Selling Executives on Project Management: A Case Study

Overview and Context

Levon Corporation's executives were concerned about the company's declining revenues. The company's employees argued that the decline in revenues was due to changing industry trends. Contracts were increasingly being awarded on the basis of points rather than the lowest bidder mechanism. Since the company had no project management capability, it kept missing out on key contracts, which affected its revenue stream. The employees suggested that the project management function be incorporated into the business framework to increase the company's competitiveness.

The executives, however, were reluctant to consider this proposal because they believed such a move would disrupt the organization's balance of power. They reluctantly hired a project management consultant to evaluate the employees' suggestion. Even after the consultant openly demonstrated that the organization was in dire need of a project management department, the executives remained apprehensive about proceeding with implementation.

The Consultant Advantage

A puzzling aspect of this case is why the executives refused to listen to their employees but were willing to listen to a consultant. Several explanations account for this discrepancy. Since consultants are not part of the organization, they are less likely to be influenced by organizational culture and company politics. As a result, they are likely to give more objective opinions on issues at hand compared to employees who may have other vested interests.

Additionally, a consultant enters as a new member with fresh ideas and perspectives that could improve other areas of the organization, areas that might also be contributing to declining revenues. Unlike employees, consultants play more than just an advisory role. In addition to offering informed opinions on whether project management is the best approach, consultants use their expertise and past experience with other companies to advise management on how responsibilities and duties should be structured under the new arrangement. This expertise ensures there are no overlaps, lines of authority are clearly defined, and there are no power-related conflicts amongst executives and departments.

Executive Apprehension and Persuasion Gap

Despite the consultant's credentials, the executives remained apprehensive even after the presentation. In many cases, the consultant was not convincing enough given the executives' degree of reluctance. The consultant began his presentation by showing how misinformed the company executives were about its financial performance, which created a disconnect between him and the executives. He then made this worse by failing to address the executives' most pressing need: demonstrating how project management could be implemented effectively without disrupting normal business processes.

Instead of focusing on implementation feasibility, the consultant concentrated on showing what the executives had done wrong. The executives remained apprehensive because they were not convinced that project management would solve all the problems the consultant outlined. The consultant criticized more than he informed and persuaded, and he did not clearly show how project management would solve the organization's revenue problems. This approach, while technically accurate, failed to address the executives' core concern: whether the solution would disrupt existing operations and power structures.

Recommended Persuasion Strategies

The consultant could have employed several strategies to avoid this persuasion failure. First, he could have begun by showing the company's positive performance over the years—increasing revenue streams and other achievements—and then compared this performance against that of several competitors at the same level with Levon who had already implemented project management programs. This approach would have demonstrated more efficiently that the revenue problems were not caused by size, reputation, or product differences, but by the company's failure to integrate project management into its business strategy.

Additionally, the consultant could have reinforced his position by comparing revenue positions and trends over the last five years of companies that had implemented project management versus those that had not. He could have used real examples of companies that successfully implemented the same system to demonstrate how duties and responsibilities could be structured to avoid overlaps. Using Harvard Business Review case studies or similar peer-reviewed sources, he could have provided concrete, relatable examples of similar organizations navigating the transition.

Finally, the consultant could have used hypothetical figures to demonstrate exactly how project management would lead to increased revenues. Rather than presenting abstract benefits, showing specific financial projections—even conservative ones—tied to contract wins and operational efficiencies would have made the case tangible and measurable. This evidence-based approach would have shifted the conversation from whether the change was necessary to how it could be implemented in ways that actually protected rather than threatened executive authority.

Conclusion

These strategies would have gone a long way in getting the executives to be more convinced that project management is not only necessary, but is also doable in an efficient manner that does not disrupt normal business operations. The key lesson is that change management requires attention to stakeholder concerns and evidence-based persuasion, not simply pointing out problems. By addressing executive fears about power disruption and providing concrete, comparative, and financial evidence of success, the consultant could have transformed resistance into buy-in.