Overzealous Governance has Downsides
Why do we reach for more and more governance when a project is failing?
Extra control measures create a (false) sense of security. It’s impossible to achieve total control in project management.
It’s a quick band-aid approach, fairly easy to do.
If the project is in crisis or instability, people may yearn for strict order rather than lean into the perseverance, trust, co-creation and optimism required to deliver strategic initiatives.
Governance (i.e. checkpoints) often offer simple, clear steps to resolve complex problems. This can be appealing to those who feel overwhelmed by the complexities of bringing a project back in line, such as re-thinking the scope, re-evaluating the deliverables etc.
It fulfils some desire to be seen to be taking action. The quality of the action is irrelevant.
So we reach for more (and more and more) governance steps to bring that naughty puppy back into line, and before we know it, more time is spent in governance than in productivity. But strict controls can have several potential downsides:
It reduces flexibility and slows down the project.
Implementing and maintaining strict controls often requires significant resources, including time, money, and personnel. This leaves less and less time for project productivity.
Leads to a lack of trust, autonomy and initiative among team members, which can negatively impact morale and productivity. If sustained, it starts to be come self-selecting, where the freest thinkers and most autonomous workers leave, and the ones who are left are the people who are most dependent, passive and lacking initiative. These individuals typically wait for instructions and may struggle with tasks that require self-direction or independent problem-solving.
It encourages presenteeism and abdication of responsibility. When team members feel they are not trusted to manage their own time and responsibilities, this can lead to a culture where being physically present is valued over actual productivity, and the tendency to defer decision-making to others becomes the norm.
Encourages small-scale thinking and hinders bold moves. It stifles innovation, creativity and risk-taking. Sometimes, the solution is a big bold move, the brain child of one marvellously left-field thinker who wants to step out and take a big risk. Monitoring, measuring and getting approval on every single step means there needs to be parameters for success, and something not tried before cannot be known to be approved, hence, these kinds of moves are never approved and therefore never made.
In some cases, strict controls can be misused by those in power, or those would-be mini-dictators among us (we all know them) leading to authoritarian practices