CHAPTER

7

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.

—Confucius

Providing Coaching and Feedback

To be assigned as project sponsor and execute that role during the project life cycle is not a one-shot deal. A key success factor in good sponsorship is communication. Feedback is part of the communication process. Communicating results is almost as important as achieving results. By giving feedback to the sponsor, stakeholders provide opportunities for the sponsor to change or improve actions, reactions, and behaviors.

Sponsors are professionals who can benefit from listening to their teams and project stakeholders. Getting feedback as a sponsor may require active solicitation of others to share their experiences. It is important to receive the truths shared and make decisions based on inputs received. It is difficult to give feedback to power. Speaking truth to power, especially bad news, is difficult most of the time but not impossible (see more about how to do this in Chapter 9).

Feedback is essential to ensure open and direct communication. Diego Nei, project portfolio manager at CEACRE, a not-for-profit institution in Salvador, Brazil, shared with us his opinion that a sponsor's key responsibilities include “Providing feedback on status reports and making sure they reach the necessary stakeholders.”

As defined by Stone and Heen (2014) in Thanks for the Feedback, “Coaching is aimed at trying to help someone learn, grow, or change. The focus is on helping the person improve, whether it involves a skill, an idea, knowledge, a particular practice, or that person's appearance or personality” (p. 32).

This chapter provides useful information for coaching sponsors and collecting feedback about sponsorship among various audiences, using specific tools and methods.

Vision Understood and Implemented

Research by Peter Morris (2005) in the United Kingdom centers around “evidence that the front end of projects is where things can go badly wrong and, conversely, where there is the best chance of positively influencing the chances of a successful outcome” (p. 2). Morris argues that “projects are only done for a reason—generally the sponsor's reason—often, though not always, expressible in financial terms” and that “following the PMBOK® Guide elements may be sufficient to deliver projects properly in process and practice terms but probably is not enough to ensure that the project is successful…. To do the latter, one needs to concentrate more on managing the front end” (p. 2). And “managing the interaction between the project and its environment to best meet project requirements is as critical as simply building the project to some set of approved requirements…Managing the front-end definition is as much a part of the domain as managing execution” (p. 2).

While it is important to communicate achieved results to interested stakeholders once the project is complete, it is also key to communicate and share. This ensures that information is flowing so that changes or adjustments can be made to achieve project success.

A graduate course required a case study to be submitted every week. A grade was given, no comments were provided, and no discussion occurred in the classroom. Over the duration of the course, little noticeable improvement occurred in quality of the cases submitted or grades received. In another course, the instructor read sample comments from each case after the first submittal. Numerous comments appeared on the cases handed back to the students each week. Both the quality of submittals and grades received made remarkable improvement during the course.

This lesson made an indelible impact on me (Englund) about the power of feedback. Every project manager (and project sponsor) has this tool available—it is simply a matter of deciding to use it. Career development occurs when people get feedback on what they do well as well as receive suggestions for how to do things better. This tool is so powerful that it can even dwarf or minimize the need to point out what people do wrong. By reinforcing strengths, weaknesses fall by the wayside.

High-performing teams are ones who regularly submit their work to one another in order to improve it. They are less competitive and more collaborative. No one is expected to get the work right the first time and on one's own. Excellent results come from peer reviews, driven by a shared value of accountability for the success of the team, project, or organization.

Unfortunately, many people feel compelled to correct the failings of others. Instead, there is greater potential to excel and achieve better results when people invoke the feedback tool to reinforce positive efforts.

Why do people play games for hours or work so hard for a competitive event? Because they get a score: This feedback is a motivating factor. Why not use the same approach in project management?

Given that most professionals have some discretionary control over what they work on or where they spend their time and that they probably have multiple projects to work on, how can sponsors get stakeholders to give top priority to their projects? This question has multiple answers, and in practice, most people are well served by asking the question every day throughout their careers. Find unique answers for each individual they need to work with. While there is no one right answer, a best practice answer is to provide feedback. In an environment where feedback is scarce, a person who regularly and promptly provides constructive responses stands out. Early feedback that corrects the use of a repetitive methodology is always welcomed because it saves on rework. Suggestions to revise the order of material presented are wonderful because these represent easy corrections that immensely improve value. A person who takes the time to provide this feedback may be treasured as a rare commodity.

