The Invisible Sponsor Background Some Executives Pref 201415

The Invisible Sponsorbackgroundsome Executives Prefer To Micromanage

The case study explores the dynamics between project sponsors and project managers within an organizational context, emphasizing the importance of effective sponsorship in project success. It highlights how some executives tend to micromanage projects, whereas others may be hesitant to make critical decisions due to fear of repercussions. This scenario involves a newly appointed vice president, Al Zink, who serves as the project sponsor for a tooling project at Moreland Company, with Fred Cutler acting as the project manager.

The organization, Moreland, is recognized for its expertise in tooling design and manufacturing, relying heavily on project-based work for revenue. When the previous VP of engineering retired, Moreland hired Al Zink, who possessed strong engineering knowledge but limited experience in project management or sponsorship roles. To accelerate his development, the company's leadership assigned Al as the sponsor for a medium-sized, high-risk project, despite concerns about his unfamiliarity with project sponsorship responsibilities.

Fred, with over two decades of experience and a comprehensive understanding of tooling design, was placed in the role of project manager, reporting directly to Al Zink. Fred faced a dilemma: he needed to train Al on the responsibilities of a project sponsor. Fred understood that the sponsor's role involves accountability for project success or failure, which Al seemed uncomfortable with, especially after Fred explained that project documents require the sponsor's signature and that accountability rests with the sponsor.

Al quickly became reluctant to make decisions, revealing a preference for maintaining a passive role to avoid potential blame. His behavior exemplified what is described as the "invisible sponsor," someone who avoids active decision-making, potentially jeopardizing project outcomes. Despite Fred’s repeated requests for Al to approve the project schedule—specifically asking whether to base it on best time, least cost, or least risk—Al delayed decision-making, reflecting his discomfort and fear of accountability.

The situation escalated when Al finally decided on a schedule specifying the shortest duration but continued to procrastinate on signing off. Fred, perceiving that Al's delay could impact the project timeline, took a proactive approach by sending a firm email, informing Al that if he did not sign the schedule by a specified deadline, Fred would assume approval and proceed, with the president copied in the email for added accountability. This tactic proved effective, as Al subsequently signed the schedule, highlighting the importance of assertive communication in managing passive or reluctant sponsors.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of the Moreland Company project sponsorship provides a compelling illustration of the critical role that effective project sponsors play in ensuring project success. It underscores the consequences of having an invisible sponsor—one who is reluctant or fearful of making decisions—and how such behavior can hinder project progress, increase risks, and ultimately threaten project outcomes. This analysis explores the importance of proactive sponsorship, the challenges faced by inexperienced sponsors, and strategies to foster effective leadership in project management environments.

Project sponsorship is an essential element of project success, serving as the link between executive leadership and project execution teams. The sponsor's primary responsibilities include providing strategic direction, securing resources, removing obstacles, and most importantly, making timely decisions. An effective sponsor must also communicate clearly with stakeholders and possess the confidence to take accountability for project outcomes. In the case of Al Zink, his reluctance to assert decision-making authority exemplifies a passive sponsorship style, often associated with the phenomenon of the "invisible sponsor."

The invisible sponsor is characterized by a tendency to avoid critical decisions due to fear of negative repercussions. This behavior often stems from a lack of experience, understanding of responsibilities, or personal risk aversion, especially in high-stakes projects. As the case demonstrates, Al’s fear of damaging his reputation led him to delegate or delay decision-making on crucial project documentation, including the project schedule. This passivity can create bottlenecks in project timelines, increase uncertainty among team members, and diminish confidence in leadership.

One of the most significant challenges faced by inexperienced sponsors like Al is balancing accountability with the fear of making wrong decisions. Fred’s role as project manager involved not only managing technical aspects but also navigating the sponsor’s hesitation. Fred’s initial efforts to involve Al in scheduling decisions met with resistance, which is typical of sponsors who lack confidence or clarity about their roles. Fred’s decision to send a firm, escalating email with a clear deadline and including the president exemplifies best practices in managing passive sponsors. It underscores the importance of assertive communication and holding sponsors accountable to ensure project momentum.

Furthermore, the case illustrates that effective sponsorship often requires development and mentorship, especially for newly appointed or inexperienced sponsors. Organizations can enhance sponsor effectiveness through targeted training programs that clarify roles and responsibilities, role-playing scenarios, and coaching on decision-making under risk. Mentorship from more seasoned sponsors can also help new sponsors build confidence and understand the strategic importance of their role. Al Zink’s eventual signing of the schedule demonstrates that with clear authority and accountability, passive sponsors can be motivated to perform their roles effectively.

Another aspect highlighted in this case is the influence of organizational culture on sponsorship behavior. A culture that emphasizes accountability and supports proactive decision-making encourages sponsors to embrace their responsibilities and act decisively. Conversely, environments where fear of blame dominates may foster passivity, as seen in Al’s initial reluctance. Leaders must foster a culture of trust and learning to promote active sponsorship and reduce tendencies towards micromanagement or inactivity.

In addition to organizational and individual factors, effective communication is paramount in managing sponsorship roles. The case underscores how Fred’s clear, assertive communication ultimately prompted Al to fulfill his obligations. Regular, transparent updates, setting firm deadlines, and escalating issues through appropriate channels are techniques that project managers can use to ensure sponsor engagement. Building a relationship of mutual trust and understanding between project managers and sponsors is essential for navigating issues of passivity or reluctance.

Furthermore, the case demonstrates that accountability mechanisms, such as involving senior leadership (as seen with the inclusion of the president in email communication), serve as effective tools to motivate sponsors to act responsibly. These mechanisms reinforce the sponsor’s role as the ultimate decision-maker and keeper of project accountability, reducing ambiguity and emphasizing the importance of timely decision-making.

In conclusion, the case of Al Zink and Fred Cutler at Moreland Company illustrates the critical impact of effective project sponsorship on project outcomes. It highlights the dangers of passive or invisible sponsors and underscores the need for organizations to develop clear strategies, training, and cultural support systems to promote active, accountable sponsorship. As project environments become increasingly complex and fast-paced, cultivating competent sponsors who embrace their decision-making responsibilities is vital to achieving project success and organizational objectives.

References

• Morris, P. W. G. (2013). Project governance: Creating an effective project delivery environment.John Wiley & Sons.
• PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
• Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2017). Project Management: A Managerial Approach (9th ed.). Wiley.
• Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
• Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2011). How to manage project opportunities and threats: why it makes sense and how to do it. John Wiley & Sons.
• Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (2007). Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation. McGraw-Hill.
• Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Practical Project Management (3rd ed.). Gower Publishing.
• Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). Managing projects effectively: Achieving the objectives. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 453–454.
• Kloppenborg, T. J., Anantatmula, V., & Wells, K. (2019). Contemporary Project Management (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Turner, J. R. (2014). Gower Handbook of Project Management. Gower Publishing.