The truth deficit: Why teams don’t speak up

The truth deficit: Why teams don’t speak up — and what leaders miss

What is a truth deficit in project management?

What is a 鈥榯ruth deficit鈥�? In the context of projects, put simply, I would describe it as a gap between what is being said about the performance of a project and the reality.

Imagine this scenario between a mum and a daughter:

8-year-old daughter to mum: 鈥淚鈥檝e practiced my spellings thousands of times this week.鈥�

Mum to 8-year-old daughter: 鈥淚鈥檝e told you a billion times not to exaggerate.鈥�

8-year-old daughter with access to AI: 鈥淎 billion times? Based on an assumption that it takes 2 seconds to say the phrase 鈥減lease don鈥檛 exaggerate鈥�, it would take you a total of 63.4 years of continuous speaking to achieve this.鈥�

It鈥檚 fair to say there is a deficit of truth on both sides of the conversation here. Both of which can be proved to be untrue using simple objective evidence.

Now translate this somewhat tenuous scenario to the workplace. How often do we experience a truth deficit on our projects? Is it always so easy to recognise?

Misrepresentation and psychological safety

There are multiple examples of projects that have fallen foul of exaggerated assessments of schedule progress and overly optimistic estimates to complete; the obvious examples being HS2 and Crossrail. These projects are a misrepresentation of project performance on a grand scale. Meanwhile, the National Audit Office has specifically pointed to optimism bias being endemic, particularly in Defence and other major infrastructure projects.

The first and possibly the most important point where we should guard against a truth deficit is in the setting of the baseline, and leadership is of paramount importance here. Leaders are often under significant pressure internally and from clients to deliver baselines that match unrealistic expectations of the delivery of scope with miraculous speed and a minimal budget. The project equivalent of 鈥淚鈥檇 like you to fly from London to New York in 30 minutes for 拢100 please.鈥� Hmmm鈥�

Psychological safety is a significant factor here and leaders should create an environment that allow individuals to 鈥榮peak truth to power鈥� and focus on delivering a baseline based on fact and objectivity. For example, using strategies to underpin:

Robust basis of estimate using multiple techniques
Robust basis of schedule based on past performance
Development of a view of confidence in the schedule and cost using Quantitative Schedule and Cost Risk Analysis (QSCRA) techniques
Independent assurance of the baseline 鈥� for example Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs)

Leaders need to create a psychologically safe environment that allow team members the necessary time to develop objective assessments in detail. Leaders then need to instigate open conversations about the outputs in order to set a realistic baseline. Time invested at this stage has been proven to pay dividends in project success later in the lifecycle.

Listening to 鈥榯ruth to power鈥�

Leaders might incentivise individuals in their team by defining specific goals relating to the activities described above. Set goals that drive individuals to maintain their professionalism, follow the process (appropriately not slavishly), understand and question the data and seek to be understood. The role of a professional project controls individual is to be the 鈥榥avigator鈥�, supporting the project manager as 鈥榩ilot鈥�. There is no benefit to be gained from misrepresenting the status of the project; it won鈥檛 make you get there any more quickly.

Underpinning this is individual capability in the project teams. Do people understand why they are undertaking their roles as well as how; are there consistent processes to deliver effective outputs and does the leadership encourage mentoring and coaching across the team in order for individuals to be the best they can be.

In reality, the world is not quite so simple and there is often political or commercial reasons for organisations to drive overly optimistic baselines. Let鈥檚 face facts, leaders are under pressure to succeed, and many people don鈥檛 like to hear bad news about the performance of their projects. Influential leaders often define the culture in which they operate, and this can lead inexperienced teams to 鈥榯oe the line鈥�. So, what can we do about this?

Speaking 鈥榯ruth to power鈥� is a phrase many people will have heard but in reality, is a skill that needs to be learned, practiced and honed like any other. In fact, I would propose it relies firstly on the leader being prepared to 鈥榣isten to truth to power鈥�. This requires the leader to set the tone.

The diagram below was used in a company where I worked when consultants were brought in to determine why a project had failed. They didn鈥檛 focus on process or data, they focused on culture and behaviour and spent their time re-teaching senior leaders how to review. They pointed to the desirable behaviours of 鈥榓dult to adult鈥� conversations focused on root causes of problems, corrective action and accountability.

Closing the truth deficit: From reporting noise to real insight

Put simply, if you are in a project leadership position, the environment and culture you create is one of the most significant factors in whether the project will be successful or otherwise. Creation of a psychologically safe environment should be a key performance indicator for any individual in a project leadership role.

红桃视频