Other feedback may include comments on a report or paper, questions that prompt additional forms of inquiry, statements about what works well or invokes interest and could be expanded, remarks pointing out areas of work that are unclear, and endorsement for a course of action. Make it a high priority to respond to every inquiry. Share what thinking processes are going on. Develop and use consistent criteria for decision making; communicate all news whether good or bad; provide reflective answers to questions; tame anxiety responses and provide space for others to come through; and generally become known for high-quality responses. Appreciate the ebb and flow of team dynamics, using discretion about when to push and when to let a natural energy drive the process. These steps demonstrate that the leader is paying attention to the people responsible for success.

The case for feedback hinges on establishing shared values and putting them into practice. The results will be extraordinary. Early in each project, take the time to emphasize the importance of each person's contribution. Make explicit commitments to be accountable for overall success and to extract the optimum contribution from one another. Demonstrate these values profusely every day, both by soliciting feedback from and providing it to others.

Feedback is one of those important issues that can generate major problems. Because the results of a solution can be closely linked to the political issues in an organization, feedback can upset some individuals while pleasing others. The timing and content of feedback needs to be consistent with past practices. Speaking the truth should be the norm, even if the results being spoken are not positive. We strongly recommend repeating this feedback periodically, because reactions and behaviors from various project stakeholders are different.

It is also important for the customer or client organization to recognize the interests of the provider to make a profit and stay in business, creating a win-win relationship. Chief information officers (CIOs) and others who manage vendors, suppliers, and contractors may be tempted to push so hard for a great deal that they drive their suppliers away or out of business. This does not serve the client organization well. A preferred approach is to treat these suppliers as partners; communicate openly, especially about other suppliers, so that a genuine competition ensues; and give them feedback that will help them do a better job of serving you.

Practice three-way communication as a practical means to ensure that feedback is effective. The first way is speaking a message. The second way is the receiver stating that the message was heard and understood. The third way is the initial sender verifying that the message was understood and a desired action will be taken. In the movie Jerry Maguire, when sports agent Jerry wants to retain athlete Rod Tidwell, Rod says, “I hear that you hear what I said but do you hear what I said—show me the money.” Jerry has to scream back those words before Rod will accept Jerry as his agent. By the end of the conversation, the vision is not only stated but fully understood.

A Personal Effectiveness Approach

Dr. Zachary Wong (2013), in writing about personal effectiveness in project management, says:

People are better served when they step up and proactively create a work environment that fits their human factors. People crave for more job freedom; yet they let organizational and team spaces define what they do, when they do it and how they do it. They accept that they cannot do anything about it, allow extrinsic motivators to override their intrinsic motivators and suffer in silence. Why can't people make their work environment work for them? In other words, why can't they create the type of work environment that increases their motivation and maximizes their performance? Yes, there are many factors in the workplace that people cannot control, such as their boss's behaviors or the structure and resources of their company, but there are many things that people can control and influence, such as improving the way they do their jobs, what training they can take, career development, helping others, working with a mentor, networking, volunteering for new assignments, making new friends and many others. Too often people accept the status quo and leave their fate in the hands of others. When the work environment works for people, they gain tremendous personal power and effectiveness. When they force fit themselves into a system that conflicts with their values and diversity, it is a formula for failure.

How does a person make their work environment more motivating? It starts by understanding what enables them to perform at their best. Everyone has specific preferences in how they want to be treated and motivated. When people are treated in a manner that suits them, they will perform better on projects and feel good about their work. (pp. 66–67)

Dr. Wong, in summarizing decades of personal and teaching experiences in professional environments, shared with us additional thoughts about project managers managing up the organization and working with sponsors:

As a project manager, you are on the “ground,” battling each day to keep your project on time, on spec, and on budget. Your sponsor's role is to operate “above” you, providing protection and “air cover” from a distance against the ever-changing political, budgetary, and strategic elements that can threaten your project. Of course, it can feel uncomfortable having someone “hover” over you and confusion can reign if your respective roles, responsibilities, and expectations are not well-aligned or unclear. This can lead to excessive sponsor passivity, micromanaging, or both (passive-aggressive), and the project suffers. Project managers can avoid this effect by becoming more proactive and explicit when communicating with their sponsors by:

(1) Front-end loading: Be clear on (i) what specific roles and responsibilities you want your sponsor to play, (ii) what values take priority for decision making (e.g., economics, safety, regulatory compliance, ethics, customer satisfaction), (iii) what you are accountable for and what authority and resources you need in order to meet those expectations, (iv) the critical performance metrics for the project, and (v) your personal expectations, concerns, and what motivates and de-motivates your performance.

