The Sponsor Who Won't Hear No
A project manager is six weeks into a 12-week project to replace a customer records system. The vendor has just told her privately that a key integration will slip by four weeks because of an API change on the vendor's side. The project sponsor is a senior sales director who has publicly promised the new system to the board by the original date and has a history of shooting the messenger. The steering committee meets in three days. The project manager has two options: raise the slip at the steering committee with the vendor's written notice attached, or work behind the scenes to recover the four weeks and report only if recovery fails. She estimates recovery is possible but only with 20 percent overtime and a real chance of quality problems.
1. Analyze the stakeholder situation and recommend which option the project manager should take.
Read the worked answer
The sponsor's public commitment to the board raises the cost of bad news, but it also raises the cost of late bad news: if the slip surfaces at the board meeting, the sponsor is exposed far more than if he learns it now with options in hand. His history of shooting the messenger is a real risk to the project manager's position, but it is a reason to manage the message carefully, not a reason to withhold it. Withholding a known four-week slip converts a schedule problem into an integrity problem, and it removes the steering committee's ability to make a trade-off it is entitled to make.
Recommend raising it at the steering committee - but not cold. Brief the sponsor privately first, with the vendor's written notice, a clear statement of impact, and two or three options with costs. The goal of the private conversation is to give him time to react and to arrive at the committee aligned, not to seek permission to tell the truth. If he asks her to hide it, that request should be documented and escalated, because it is a governance failure, not a communication preference.
2. Draft the core message you would give the sponsor, and explain how you would handle his likely objection.
Read the worked answer
The message: "The vendor has formally notified us that the integration will slip four weeks, which puts the board date at risk. I have three options: accept the slip and reset the board date, recover the four weeks with 20 percent overtime and elevated quality risk, or descope the reporting module and hold the date. I recommend descoping because it protects the date without overtime. I am bringing this to the steering committee so the decision is made with full information, and I wanted you to hear it from me first."
His likely objection is that the board date is fixed and the news is unacceptable. Handle it by agreeing with the stakes rather than arguing: acknowledge the commitment, then redirect to the decision - "the date is exactly why I need your call on which option you want to defend to the board." Give him the choice among options rather than the choice of whether to disclose. If he pushes to suppress it, restate that the vendor notice is on record and that the committee will see it, and offer to co-present so he is not alone in front of the board. This keeps the relationship intact while keeping the disclosure non-negotiable.