of reality, instead of collaborating to create the bigger picture in which to operate. 

This created an atmosphere where key people moved from initial enthusiasm into frustration that could be felt as apathy, anxiety, low initiative, and disappointment with a widespread reluctance to support the “other system”.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Context

In the absence of an official process to collect insights from each key person involved, the participants could not put together significant pieces of the puzzle and continued to operate individually with a limited amount of information.

What other information would have been beneficial to be gathered and exchanged between these key players:

• The reason why the organisation wants this project

• The direct permission to note the differences and signal them

• The legitimacy for identification of new processes

• The collective acceptance that it is important to understand the difference in the administration effort requested by the new system

• The signs of the team's morale

• The concerns voiced by the key people involved

• The communication routines for signalling the set-backs or concerns 

Knowing the full context, as well as becoming aware this context is evolving, allows participants to reassess their expectations in regards to their role, their contribution and their expectations of personal and organizational success. 

In the absence of a forum of communication around the progress of implementation, each key person made decisions aligned with what they thought was helpful for them or the company. Some of those decisions were detrimental to the objective of the project itself and detrimental to each of them since each felt negatively impacted by the way they chose to engage themselves in this project.

The perspective people hold over what is happening in an organization has a profound impact on the quality of the decisions they make and the interpretation of events. Leaders not only need to communicate the strategic goals of major decisions like the implementation of a new project management system but also to engage with and understand the various contextual lenses through which their decisions are viewed.

The lesson here is clear: when making and implementing decisions, especially those that disrupt routine and expectations, understanding and incorporating the big picture is crucial. By doing so, leaders can anticipate potential misunderstandings and align organizational efforts more effectively, ensuring that every member, from engineer to CEO, understands and supports the change, facilitating a smoother transition and more cohesive team dynamics. This broader understanding fosters a more resilient and adaptive organization, where strategic decisions lead to collective advancement rather than sectional dismay. 

As a leader, you need to pay attention and understand how much of the context is understood by your people, and feed them with relevant information to fill the gap. Moreover, as a project or middle manager, if you feel like something is missing, you need to open discussions with the strategic management layers above to receive the bigger picture. 

You can always bet there is more to be known than you already know, not because your manager wants you not to know, but because other actions might be on your manager's agenda diverting his or her awareness from the fact that you miss significant pieces of information. As a manager, it is always your responsibility to ensure you work with the most updated and complete information about the context you operate. Context matters!

For anyone seeking tailored insights, I'm here to offer my support. Book a complimentary call with me to discover how can you find your sources of balance.

Until next time, keep thriving!

Alina Florea

Your Management Performance Coach

How can I support you?

By choosing an individual coaching program (1:1) you receive a highly customized approach, tailored precisely to your unique needs, challenges, and aspirations. It considers your current stage in life, your management role and length in it, your career objectives, and personal goals, ensuring the guidance you receive is as individual as you are.

For those ready to speed up even more their personal development journey, I am thrilled to offer "Master Your Resilience" a program designed to fortify your resilience core, ensuring you remain in command of your choices, actions, and emotions. It enables you to approach situations with clarity, focus, motivation, and vitality, and it fosters a readiness to listen, a willingness to seek collaborative solutions, and a composed approach to overcoming obstacles. It gives you tools and new perspectives to embrace your role's triggers, challenges and successes with ease and confidence. To indicate your potential interest, fill in the following FORM.

You are always welcome to write back your suggestions on topics for the next articles. Your suggestions keep this newsletter running. Thanks to everyone who offered me ideas for these articles. You can enjoy at any time a complimentary strategy call in case you want to take these topics even more in-depth to your particular situation.

 Summary:

In a mid-sized engineering firm's recent shift to a sophisticated project management system, varying perspectives from key organizational roles led to significant disruptions. This strategic organizational change, intended to streamline operations and enhance competitiveness, instead highlighted the profound effects of miscommunication and perspective on operational efficiency.

The firm's initiative to pilot this new system using their major project was meant to prepare them for larger industry challenges. However, the simultaneous use of old and new systems overwhelmed the staff. This case study examines the perspectives of different stakeholders including a planning engineer, a team leader, a project manager, an operating director, and a CEO—each offering a unique view shaped by their distinct roles and insights.

The case of this engineering firm's project management system overhaul illustrates the critical importance of context in organizational decision-making. Leaders must communicate effectively and engage with employees at all levels to ensure that everyone supports and understands the reasons for major changes. Understanding and addressing diverse perspectives not only helps in mitigating resistance but also in harnessing collective efforts towards common organizational goals. This approach leads to more resilient and adaptive organizations, where strategic decisions result in collective advancement and operational coherence.