(2) Establishing clear sponsor-project manager processes, such as project reviews, communications, decision making, and measuring performance. Process drives proper behaviors between sponsors and project managers and ensures a stronger “air” and “ground” connection—without processes, people will act on their own accord.

(3) Giving feedback to the sponsor: (i) project status—open and honest reporting of what's going well and what needs improvement, (ii) project reviews—include a review of “front-end” agreements and processes and what adjustments are needed, and (iii) actively recognize and acknowledge the favorable behaviors that you observed from your sponsor—“catch your sponsor doing the right things” and tell him or her specifically what you liked and why. Remember, what gets reinforced, gets repeated.

These actions work because they build honesty, trust, mutual dependency and a positive work relationship between project managers and sponsors. Without a high degree of transparency, we end up playing the mental “guessing game” or worst yet, the “second-guessing game,” which leads to unnecessary stress and grief for both parties. (personal correspondence)

A Structured Approach

In some projects, feedback data are periodically collected and quickly communicated to different stakeholders. A feedback action plan (Table 7.1 in the Appendix) provides information to sponsors using different media. Feedback data are collected during the project at four specific time intervals and communicated back to the sponsor. To provide feedback and manage this feedback process, consider the following steps:

1. Be quick. Be as quick as possible communicating. It does not matter if it is good or bad news; it is important to let sponsors and stakeholders involved in the project have the information as soon as possible.
2. Simplify. Be simple communicating the data. Be concise; condense the important data you have because the most important thing is how to learn through the feedback provided and make the best decisions possible in the moment.
3. Explore. Find out the role of the project manager and project sponsor in the feedback situation. Sometimes borders are invaded, and that generates conflicts.
4. Use. Use negative data in a constructive way and use positive data in a cautious way. Always be positive; if other people can learn, you can learn too.
5. Select. Select the language of the meeting and communication very carefully. Take into account the organizational environment because it makes a big difference.
6. Ask. Ask the other person for reaction to the data and for recommendations. Remind the person to be focused on what happened, not who was the good guy or bad guy in each situation.
7. Respect. Respect one another. Be supportive or confrontational as the situation requires, while always seeking dialogue.
8. React. React and act on the data. Lessons learned prepare us to take action.
9. Secure. Obtain agreement from all key project stakeholders.
10. Be short. Keep the feedback process short and concise.

People give feedback to others based on their perceptions of reality and experiences they lived before. Many are familiar with different perceptions of six blind men about an elephant. The poem “The Blind Man and the Elephant” by John Godfrey Saxe is based on an ancient Hindu parable.

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant—(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation—Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side—At once began to bawl: “God bless me! but the Elephant—Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, “Ho! what have we here?

So very round and smooth and sharp?—To me ’tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant—Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands—Thus boldly up and spake:

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant—Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

“What most this wondrous beast is like—Is mighty plain,” quoth he;

“’Tis clear enough the Elephant—Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: “E'en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;—Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant—Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tail—That fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant—Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion—Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right—And all were in the wrong!

The point is not who is right and who is wrong. The value of receiving feedback from different people is so powerful because somebody else can perceive key things that other people cannot.

I (Englund) also use the elephant parable in a different context to share a vision statement with stakeholders. Some people do not “get it” (whatever it might be) until the communicator describes it in terms that the receiver better understands. Those who cherish flexibility might better understand by describing how the project tail, or closing stages, is like a rope. Market positioning may need to swing to meet changing or emerging trends. Other people who cherish focusing on specific niches or problems will appreciate seeing how the project trunk or spear will do that. The point is, the communicator sees the whole elephant and chooses which elements to describe, depending on the audience.

Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen (2014), in their book Thanks for the Feedback, point out that we have truth, relationship, and identity triggers that provoke different reactions and responses. Receiving feedback sits at an intersection between desiring to learn and longing for acceptance. They suggest separating appreciation, coaching, and evaluation feedback, as well as shifting from “that's wrong” to “tell me more.” Sponsors and project managers alike are well advised to set priorities both to provide and receive effective feedback. Develop skills that support this goal.

