How Can HR Address Management-Induced Project Delays in a Small IT Company?

I am working in a small IT company as an HR professional. Our company size is 25 employees, and there are two CEOs. One is based in the US, and the other is in India.

The company is under the leadership of these two CEOs.

When I had one-on-one discussions with my employees, I understood that there are management mistakes creating problems for employees in accomplishing their tasks on time.

Example of Project Management Issues

A team of 5 people is working on a project (A) which they have to deliver within a stipulated period. These team members make plans accordingly and start working on it. However, the CEOs suddenly intervene in the middle of the work, assigning urgent tasks (Project B or C) to the team, which they have to complete. Later, when the CEOs require Project (A), the team needs extra time to finish it, causing delays.

For instance, a team of 4-5 people is assigned a project with all the necessary details based on client requirements. They start working on it properly, but suddenly, the CEOs intervene and provide inputs that were not given earlier, requiring employees to rework tasks they have already completed.

Problems Faced by Employees

1. Whenever we discuss this issue with the management, they don't accept their fault.
2. Due to the authoritative leadership style, there is no one who can contradict them.
3. Being a small organization, we don't have replacements if urgent work comes from the CEOs.
4. As urgent work comes from the CEOs, employees have to comply.
5. Due to this problem, my employees' efficiency is being affected, and they have to stay extra hours to complete the work.

Kindly help me with your valuable suggestions.

It is not clear how old your organization is. However, if it is a new one, then the so-called management (CEOs) will try their best to create a good image in the market. They will strive to satisfy and delight the customers and seize new opportunities. However, the way they are doing this is not effective. Due to their approach, you may lose your good employees, ultimately tarnishing the organization's reputation.

It appears that your employees are not very stable.

Steps to Address Management Issues

As an HR professional, you should consider the following:

1. Collect the data of the departed employees.
2. Gather feedback from your employees regarding the management style.
3. Understand their expectations concerning their jobs and rewards.
4. Obtain other crucial information.

After analyzing this data, present your report to the CEOs. Try to persuade them about the adverse consequences of such a management style. Provide practical examples from other organizations to support your points.

Remember, there is no shortage of job opportunities in the market.

Also, assess whether you have adequate manpower to handle the projects. After convincing the CEOs, work on filling any gaps.

Best wishes,

Dear Shwetavi, it seems that their behavior most probably reflects some deeper psychological issues that extend beyond a typical workday. Find a discreet way to inform them about the negative effects their unhelpful behavior is having on employees' work. Address these issues factually and in a relaxed manner, without questioning why they acted as they did. Remember, some managers have no idea that what they're doing is making employees unhappy at the workplace. This is when your feedback and good communication can be an essential prerequisite to them improving their behavior. Make sure your tone is non-accusative.

Regards,
Sharat

From your narrative, it seems that both CEOs have a tacit understanding of their roles in the organization, i.e., one to procure assignments by staying abroad and the other to accomplish them in time by being here. Since theirs is an IT company, they should be more focused on time-bound delivery to satisfy existing clients as well as attract prospective ones, as suggested by Mr. Bhardwaj. However, in a process dominated by haste and artificial time limits, there is a possibility that, in the absence of unity of thought and direction among themselves, they lose sight of the work difficulties faced by the people on the job. This is indicative of the fact in your post that quite often the CEOs forget that the purpose of a control system is not to dominate people but to enable them to take appropriate action. Of course, it is a challenging state of affairs for an HR executive who has to act as a buffer. Since their disposition seems to be quite autocratic, politely bring the difficulties faced by the staff members to their knowledge when both are present and convince them that the growth of the enterprise is always in tandem with the development of human resources. As CEOs, it's up to them—either to make the enterprise flourish with a contented and stable workforce or to mar it!

Thank you all for your valuable suggestions. Well, this company was started 3 years ago in September 2009. All the employees are very hardworking, cooperative, stable, and dedicated towards their work. It is indeed correct, as mentioned by Mr. Bhardwaj and Mr. Umakanthan, that these CEOs are striving to create a positive image in the market, identify different sources for business development, and satisfy existing clients to generate leads. In this process, they prioritize more crucial and significant tasks, which often results in internal problems being ignored, neglected, or redirected to other discussions.

Furthermore, this company is neither System-Oriented nor People-Oriented; the focus is on making it Process-Oriented. However, this is where the flaw lies, as discussed above. As someone in an HR position, it can sometimes be challenging to comprehend the technical aspects of operations and provide inputs effectively, which I believe could be a drawback.

