Sponsors often step in from operational roles, bringing decision habits that don’t translate into project delivery. As organisations commit earlier to fewer initiatives, sponsorship decisions carry greater consequence and are harder to reverse.
Projects today require decisions to be made earlier, with less certainty and with consequences that compound as delivery progresses. Many sponsors are operating with leadership habits shaped in operational environments, where decisions are reversible and optimisation is local. That mismatch is placing project leadership under pressure, and projects at risk of failure.
What’s causing project delivery conditions to tighten
Amidst the prevailing economic headwinds, many organisations are approving fewer projects and expecting more discipline and results from the ones that get the green light. When portfolios are smaller, there is less tolerance for extended planning cycles or repeated changes in direction and visibility is heightened on all projects when there is just less happening. Early decisions matter because they shape every outcome further down the track.
At the same time, projects are committing resources much earlier in their lifecycle. Scope, sequencing and dependencies are often locked in before the full solution is clearly understood. Technology decisions now carry longer tails, and integration points are increasingly difficult to unwind. AI is beginning to reshape project workflows by accelerating output, but it does not change the underlying reality that many early decisions are still made under conditions of ambiguity, before sufficient knowledge has been gathered.
The upshot is that there is significant pressure on leadership decisions made early in delivery.
The real test is not eliminating uncertainty but ensuring that there is a commitment to carrying the project forward as coherently as possible as conditions evolve, re-testing assumptions at regular points along the way.
When operational instincts clash with project leadership
Most senior leaders step into project sponsorship from operational roles. That pathway makes sense. Operational credibility is often the basis on which trust, authority and accountability are established in organisations and where leaders are recruited and promoted from.
The challenge is that operational leadership habits are formed in environments that behave very differently to projects.
In operational settings, decisions are usually reversible. A process change can be adjusted, and performance issues can be corrected over time or, at worst, revert to a previously stable operating state. Optimisation is often local, focused on improving outcomes within a defined function or system that continues to operate regardless of short-term variation.
Projects rarely offer those conditions. Instead, they’re finite and directional – early decisions commit sequencing, cost and effort that can’t be easily recovered once work is underway. Optimising one part of the project or portfolio can constrain options elsewhere. Waiting for certainty often delays progress without materially improving outcomes.
In practice, this shows up in some familiar ways:
- Sponsors seek additional assurance on decisions, extending planning cycles without changing the eventual outcome.
- Earlier choices are revisited, resetting work already completed and consuming time and budget that cannot be reclaimed.
- Functional interests are represented in ways that weaken whole-of-project accountability at the point where delivery requires trade-offs across the system.
For many leaders, this difference is subtle but consequential. They step into project sponsorship applying decision instincts that have served them well elsewhere, without realising that the role now requires a different mode of leadership.
This is how accidental project sponsors are made – through an unsupported transition into a delivery environment that behaves differently.
The PMO’s role in supporting leadership capability
Project management offices (PMOs) have a vital role to play in supporting project leaders at any time, however it is even more important under tightening delivery conditions. Whether they succeed depends on how well their PMO operating model adapts to changing demand.
In the early stages of a project maturity journey, sponsors often need practical support to build foundational capability. This typically involves training and primers that explain how projects function, how decisions are made under uncertainty and how to ask the right questions at the right time. The aim is not to turn sponsors into project managers, but to help them understand the mechanics of delivery well enough to make effective project leadership decisions.
There’s a reality, though. At a recent Quay sponsorship training session, a member of the c-suite made the casual, yet pointed observation, that they had ‘… let sponsors screw up about three or four projects, waste considerable budget, before they get good at it. But it’s an expensive way to train new sponsors.”
And one that few businesses would tolerate.
Sponsors who have navigated simpler initiatives successfully tend to rely less on foundational guidance and more on coaching, targeted decision support and access to timely, relevant information.
As initiatives grow more complex, the emphasis moves from learning what good looks like to applying judgement within increasingly interdependent portfolios, where the quality of sponsorship decisions matters just as much – if not more.
This places a clear responsibility on the PMO. Supporting delivery is not limited to governance, reporting or coordination; it also involves supporting project leaders as demands change, particularly those moving into sponsorship roles from operational environments.
These dynamics point to a broader challenge. Project leadership is being asked to operate under tighter conditions, with earlier decisions carrying greater consequence, while the roles and support structures around it have not always evolved. When sponsorship capability is assumed rather than designed, even well-intentioned leaders can find themselves exposed.
Recognising that gap is the starting point for strengthening delivery confidence across the portfolio.
Assessing project leadership across your portfolio
Recent conversations with PMO leaders and sponsors suggest many organisations are grappling with the same underlying issue: expectations of project leaders have changed, but the way they are prepared and supported for their role hasn’t always kept up.
We believe this to be a majorly under-invested and under-valued area that smart PMO leaders can exploit for big gains in project success and maturity.
Understanding how sponsorship operates across a portfolio is often the first step. Quay Consulting works with executive teams to upskill project leaders and sponsors, and to build the structures that support leaders in delivery-critical roles.
Quay Consulting is a professional services business specialising in the project landscape, transforming strategy into fit-for-purpose delivery. Meet our team or reach out to have a discussion today.