Structured Feedback for the Customer Sponsor

We strongly recommend giving feedback to the customer sponsor in a structured way. Use a “radar chart” like the one shown in Figure 7.1 as a visual indicator. Score and provide feedback on each of the aspects using Table 7.2 in the Appendix. Use a scale from 0 (poor) to 7 (excellent).

Review of Sponsorship Execution

There are two possibilities and advantages in the process of reviewing sponsorship: for the project manager to give structured feedback to the provider sponsor and for the sponsor to review his or her sponsorship execution. Use the questionnaire from Table 7.3 in the Appendix to focus the feedback.

Points of View from Project Managers

We asked Sinikka L. Waugh, PMP, Central Iowa, about personal experiences and conversations between a project manager and sponsor. Her organization, Your Clear Next Step, LLC, regularly coaches teams to find innovative ways to leverage effective project strategies across multiple disciplines and technologies. She said:

At a very large financial services company in the midwestern part of the United States, I recall a key meeting with my executive sponsor. In this meeting, the executive sponsor was laying out her vision for the project and how it aligned with organizational and departmental goals. She was talking about the critical success factors for her, and, in response to a question I had asked about the priority order of scope, time, and cost, was laying out her priorities for the project.

Up until then, my habit for listening had been to listen intently—with my ears and with my eyes—to the other person, not writing, but listening and watching their nonverbal cues, and taking it all in before I synthesized it into notes that I would then write down. I was afraid that if I just wrote their words, that I would miss comprehending their message—since the words would flow from their mouth, into my ears, and right out of my head onto my paper.

So, while she was talking, I was nodding, listening, and paying close attention to her words and her body language. But I wasn't writing things down yet. I watched her facial expression darken, and I watched her body language change from visibly comfortable with the exchange to uncomfortable, and all the way to agitated. In my head, I tried to find meaning for the disconnect between her words and her nonverbal expressions.

And then, rather brusquely, she said, “Sinikka, I need you to write this stuff down! I don't think you're listening to me.” It was at that very moment that I realized that I needed to “listen” with the communicator's needs in mind. My needs, my preferences, and my comfort zones for how I listen are secondary to the preferences and comfort zones of the other person. I am grateful to this executive sponsor for that powerful lesson in listening. (personal correspondence)

Working in this same financial services company and with the same executive sponsor but on a different project, Sinikka describes other conversations:

This particular sponsor had introduced herself to me as “not a fan of process for the sake of process.” She went on in the conversation to essentially give me a “heads up” that she wasn't a fan of the rigidity or bureaucracy of project management, and that she had not worked with very many effective project managers in the past. She was skeptical about what I could bring to the table. So instead of showing her risk logs and charters and project tools and templates, she and I focused on the content and the message of the tools and templates, without dwelling for any amount of time on the tools or documents themselves in her presence.

During initiation, we talked about her goals for the project, and how they aligned with the strategic vision. We talked through her high-level vision for the timing and budget associated with the project, and what success looked like in her book. We talked through project team members and what they could bring to the table, and when they would be available. We talked about the nature of this project—how it was highly complex, involving both “people” dynamics that would be tricky to navigate, plus “technical” components that were both very complex and highly regulated. We talked through “what if” scenarios and “how good is good enough” questions.

We made our way through initiation and our first presentation to the governance group. Then we made our way through planning, including a “wow-this-one-is-too-aggressive” plan, a realistic plan, and a plan that was more generous than we would be able to afford. We talked about the benefits and drawbacks of each, finally selecting the realistic plan, but deliberately protecting her from the project management vocabulary for which she had expressed a displeasure. The governance group approved our request to move from planning to execution and away we went.

As the months wore on for that project, I spent week after week in her office, talking through potential risks (though never showing her the risk log), talking through real issues and soliciting her help with resolutions (and never showing her the issue log), talking through the various changes and implications and getting her approval on adjustments to scope, time, (without ever making her pore through a change control form), reminding her of decisions made and decisions needed (without ever showing her the decision log), and as the project came to a close, on time, and on scope, and on budget, I recall she said to me something like, “See, Sinikka, that project wasn't so hard! We didn't even need a project manager!”