Thank you.

It will be agonizing for an HR professional to be in a position like yours, caught between the devil and the deep sea. Mr. Umakantan, Bhardwaj, and Sharat have given valid inputs on how to deal with the situation. My thoughts on this are:

1) There is nothing wrong with CEOs aggressively driving business, but what is important is the kind of leadership they bring to bear on pushing business. It is clearly a leadership issue. Their leadership style is not people-oriented but task-oriented. One needs to provide people orientation to their leadership style to give correct direction to it. The question is, who will bell the cat? It should be done either by you as HR or some senior member of the team in the office.

2) To provide people orientation to their style, first, they need to be made aware that their leadership style is lacking it and it may affect their business in the near future. Thus, there is no other way but to arrange an open “communication” between the CEOs and the employees by stating that the employees desire to have a feedback session on the smooth completion of projects. This may enthuse the CEOs as the message sounds that the employees are as much interested as the CEOs themselves. This is the weakness of task-oriented leaders. They want to hear phrases like ‘work’ or ‘task’ or ‘time schedules’ more than phrases like ‘morale, motivation’ and ‘obstacles’. However, the objective is to bring them to the discussion table. Do not say that the employees want to express their views on the project working since task-oriented leaders will not be habituated to listening to others.

3) As far as inputs supplied during the course of working on a project are concerned, I would like to mention that probably it cannot be avoided since the clients must be changing plans or adding new plans even after assigning the project to your company, and the CEOs may be merely transmitting them to the teams.

So, brief the CEOs on how their inputs are helping to complete the projects but inform them tactfully about the difficulties and hardships of dismantling a project and reworking on it when an input is received when a project is drawing close or after its completion and how it may affect the quality of the projects. Enquire with them whether it is possible to set a deadline for receiving inputs on a particular project to ensure its smooth completion.

4) While assuring CEOs that the teams are willing to stick to timelines in completing all projects, put to them tactfully that shifting a team from one project on which it has started working and made progress to another project is affecting the quality of both projects. Enquire with them (do not suggest to them) whether it is possible for them to visualize in advance the relative urgency of two projects so that the team can take up that project first which requires urgency.

5) Finally, explain to them how some small adjustments can bring about significant results in the quality of projects.

Do not expect miracles to happen from the next day as it takes time for one to change one's nature. So be patient. If you cannot be patient, try looking elsewhere at the earliest.

Regards,
B. Saikumar

HR & Labour Law Advisor

Mumbai

I'm based in the U.S. Here, the CEO is often unaware of the unrest created by constant change. Of course, your CEO may already be doing the assessment in his/her head without communicating the rationale to others, because the new changes may yield a higher return (income) for the company. If this is not the case, one way to address this matter is to quantify the impact of the CEO's interruptions on past and/or current projects.

Costs can be determined by the number of hours worked and converted to actual company costs, employee turnover, employee availability, etc. If you go this route, be ready to make recommendations on how they can better assess whether or not they still need to make the interruption. It may require a brainstorming session with your CEO, management team, or project team on what is required to make decisions.

If resources or people still need to be pulled, collaborating with the project team on alternatives to meet company objectives and communicating the company benefits can often help improve employee morale. You may consider flexing work schedules to accommodate the workload and provide time off when not busy (if you can do that in India). There are all sorts of good ideas that can come out of the brainstorming session.

I understand that there are some executives who are not concerned about employee workload because they work a lot of hours themselves. Still, I have found that once provided with information that will help them improve the bottom line, they will change their position.

I hope this helps.

Understanding the Challenges of Working Under a Superior

It is quite easy to criticize a superior, which most of us do in our everyday life frequently. What we don't understand are the compulsions that the superior may have, or the perception that the superior may have of an issue, which is based on greater knowledge. Most of us are aware of information in our domain and make our decisions or perceptions based on this knowledge, which may not be complete. It is very easy to say, "You should have given this information to me earlier," but there are times when the information has to be deliberately withheld or is available late to the receiver, which the subordinate does not understand. At times, it is a late brainwave that is the cause of this, but it is you who are working for him, not vice versa.

I am not saying this is the case here. It is possible that the perception of Shwetavi is correct, but most of the time, I have found it to be otherwise. The fast turnover in some industries makes it difficult for the boss to share all information at once, which is quite justified. The solution is generally to gain the confidence of the superior and then regularly provide feedback on the progress of the project and seek any new inputs regularly.

