No one likes to use the term “political,” but that is in fact the term one must use when describing a cross-functional program/project that involves many stakeholders from all areas of the organization. Anyone associated with project management understands that there are many tools and methodologies available that can help to ensure that an initiative is delivered on time and within budget.

Unfortunately, those tools alone will not ensure that all stakeholder needs, expectations, and support are aligned. This is something that project managers must learn to recognize and mitigate so that their project can be successful. Perhaps one of the best ways to illustrate a misaligned political agenda is to share an example.

In this situation, the project had already been attempted twice and was about to start a third time. The as-yet unsuccessful project was critical to the client, whose current environment was causing significant customer issues. These problems in turn resulted in significant backroom operational issues, including additional costs and customer frustration.

A new project manager was assigned. She had delivered a similar solution in the past, so this project was not predicted to be overly taxing or challenging, as an initiative sometimes can be. However, the project manager had no previous experience with the client organization and culture. The project was cross functional in nature, as it was dependent on the support and engagement of approximately twelve unique areas of operation. The issue at hand—the political issue at hand—was that not all of those stakeholders shared the perspective of the importance of this project.

So what happened during project execution? First, the executive sponsor driving the project was less than adept at garnering up-front support of those cross-functional partners/participants. Second, the project manager did not consider all of the stakeholders’ agendas. The stakeholders were not fully engaged or supportive, which resulted in several additional stops and starts and unnecessary delays. Though the project plan was being managed and the communications prompt and clear, the project was not progressing at the pace dictated by the plan.

This situation occurred because there were several different political agendas being executed. If the project sponsor does not—or will not—align them, it is the project manager who must align and engage those that are negatively impacting the project progress in a diplomatic, unbiased, and impartial manner. A project manager who can achieve this removes politics from his or her particular method of doing things. In the scenario I have used as an example, the project manager had to revisit, realign, engage, and coach all of the cross-functional managers.

When project sponsors and all of the stakeholders become engaged and supportive, projects pick up momentum and underlying tension is eliminated. Until that point, unseen political risk can severely jeopardize project progress and success. The project manager in this example learned that to be successful one must serve as the diplomat that pulls everyone with varying agendas to the table for open discussion.