I caught my breath for a moment—briefly, though undeniably, righteously indignant because I'd done nothing but manage that project for the better part of a year—until she continued with “You never talked to me in project-management-ese, and you never belabored the conversation with tools and templates that frustrate me. But whatever it was you did do on the project, we need you and other PMs [project managers] in our organization to keep doing that.”

I went back to my desk with a pretty significant revelation to share back to my peer PMs: For sponsors who don't love the project management process, we need to be better at helping them through the concepts and the ideas without getting bogged down in the forms.

The PMO leaders at the time heard from the sponsor about how effective my approach had been, and invited me to help the rest of the team learn ways of talking about the process of project management in a meaningful way for executive sponsors who didn't want the details, the forms, or the process. I still have the opportunity to spend time in this organization from time to time, and they have moved from a rigid “everyone uses and talks about all these tools and templates in this way” kind of shop to a far more customer-centric, flexible model in which the tools and templates are designed to be guidelines and standards for best practice, but effective relationships with sponsors and successful project delivery take far higher priority than having templates filled out a certain way.

As is true in many other situations, it is not always what you say but how. (personal correspondence)

What and When to Provide Feedback

On a series of training engagements over several years, the project manager applied best practices, multiple learning intelligences, interactive online technologies, and regular feedback. Course reviews posted by participants were thrilling, indicating how much they learned, especially from one another. The intent in requiring each participant to post a review is to encourage reflection and sharing. This practice helps solidify key concepts and discoveries in participant minds, both for themselves and, through sharing, in other minds, before moving on to new projects. Example comments are: “Writing out my ‘stories,’ as opposed to just telling them made me really think through situations, styles, and approaches, so it brought forward knowledge that I had access to but that I might not have been actively using.” And: “If I had taken this course before becoming an accidental PM [project manager], I would've been better equipped to do my job, particularly in dealing with getting my stakeholders engaged and educated. I might not have gotten burned out, since I would have more tools in my toolkit.” This feedback engendered a feeling of “all is well” in the project manager's mind.

One day a new sponsor who just stepped into this role scheduled a phone call. “I see that the numbers are not as high as I'd like for your sessions. When I see this trend, I like to have a conversation with the person before making changes.” This news was disturbing to the project manager. Not only had he not seen many of these numbers, but he also discovered they came from fewer than a quarter of the participants. While the project manager argued that learning is the priority and is supported by copious positive comments, the sponsor focused on numbers from “happy sheets” submitted after each session. The project manager remembered a conversation with a different sponsor who said, “I don't care what the ‘happy sheets’ say; I care if people are learning something.”

We advise sponsors to exercise caution in being numbers driven. In the case of numbers from evaluation surveys, they may represent only a small voice of the population, be prompted by irrelevant concerns, and vary drastically with inconsistent criteria. The latter point highlights that some people apply higher, more stringent standards than others and may be more or less vocal.

The sponsor in the above scenario, while suitably concerned about quality of project deliveries, is advised to check out personally how the process unfolds, not just rely on suspicious numbers. Sit in on sessions, review comments, and trust instincts. Be careful that expressing undue concerns may seriously jeopardize motivation of high performers who do not win popularity contests. Unjust feedback based on spurious metrics is a clear-cut way to move an organization into mediocrity.

Another aspect of feedback to consider is whether it is positive or negative and when it is given. The sponsor said, “I'll call when there's a problem.” When no calls come over a long period of time, project managers may believe all is well. They do not look forward to receiving a call. A better scenario may be to call randomly and include positive feedback. Ask what the person is doing to get such good results, with intent to learn and share those effective practices with others. Apply tenets of a learning organization.

Points of View from Upper Managers

We asked upper managers in international organizations a series of questions concerning topics important for sponsorship. Here are some of the answers we received.

Are key practices employed to define, obtain, and sustain a sponsor in your organization?

As of today, sponsors are primarily determined by the scope of the project and are more a natural selection rather than based on a thorough analysis. Key factors to decide on the level of the sponsor are investment and business criticality. IT cross-functional, enterprise-wide projects with global impact are typically sponsored by a member of the IMT or, in very special cases, by a member of the board of directors. Business projects do fall into biz reps, although this is not always the rule, and for certain projects at certain levels there can be a mix.