Private companies owned by individuals suffer from this problem. I have spoken to both sides of the problem but have not been able to find a workable solution (there are many theoretical solutions available).

So, Shwetavi, accept this flaw in the system and try to work around it instead of complaining about it.

Regards,
Manoj

Dear Shwetavi,

Going by the inputs you've provided, I can only express some thoughts here, whether they may be right or wrong, totally or partially.

Understanding Your Role

First of all, you should realize what your role is in the firm. I presume the projects are part of "Procurement, Operation/Execution, Sales, and Customer Accounts." I think these are directly under the Tech head or the CEOs themselves. Therefore, you have hardly anything to give directions to the team members in the project execution. It appears from your opinions that what the team members say to you in confidence is what they might feel, probably right or wrong. However, the CEOs should be aware of what they are doing and how their instructions impact the projects at hand with the project team. You or anybody cannot put on the shoes of the CEOs. They know their priorities, and it is their company, and whatever the bottom line is going to be, it will reflect their own deeds. So, it is needless for you to get offended by what the CEOs do.

Decision-Making and Prioritization

Secondly, CEOs, in their best judgments, prioritize for reasons not known to you and the team. It is always there in any business to switch/deviate to other tasks for some reasons depending on circumstances. I don't deny that for these deviations, the team could have finished Project A, but you forget that it is the CEOs who are going to be answerable for the slippages, not the HR. In such a small firm, it is quite normal to deviate like this. There was no other option; where was Team B to execute Project Z? Do you want the CEO to recruit an exclusive Team B? The order book position didn’t justify a new Team B. Probably the CEOs achieved optimum utilization of Team Project A. In fact, think of it this way: while executing Project A, you should take pride that you executed Project Z as well, which was not there originally. This means you did two projects at a time, isn’t it? This is positive thinking from your example.

Adapting to Changes

Thirdly, it is nearly impossible to give instructions in one go at the beginning itself. It is nothing wrong to add instructions in the course of execution or modify the given instructions. Of course, the team has to recommence the project all over again, a fact the CEOs are definitely aware of. The team naturally should get frustrated. You have to live with it. Don’t think this sort of thing happens only in your firm. It’s happening, and it will happen everywhere.

Understanding Leadership Styles

Then, how did you think it is 'dictatorship'? Yes, it is dictatorship; what else could it be? There are only two CEOs. Where does democratic functionality come from? After all, it’s their firm; they have every right to allow the firm to function according to their whims and fancies. Of course, the style and tenor will vary from person to person; you have to live with it whether you like it or not.

So, you people are unnecessarily getting worked up and worried for nothing. It’s not a fairy tale but a way of life you have to live with, whether you like it or not. The only thing you people can do is quit and join another big company, only to let yourselves lament; then, your remarks would be like this: “See this team leader, he/she behaves as if it is their own company. If it were his/her own firm, how would he/she have behaved, God only knows.” Am I not sounding realistic or pragmatic, friend?

Take things in their proper perspective and move ahead. All the best.

Regards.

Dear Shwetavi Ji, Good Afternoon. There are two paths or solutions for any kind of problem: one is in a positive way, and the other is in a negative way.

THE FIRST ONE: Positive Way

You are mentioning that there are two CEOs and they are interfering with the employees who are working on different projects or the same project. As you know, all the employees report to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). When the CEO instructs urgent tasks, it is the employees' duty to complete the assigned work, regardless of whether it is related to a new project or the ongoing one.

You are correct that employees are fulfilling the job as per the client's requirements. Simultaneously, if the client requests modifications, they typically communicate directly with the CEO in smaller companies like yours. Consequently, the CEO conveys the required changes to the employees.

If the CEO assigns unrelated tasks to employees engaged in other projects, the employees can openly discuss the potential impact on project timelines. Subsequently, the CEO may reconsider the assignment and delegate it to someone else. However, if the CEO insists, employees can prioritize and complete the new task.

Ultimately, in case of any issues, the CEO will address them, not solely the employees, provided they follow the CEO's instructions. This is the positive approach.

SECOND ONE: Negative Way

When the CEO presents a new task, employees can express their ongoing project commitments and inability to undertake additional work, whether new or modifications to existing projects. This refusal may affect not only the CEO but also the employees. Those declining the assignment may risk their standing with the CEO. Is this necessary?

Therefore, employees in small companies should heed their CEO's directives, which benefits both parties.

Regards, Ramani