Project Management is not Project Leadership

Alfred Korzybski's words - "The map is not the territory" - remind me of the realities and limitations of Project Management.

The Polish-American philosopher and scientist introduced the phrase in his 1933 book "Science and Sanity". It illustrates the differences between belief systems (maps) and reality (territory) in the context of mathematics. It recognises that our perceptions and representations of the world are not the world itself. Sounds logical.

In Project Management it’s a reminder that our tools — project plans, risk analyses, contracting strategies — are just tools. They are our maps. They're a best-estimate of reality and not the end goal of our work or a true indication of our future outcomes. Our tools are helpful, but they're a necessary but simplified abstraction of reality. Not enough in themselves.

Whilst our frameworks and methodologies can guide us, they can't account for the intricacies of human dynamics. Or the nuances of stakeholder interests. Or the unpredictable nature of technology innovation. Or market trends. Or team morale. They rarely survive first contact with the enemy. They don't bare resemblance to the complex reality of project leadership in pursuit of a complex goal in an uncertain world - dynamic, and ever-changing.

Understanding the limit of our maps is key to start leading in the territory ahead. In the context of project management, we fall into three traps with parallels to Alfred’s work:

1) The maps become the job.

In 2013, as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the US government launched the Healthcare.gov website. This was a key component of a significant overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system - an online comparison marketplace for insurance plans.

Technical issues plagued the launch. Users experienced experienced numerous difficulties - long wait times, errors, and crashes. The project required a huge amount of planning. It needed strategy and complex mapping of technical needs. It involved many contractors, government agencies, and stakeholders. But layers of bureaucracy took hold and a focus on process over product crept in. Warning signs about the website's performance were not addressed. The team became engrossed in navigating processes. They inadvertently compromised the end goal.

In the aftermath, a "tech surge" was employed to fix the website. This effort focused on solving immediate problems instead of planning. It led to big improvements in the website's functionality.

The Healthcare.gov example is a classic case of "the map becoming the job in itself." The detailed planning and processes involved many stakeholders. They turned the project's focus to managing the map. Rather than ensuring the usability and functionality of the website, the actual "territory."

This will be a recognisable tale to most. Meetings about meetings. Plans that detail our meetings. Meetings that discuss our plans to create a plan. People getting sensitive about their plans. It becomes a self-serving economy in itself. We forget what actually moves the value dial for the project. In Alfred’s words:

An ideal map would contain the map of the map, the map of the map of the map, etc., endlessly…We may call this characteristic self-reflexiveness.

The ideal map is not the goal of Project Management. An adaptable map is. Therein lies the balance between planning and execution.

2) There’s a failure to acknowledge the limits of the map.

In 1889, the French Panama Canal Company went bankrupt. After 8 years, and movement of fifty million cubic meters of earth and rock, the Panama Canal Project was abandoned.

The project would connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It would greatly cut the sea voyage around the tip of South America. Fresh from building the Suez Canal, the French national hero Ferdinand de Lesseps charted the course. The script was written for success. Investors backed it en masse expecting returns.

Yet, it was fraught with unforeseen challenges. Their 'map' assumed the Panama Canal could be built as a sea-level canal, like the Suez. They soon encountered the 'territory.' It had dense jungle, torrential rains, and deadly diseases like yellow fever and malaria. The rains caused devastating landslides and the diseases decimated the workforce. 20000 people died.

The French effort failed. But not because of bad engineering. Not because Ferdinand was incompetent, he wasn't. Their 'map' did not account for the unique challenges ahead. They didn’t recognize that the tropical climate and soil made this a different reality. The 'territory' proved far more complex and hostile than anticipated. Ferdinand failed to realise that the beliefs he used to build his map were not useful. The map he had built, was not the territory he was navigating. More flippantly put by Murphy’s first law:

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong

It wasn’t until years later, reinvigorated the project armed with the knowledge of the French failure. They adapted their strategy. They decided to build a lock-based canal, not a sea-level one. They implemented medical and engineering innovations to fight disease and manage construction challenges.

The Panama Canal project underscores that plans are vital. But, they must be flexible and respond to realities. Success lies not in the map but in navigating the territory. Our project management tools are essential, yes, but they are not the ground we walk on. Back to Alfred’s words:

A.) A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the territory.

In project management, this suggests that our plans or methodologies (maps) might or might not closely resemble the reality (territory) we encounter during execution. A project plan might seem perfect on paper but may not align with the unpredictable dynamics and challenges of the actual project environment.

3) The role of leadership in navigating the territory is misjudged

Between 1914, Ernest Shackleton led a crew aboard the Endurance. The goal was to make the first land crossing of Antarctica. The ship became trapped in pack ice and was crushed, stranding the crew on the ice. Many people cite his leadership after as a masterclass.

With the Endurance lost there was no hope of rescue from the outside world. Shackleton's initial "map" for the expedition became useless. The new "territory" was one of survival in one of the harshest environments on Earth. He shifted the mission from exploration to survival. He kept his crew motivated and focused on the hope of rescue. Shackleton made several key decisions that were critical to the crew's survival. He ordered the crew to camp on the floating ice until it disintegrated, then led them on a perilous journey in lifeboats to Elephant Island. They knew that staying put meant death. So, he and five others embarked on an 800-mile open boat journey across the stormy Southern Ocean to a Whaling Station on South Georgia Island. Against all odds, every member of the expedition was rescued.

Shackleton's led with unyielding optimism throughout this ordeal. He was characterized by his ability to make tough decisions and an unwavering commitment to his crew. When things went wrong, his leadership approach was key. He emphasized morale, shared suffering, and the importance of hope.

This is a powerful example of how leadership can be crucial in navigating uncharted territory. He could adapt to big changes. He inspired and led his team through hardships that were hard to imagine. And he never lost sight of his duty in serving his crew. This shows the essence of true leadership. Planning is necessary, but the ability to lead through the unforeseen is what defines success. That’s the difference between a Project Manager and a Project Leader.

Time and again, you think you've got your bases covered, but the territory has other ideas. It's like planning to get to work squeegeeing the sea. The first step is acknowledging you might not win and your models - whilst useful - will be wrong. Instead, lead with empathy and understanding. Make decisions that account for the project's unique landscape. Leadership isn't about charting or following the map.

Our maps cannot substitute for the reality of human interaction. The need for flexibility, rapid decision making, and the value of true leadership. The project managers that thrive aren't the ones that cling to their plans the tightest. They’re the ones that retained a focused mission, remained flexible, and led with empathy. They focused on people and not processes.

Everything is harder than it looks

To be clear, we need models, maps and tools. They're always proved wrong, but they are useful if you acknowledge that. They help us navigate a terrain of uncertainty across a landscape of potential outcomes. The inevitable uncertainty that follows needs strong project leadership.

Project leadership which is hard. Leading requires tremendous personal and situational awareness. It requires you to be all things to all people, adaptable. Which is easier observed done badly then done correctly, and so we come to Murphy's Second Law.

Nothing is as easy as it looks.

How we do better is what I aim to unravel through this blog. Korzybski's words encourage direct engagement with a project's real challenges.

They remind that our plans don't predict our outcomes. It advocates for that understanding and prompts us towards adaptability and responsiveness as essential qualities for effective project leadership.