—Alvaro Garrido, PGID-Engineering Roche

The project sponsor is the manager who is commercially and financially responsible for the project and its business outcome. The project sponsor is the orderer of the project, the primary risk taker for the project, the one who makes the tollgate decisions. These are based on an assessment of the project's alignment with the organization's business goals. The project sponsor at Ericsson has normally experience from customer projects as project manager, account manager, or member of the project steering group. The project sponsor should be familiar with the tollgate directive and this model.

—Adriano Brilli, RM/TEI Ericsson

Why is the sponsor role important for you?

Role is: To ensure focus and alignment with business priorities, avoiding deviations as the project or program progresses. Assess changes when required. To secure funds, to assess and manage risk, and to ensure that correct methodology is applied.

—Alvaro Garrido, PGID-Engineering Roche

The purpose of the project sponsor role is to ensure that the manager who is the financial risk taker for the project has defined responsibilities and tasks in the project. The project sponsor is responsible for tollgate assessments being carried out at the appropriate times and for making tollgate decisions. The project sponsor sets the priorities for the project and should provide support in negotiations with resource owners within the Ericsson organization as well as with third-party organizations. The project sponsor will chair the change control board (CCB), where change decisions will be made that will have a greater impact on budget, time, or functionality. Every change request is a possibility to increase the margin. The project sponsor shall support the Core Three team when negotiations regarding change are required with the customer.

—Adriano Brilli, RM/TEI Ericsson

How should sponsors “walk the walk”?

Walk the walk by: Participating in the definition of the project governance and sticking to and delivering on the responsibilities assigned to him or her (attending the meetings, adhering to the project methodology guidelines, producing the executive reports,…etc.). He or she should seek active participation, provoke discussion, and challenge achievements and deliverables. By establishing controls and providing content-based feedback and direction on a regular basis. By standing before upper management when resources are needed or unexpected problems or deviations pop up.

—Alvaro Garrido, PGID-Engineering Roche

Identifying the business interface to the customer and establishing mutually beneficial relationships with the customer and other relevant stakeholders. It is an additional specific responsibility of the sponsor managing the business agreement with the customer, if applicable. The sponsor must appoint the other members of the project steering group and chair the project steering group meetings. He or she must identify the external and internal receivers of the project outcome.

—Adriano Brilli, RM/TEI Ericsson

What is the single best contribution to excellence in sponsorship?

Best contribution: Vision and commitment.

—Alvaro Garrido, PGID-Engineering Roche

Honest and objective feedback, according to Michael O'Brochta, Zozer president:

At the time, I thought that my first assignment to move beyond managing projects myself to the managing of project managers was a big deal. It was early in my career at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) where I had been hired for the skills associated with my electrical engineering degree. Those skills became coupled with some of the project management skills I benefited from learning on the job; it just so happened that the CIA was an early adopter of project management. I thought that this low-level line management position was a big deal because it would allow me to easily spring into the upper levels of management. I was wrong.

I was wrong, not because I didn't advance in management levels; I was wrong about why this first low-level line management job was important. That job allowed me to learn, by making a fair number of mistakes, just how important properly giving feedback was. The workplace standard at that time meant that I was to be supported as a line manager with a secretary, someone who would be responsible for my administrative needs and those of my department.

It turned out that this particular experienced secretary was ill-suited for the job. I addressed the situation by providing the standard verbal feedback, and I also gave her a poor written performance evaluation. She was shocked, not merely at my negative feedback, but at the fact that this negative feedback stood in contrast to the years of positive feedback she had been receiving. Upon investigation I learned that this particular secretary was not well thought of by her former bosses, and that they chose not to accurately reflect those opinions in the feedback they had previously provided to her. In fact, I was shocking her with some unfamiliar, and unwanted, honest, and objective feedback. She quit. And I learned a lesson about the impact to an employee when honest and objective feedback has been withheld and they are denied the opportunity to make incremental adjustments to their performance.

The project managers reporting to me immediately began receiving open and honest feedback from me, and I began soliciting it from them. And we did this as a matter of routine. We included opportunities for feedback in every internal meeting by including a “Rose Thorn Bud” agenda item. The Rose is about what is working well, the Thorn is about what is not working well, and the Bud is about what the future holds. For example, “I am thrilled that we finally completed that task, too bad that an error caused it to be completed late, but if we make an adjustment we can likely avoid another delay.”

