We Know How to Run Projects. We Choose Not To.
- Bill Holmes
- Jun 10
- 3 min read
“A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.” John C. Maxwell
“Most organizations don't suffer from a lack of ideas, but from a lack of execution.” Jeffrey Pfeffer
When I teach PMP, PgMP, Agile, or even Lean Six Sigma, there’s always a moment—usually around hour six—when someone says, "This stuff is great, but it’s not how things work in the real world." And I get it. It’s easy to look at the frameworks, models, and best practices and dismiss them as “ideal world” theory. But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
We do know how to run projects successfully. We just choose not to.
This isn’t theoretical. I spent over 23 years as an executive, overseeing large programs and portfolios with real budgets, real deadlines, and real consequences. I’ve led teams in complex, high-risk environments and seen firsthand what works—and more importantly, what gets quietly ignored in the name of convenience, ego, or inertia. Scrum is well-known. PMP and PgMP principles are clearly documented. But too often, they’re treated like "shelfware" —nice to reference, rarely enforced, and occasionally used as retroactive justification for decisions that had nothing to do with best practices.
The Real Problem? Leadership.
This isn’t about project managers not doing their jobs. It’s about executives not understanding theirs. We’ve allowed a dangerous myth to take root: that executives are interchangeable. That you can be “a good leader” without understanding delivery. That strategy lives on one floor while execution happens somewhere beneath it. Wrong. If you’re running something—a program, a portfolio, a transformation—you are responsible for learning how it works. That expectation doesn’t go down as you climb the ladder. It increases.
Too many leaders stay comfortably removed from the details they should be actively engaging with. They impose frameworks on teams without aligning incentives, without modeling discipline, and without understanding the implications of the processes they’re demanding. Let me say it plainly: If you're in charge of delivery, you'd better know what good delivery looks like.
That failure of leadership—of accountability, curiosity, and follow-through—is what drives the next set of dysfunctions. And that’s exactly why, despite decades of proven frameworks and well-understood practices, most organizations still make the same avoidable mistakes…
What Happens Instead
1. Speed Over Discipline The illusion of urgency overrules the value of preparation. We skip planning, skip refinement, skip risk. And then act surprised when chaos costs us more than discipline would have.
2. Process Theater We say we’re Agile. But what we mean is we hold a standup and use Jira. Scrum in name only. Frameworks become rituals instead of real practice.
3. Hero Culture We romanticize the fixer. The one who pulls it out of the fire. But when heroics replace systems, you’re just glamorizing dysfunction.
4. Misaligned Incentives Leaders say one thing and reward another. Teams get punished for transparency and rewarded for hitting dates at all costs—even when the product doesn't meet customer expectations.
What should leaders do differently?
First, stop pretending delivery is someone else’s problem. If you're leading an organization that delivers products, services, or outcomes—you’re in the delivery business. Whether your title says “CIO,” “VP,” or “Transformation Lead,” you own the outcome.
Second, get educated. Understand the difference between Scrum and other frameworks. Know what your teams are actually doing—and what they need from you to succeed.
Third, align the system. Don’t demand "agility" and not know what that means. Don’t talk servant leadership and reward top-down control. Incentives reveal priorities. Make sure you are sending the right message.
We don’t need new frameworks. We need to provide project professionals with the permission to run projects properly.
Coda
I was talking to a friend of mine earlier today, and we were discussing several highly talented people that we both knew. They were top performers and were highly respected, however they never made it to an executive level. We both agreed that the process was flawed, but he told me “It is the process we have”. I agree! But if the outcomes aren’t what you want, change the process!
Comments