Sunday, 07 March 2010 00:00

Who Do You Trust?

Rate this item
(1 Vote)


The first ingredient in recovering any project is trust. The team must trust the recovery manager, the customer must trust the supplier, team members must trust each other, and so on, until all permutations are exhausted. Without trust, all is for naught. Therefore, to have a successful recovery, or project for that matter, it is a requirement to thoroughly understand trust and how to foster it.

An Exercise In Understanding Trust

Not too long ago, I was at a Portland SIM CIO Summit where a keynote speaker spent all of five minutes talking about trust. However, these five minutes left me with a very different view of the subject. Rather than defining trust, he wanted the audience to leave thinking about it.

He gave us a three-step assignment. I suggest you try it, too. He asked us to do the following, pausing a few seconds between each:

  1. Make a list of the people you trust and think about why.
  2. Make a second list of the people you distrust and why.
  3. Write down what it will take someone on the second list to regain your trust.

Being that the last question was rhetorical, he answered it for us, "Nothing, they never regain complete trust." In closing, he threw in the kicker, "So, whose trust list are you on?" He let the latter sit in for a few seconds and went on to his next topic.

The Components of Trust


Trust requires that we expose some part of ourselves, creating vulnerability. At first, one might think that this would make us uncomfortable. However, trusting someone does just the opposite. In fact, turning over trust is huge part of falling in love.

Project managers leave themselves exposed by allowing others to define and monitor their progress or self-assess their capabilities to perform a task. Executive management trusts that the recovery manager will fix the project in a manner amenable to all parties. The person giving the trust is exposed to negative consequences if the trustee fails. Without trust, one person has to do everything and the project stops.

Every act in a project requires trust. Simply to start the project, the customer must trust the integrator and the vendors. Without that, the project will not succeed.

However, trust has bounds. You may trust the teenager next door to baby sit your children, but not to keep track of your investments. For this reason, projects have people that specialize in various portions of the business. It is up to the trusting party to perform the due diligence to establish the appropriate level of trust.

Destroying Trust

Trust can vanish in an instant. Not following through with commitments, failing to provide all the information required, or laying blame can destroy trust that has existed for years. The first two can be forgiven, since they can be honest mistakes. The latter, blame, can be the death knell of trust. In failing projects, blame is the emotion de jour. It not only destroys progress on the project, it thwarts any attempts at recovery.

When looking at the aggregation of failed projects, vendors, customers, and integrators share culpability. Commencing a recovery (or a project, for that matter) with anything but an objective view of the genesis of failures, or their corrective actions, is counterproductive. Every project is different and, in the course of recovering a number of them, no single party has come out the winner for contributing to failure. To be sure, as many projects fail for customer ineptness, arrogance or any other problem, as there are that fail for the same reasons in vendors and integrators. Starting any action with blame only breeds mistrust.

Hence, blame serves no purpose. Corrective actions solve issues; trust is required for the corrective action to work. None of the parties in a project is more prone to contribute to failures than any other. Assigning blaming will only escalate the blame-game when another group generates the next failure. Resolutions are found quicker when fault is shared and each party works to identify and resolve the problems.

What To Do

To move forward on a failing project, trust must be regained. An honest and objective recovery manager is required. It starts when people back away from finding blame and replace that with looking for solutions. Open communication, trust, and assuming positive intent is the attitude to build lasting relationships and successful projects. By accepting the responsibility to objectively analyze the issues and correct problems that are under their control, the project will once again be successful.

Read 9201 times

Related items

  • The Executive-Project Manager Gap

    It was such an innocuous question, "Working on an article; what is the biggest problem you see with project governance at orgs? Can you comment?" Can I comment? Really? That is like cheese to a mouse. Where could I start—bureaucracy, draconian process, poor executive sponsorship, disengaged leaders? Plenty of fodder, because they all lead to project failure. I fired off, "Creating an over bureaucratic morass stifling innovation & implementing process instead of cultivating leaders." Then the maelstrom started and it went directly to the gap between the executives and projects managers. Naomi Caietti, Robert Kelly and I had a great conversation. Most of the thread is below.

  • Disband Your PMO

    After nearly 30 years of project work, I struggle to understand the role of a project management office (PMO). Even though, I have written of the pros and cons, and read a plethora of articles, opinions, and how-to guides little has been done to convince me that the PMO is reducing project failure. It seems to be nothing more than a tool to fill a void in leadership? Even the acronym, which is so widely thrown around, has little meaning as the "P" has no less than four meanings. It is an executive's crutch for their lack of understanding in how projects work. These, like other, unattended holes in the corporate accountability create opportunities for new and greater bureaucracies and empires that further obfuscate accountability.

  • The Catch-22 of Organizational Change Management

    "Kotter, ADKAR, or CAP which methodology should we be using to build our approach to improving project adoption?" I hear this question repeatedly from people trying to implement an organizational change management (OCM) program. The problem is that is the wrong question. Take a perfunctory peek at any of the models and you will see that in the quest for an answer people have mistakenly jumped over the first few steps and they head down the road of failure. It is a Catch-22; unless you already have an OCM process in place, you will most likely fail at implementing it. Putting one in place, however, is a change—one of the most difficult cultural transformations your company will undertake. As a result, people jump to the solution stage, which is well down the change management process path (which, they did not know, ironically, since there was no procedure in place).

  • Strategic Alignment: The Key To Project Success

    Buy it now!

    Project success rates for many companies and government organizations are dismally low, yet executives never seem to look at the big picture. They continue to make adjustments in the way projects are run by addressing isolated problems. However, projects are part of a much larger system and should be addressed in that context. To do that, companies must define how their strategic plan will use people, projects, and technology to achieve their goals. This paper discusses one approach to make this happen.

  • Transforming Project Managers Into Project Leaders

    Buy it now!

    Project management has been accepted in many businesses as a discipline critical for continued growth. To improve project performance, companies have levied rules on how projects should be run, defined common reporting requirements for all projects, and pooled and shared their project management resources. Even with these functions, projects still struggle to meet the needs of the customer. In order to improve project outcomes, the way in which they are managed must change. Project managers must become leaders, paying more attention to soft skills, managing their stakeholders, and identifying solutions to organizational issues that are limiting project success. The following paper discusses techniques developed by the author to address these needs and improve project success rates.

Leave a comment

More Info on Project Recovery


Please send me more information on fixing a failing project.

Made with BreezingForms for Joomla!® by Crosstec

Rescue The Problem Project

Internationally acclaimed

Image of RPP

For a signed and personalized copy in the US visit the our eCommerce website.

Amazon logo
Buy it in the United States Buy it in Canada Buy it in the United Kingdom
Buy it in Ireland Buy it in Germany Buy it in France
Buy it in Italy Buy it in the PRC
Buy it in Japan
Book sellers worldwide.

Upcoming Events

Other's References