Many project sponsors step into the role accidentally — inheriting responsibility without being prepared for the decision-making, influence and governance it requires.
As organisations commit to fewer project initiatives and demand greater certainty from each one, pressure is concentrating in areas that were once able to absorb it. One role, in particular, is being exposed under these conditions: the project sponsor.
In many organisations, project sponsors are accidental. Senior leaders inherit sponsorship responsibilities as part of their role, without having been prepared or supported for the demands it carries.
When portfolios tighten, that lack of preparation stops being survivable and starts becoming a material delivery risk. With project leadership coming under increasing pressure in the modern delivery environment, the changing delivery conditions are also changing which leadership capabilities matter most (and when).
Importantly, the rise of accidental sponsors is a systemic or structural outcome, rather than a failure of individual leadership. Most sponsors don’t seek the role. Typically, they are senior leaders who are appointed for their operational excellence, deep domain knowledge or commercial results, and project sponsorship arrives bundled with the position. There is rarely a deliberate decision that this leader is ready to sponsor complex, high-stakes delivery.
Sometimes a leader arrives with sponsorship experience and a mission for transformation, but this is less common than you might think.
When accidental sponsorship becomes visible
Most project sponsors arrive in the role full of good intentions and commitment to delivering outcomes. Challenges only materialise when those leaders have not been deliberately prepared or supported to take on sponsorship as a distinct role.
Sponsorship places different demands on leaders than operational roles typically do. Operational leadership is usually shaped by continuity and optimisation, where leaders can revisit decisions and make improvements incrementally.
There is a familiar saying that doctors can make difficult patients, precisely because they understand the process and question the assumptions behind it. In project environments, a similar dynamic can sometimes be observed in reverse. Project managers, by virtue of working in finite, time-bound delivery environments, often develop a clearer instinct for how early decisions, dependencies and trade-offs shape outcomes. Leaders who rise through operational roles are less frequently exposed to these conditions in a sustained way.
Projects behave differently, because they are finite and directional. Early decisions commit cost, sequencing and effort in ways that are difficult to unwind once delivery is underway. Ambiguity is unavoidable, and waiting for certainty often delays progress without materially improving outcomes. Even seasoned, exceptional sponsors may find the role challenging in these conditions.
When sponsorship is accidental, rather than deliberately cultivated and assumed, project delivery teams begin to experience familiar patterns:
- Extended planning cycles without forward movement
- Decisions revisited after work has commenced
- Scope adjustments that dilute intended benefits
- Confidence falling away at steering committees and board tables.
On most projects, progress depends less on leaders waiting for absolute certainty and more on the ability to commit to a coherent direction – then carry that commitment forward as conditions evolve. When that capability is underdeveloped, the result is likely to be an ongoing loss of value. Time and money are consumed before delivery momentum is established, long before benefits have a chance to emerge.
The wider impact of accidental project sponsors
The impact of accidental sponsors is rarely contained to project delivery – increasingly, it also extends upstream.
As economic conditions tighten, new initiatives face greater scrutiny before they are approved. Project ideas are competing for a smaller pool of investment; therefore each is expected to deliver more. Boards and executive teams are seeking higher confidence, clearer articulation of value and stronger assurance that the organisation is ready to commit.
Under these conditions, project sponsors are required to influence upwards. They must position initiatives convincingly and build confidence at the highest levels of the organisation. In more tightly contested capital environments, this can create pressure to overstate potential returns or underplay delivery risk.
New initiatives struggle to gain traction when sponsors have not been prepared for this expanded expectation. While outcomes such as extended project approval cycles are not solely caused by accidental sponsors, they may be amplified by them. Projects are increasingly initiated under more demanding conditions, with less margin for error.
In an environment with less tolerance for waste and indecision, the gap between what the sponsorship role now demands and how it is typically supported becomes much harder to absorb.
Why accidental sponsors are a governance risk
The sponsor plays a central role in the execution of governance and oversight functions. Where sponsorship is accidental or under-developed, weaknesses in project governance are likely to emerge.
Project sponsorship is one of the organisation’s primary delivery controls. It shapes decision quality, risk posture and the organisation’s ability to commit to a direction under uncertainty. There is a direct line between the quality of the project sponsor and the value delivered by the project. When sponsorship capability is lacking, governance becomes reactive rather than deliberate.
Most organisations would not leave other critical controls (financial oversight, risk management, assurance) to chance. Yet all too often, project sponsorship is treated as an informal by-product of seniority, rather than a role requiring explicit capability, authority and support.
Treating sponsorship as a designed capability rather than an assumed role raises a more practical question: how confident are sponsors in the decisions they are being asked to make? In constrained delivery environments, that confidence depends on whether sponsors can answer a small number of foundational questions about value, risk and direction.
Investing in your sponsorship capability
Accidental sponsors will continue to exist, and senior leaders will continue to inherit sponsorship responsibilities as part of their role. That only becomes a risk when those leaders are left unsupported in a role that now carries far greater weight than it once did.
The solution lies in making a deliberate investment in the organisation’s sponsorship capability. This is something that can be developed and nurtured with the right structure and support – for instance, through focused coaching, training and mentorship programs. Sponsors can be equipped to make decisions under ambiguity, influence upwards and guide delivery without defaulting to delay or rework.
In an environment where organisations can afford fewer missteps, treating sponsorship as a role to be designed and supported, rather than assumed, is one of the most effective ways to strengthen delivery outcomes.
Supporting accidental sponsors in your organisation
If you are seeing signals of accidental sponsorship across your project portfolio, it’s likely that the role itself has expanded faster than the support around it. Understanding how sponsorship operates across a portfolio is often the first step in addressing that gap.
Quay Consulting works with organisations to build sponsorship capability and support leaders in delivery-critical roles. This includes helping sponsors influence effectively at executive and board level, navigate ambiguity and commit to decisions that can be carried forward as conditions evolve.
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.
