Chains are often associated with oppression and stultification; chained to one’s desk or being on a ‘chain gang’ are immediate analogies.  But chains also drive machines, and provide security through their links.

There are also chains of command which, in the security forces such as the military and police, allow command to be exercised through a clearly defined rank structure with defined responsibility, accountability and liability at all levels. 

Their operations, which are inevitably crisis driven, ensure that any situation is controlled there is strict and disciplined ‘command and signal’.  Failure is not an option.

However, Project Management institutions do not seem to like ‘command’.  The Association of Project Managers makes no reference to ‘command’ while the Project Management Institute, until recently, only used ‘command’ in the context of decision making style.  PMBOK 6 (Agile) states that project management styles are moving away from a ‘command and control structure‘ implying that individuals should not control projects but a ‘collaborative’ approach should be adopted.

But at what risk can we cast off the ‘chains of command’.  Shall we adopt RACI matrices, bespoke project communication plans and a project organisation structure based on technical scope of work rather than contract or business liability?  And, when projects go awry and control is required to avoid chaos, confusion, disruption and delay who provides the commanding decisions?

Outmoded, Old-fashioned and Old School?

Institutionalised project management proponents refer to the chain of command in all but glowing terms.  It is mooted that forcing the project manager to use the chain of command for project planning (and possibly execution) can result in unproductive time.  These ‘chains’ are purportedly perceived as insulating executives and managers from bad news; but then how many executives really like bad news even though that is there function?

However, the military has been using chains of command for centuries as have many well established functional organisations.  Their chains of command are based on a hierarchical structure in which authority in the form of legitimate decisions and instructions flow down the structure in a steady and continuous manner.  Similarly, reactions should then flow back as the results of decisions are reported and also any difficulties and crises requiring intervention – thereby the chain of command works.

However, in order for the chain to work properly there must be interconnectivity and interdependence between the links.  Each link is critical to the integrity of the chain, and the owner of each link is accountable for dealing with issues or escalating them.

Project Autonomy and Independence

Contemporary Project Management advocates are seemingly moving away from ‘command’ and adopting a collaborative approach to ‘Monitoring and Control’.  The chain of command is being deemed to be inefficient or ineffective, or frustrating.  Decisions are either slow, or when management is in the dark, uninformed.

So what do we have; we have an autonomous project with decision by committee.  Such a move makes the ‘project’ rather than individuals accountable and ‘optimum’ decisions may, ideally, be generated taking into account risk, cost, quality and time constraints, and stakeholder concerns…great…no problems!

But who owns the decision and is responsible and accountable should the decision(s) be wrong?  The Project Manager (PM) by virtue of being the ‘manager’ should be responsible, unless responsibility is defined in that illusive Project Charter.  But who will be accountable and where and with whom will accountability lie?

Responsibility and Authority

Is your PM delegated appropriate authority to run a project within your organisation’s command structure?  Or is he or she required to run the project without authority and yet be responsible and accountable?  Without legitimate authority a manager must use ‘influence’, trading ‘favours’, and possibly (unethically of course) coercion.

“Project Collaboration”, albeit ‘politically correct’ and promoting team effort avoids placing liability on individuals.  PMs, through institutionalisation and babble, are being led to understand that this is acceptable.  Terms such as ‘command’ and ‘discipline’ are now avoided even though they are cornerstones of leadership.

If project managers are not delegated real power then the responsibility for the performance of a project lies with the organisations involved.  Project performance can be monitored and reported against, but without legitimate authority they cannot be controlled.  If projects require additional resources or change then decisions from ‘higher authorities’ are inevitably required.  In the absence of a direct chain of command these higher authorities take the faceless guise of steering, technical or executive committees and, ultimately, ‘the board’.

Reality and Accountability

Project Managers are often held accountable for their projects.  However, they rarely have the legitimate authority to command and control their charge.  The PM can only monitor and report and refer issues ‘up the chain’ for approval.  If the PM’s authority is only representative or technical in nature a PM merely monitors the performance and controls it within the limits of predetermined resources and restricted financial authority, if any.

If real control is required and the PM has no authority to take command then matters must be escalated.  If this is done properly and timeously the PM cannot be held responsible for any repercussions.

PMs on struggling projects may be perceived as a ‘weak link’, or may even see themselves as failing.  They will be blamed and may, wrongly, blame themselves despite their best efforts.  And just as ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ PMs who have no legitimate power cannot be expected to be responsible or accountable.

If the Project Manager cannot escalate matters to an individual then the project is dependent on a committee.  Such committees probably have limited responsibility or accountability and, even more probably, a limited sense of ownership.  They must, eventually, make a decision as to what action or inaction will be taken.

The timeliness and usefulness of such corporate decisions may well be questionable.  However organisations need not worry because they can engage another aspiring PM who (at best) may fix things or (at worst) can be blamed!  Problem solved…again?

Bio:

UK Chartered Engineer & Chartered Geologist with over thirty-five years’ international experience in multicultural environments on large multidisciplinary infrastructure projects including rail, metro, hydro, airports, tunnels, roads and bridges. Skills include project management, contract administration & procurement, and design & construction management skills as Client, Consultant, and Contractor.

Provision of incisive, focused and effective technical and managerial solutions for all project phases; identifying and dealing with troubled projects, and leading project recovery and change through hands-on interaction.