Early on, our feedback focused on projects and tasks; after all, we were all project managers. But as time went on, and we became more skilled and more comfortable with feedback, we began addressing processes and relationships. As I look back on this early lesson in feedback, I understand that the ability to focus on relationship feedback contributed enormously to our subsequent successes.

Here is another answer, from “CEOs Can't Do It Alone,” by Payson Hall, Catalysis Group, Inc. (2003):

Most organizations are not facing a data problem as much as “an effective response to data” problem. What is the value of improved portfolio information if we aren't responding effectively to the project-level information already available?

Suppose that accurate status is available for projects, but project team members or managers hesitate to deliver problematic information because they don't want to rock the boat or play the messenger in a “shoot the messenger” scenario. What if meaningful status is reported but never reaches the sponsor through the competing stimuli associated with multiple projects, changing technology, and a dynamic business environment? Worse yet, imagine that sponsors receive news about project problems but are unsure of how to respond. Creating “enterprise dashboard” views of the data will not help an organization address these challenges, but better sponsorship will.

While it may disappoint some of the vendors poised to help you tackle your problems with EPM [enterprise project management] tools, a prelude to procurement should be an evaluation of your organization's sponsorship skills. If you find your sponsors are receiving and acting effectively on status information at the project level, perhaps your organization would be served by more consolidated views of data. If instead you find that your sponsorship skills need improvement, your resources might be better invested in honing these fundamentals. Most organizations can realize a tangible benefit from improved sponsorship in just a few months. Every organization has a few projects that are ill conceived and unlikely to deliver value. Consider the benefit of being able to cancel projects that represent future disappointments earlier. All of the resource investments not made in the doomed projects move directly to the bottom line. Avoidance of needless expense has a tremendous ROI.

It's not that project management isn't working or isn't necessary, it just isn't sufficient. Project management is about defining, planning, and managing projects, and it is also about supporting timely and effective decision making related to those projects—decision making that occurs not at the project manager's level, but at the level of the sponsor and above. There is a common misconception that we throw tough projects at good project managers and then the desired results are miraculously delivered on time and on budget. In practice, project management is as much about helping sponsors respond effectively when project reality is failing to live up to expectations. For this process to work, there must be a sponsor involved who represents the interests of the organization, is open to receiving information (including bad news), and is willing and able to respond….

From the CIO perspective, a sponsor's timely assessment of project viability and estimated value is essential to sound decision making. Organizational leaders need information about individual projects to manage the contents and priority of the entire portfolio of projects, moving to redefine or cancel those efforts that no longer seem profitable or aligned with organizational goals. CIOs have a huge stake in the quality of sponsorship because they have a huge stake in the quality of the organization's decision making. Before investing in additional tools to present project status data in innovative ways, most organizations would do better to ensure that project sponsors understand their role and have the skill and information needed to perform their vital function in the project management process. If your sponsors don't know how to drive, a new dashboard won't help. If your sponsors don't know they are sponsors, who is driving?

Summary

The sponsor is in a difficult position between the project team and the client, and between the project manager and senior managers. Because the sponsor and the project manager will ideally be working closely together from start to finish, both need to understand their roles very well. They need to see themselves as compatible members in the project team. A key is to find the right balance to perform as project sponsor. Spend more time communicating with the team at the front end of the project and maintain good communication throughout. Receiving feedback from various stakeholders may prove extremely helpful for all concerned.

We suggest that project managers take the initiative to coach and educate sponsors. Let them know what you need to create mutually beneficial outcomes. We suggest that sponsors both seek and provide regular feedback to all stakeholders.

Even in situations where the client, customer, or end user is unknown, feedback is necessary for all players in order to improve. This chapter makes a strong plea to provide more feedback to others as a daily practice. Its value is immense as a means to improve performance, increase morale, and achieve desired results. Ensure that the feedback is honest and relevant, or else it may do damage. Our questionnaires provide ways to focus on and measure how well sponsors and others in the organization provide feedback to one another. Look for insights from other managers, organizations, or outsiders about how to improve the sponsorship role. Take the time to address all issues that surface.