Here’s the controversial one.
What if senior executives’ bonuses were directly tied to project outcomes?
- Sponsors set expectations.
- Sponsors own the purse strings.
- Sponsors can make or break delivery.
So why should all the accountability sit with the PM?
Introduction: The Missing Link in Delivery Accountability
Across every sector, from finance to tech to government, one pattern remains painfully familiar:
Projects that stumble are dissected in post-mortems, yet the same underlying issue persists unchallenged: accountability stops too low in the hierarchy.
Project Managers are held responsible for delays, scope creep, and overspend, while senior executives who set unrealistic goals, approve under-resourced portfolios, or neglect active sponsorship still walk away with full bonuses.
This is not a delivery problem; it’s a leadership one.
The Provocation: Tie Executive Bonuses to Delivery Success
Projects succeed when leadership engagement is consistent, informed, and empowered – not ceremonial.
If we want to professionalise delivery culture, we must extend accountability to where the authority lies.
The Structural Flaw in Most Organisations
Current bonus schemes are almost entirely disconnected from the realities of delivery.
Executives are rewarded for financial outcomes, share-price performance, or cost reduction – rarely for how effectively projects achieve their intended benefits.
This creates a distorted incentive: launch initiatives to look ambitious, but deprioritise them the moment quarterly targets shift.
The result?
- Overloaded portfolios.
- PMOs forced to report “green” until collapse.
- Delivery teams are firefighting without executive air cover.
We have normalised a culture where sponsorship can be passive – yet project failure is personal.
Redefining “Success” – What Executive Metrics Should Include
Imagine if executive remuneration were linked to transparent, measurable delivery performance, such as:
| Category | Metric | Description |
| Delivery Predictability | On-time / on-budget variance | Projects completed within ±10 % of forecast time and cost. |
| Value Realisation | Benefits attainment | Comparison of forecast vs. actual business value six months post-delivery. |
| Capability Uplift | Internal skill development | Demonstrable increase in project maturity or reduction in contractor dependency. |
| Governance Engagement | Active sponsorship | Attendance at key stage gates, risk reviews, and retrospectives. |
| Stakeholder Trust | Delivery confidence index | Post-implementation survey from delivery teams and stakeholders. |
These metrics already exist in mature PMOs – they simply aren’t tied to pay.
The Cultural Ripple of Alignment
When leadership incentives mirror delivery outcomes, three cultural shifts occur:
- Sponsorship becomes active, not symbolic.
Sponsors engage in cadence reviews, clear blockers, and protect delivery resources. - Portfolio discipline improves.
When bonuses depend on realisable success, vanity projects disappear, and prioritisation becomes sharper. - Professional standards rise across the board.
Investment in PMO governance, frameworks, and capability suddenly becomes a leadership interest, not a compliance exercise.
But culture doesn’t change without confronting the politics of reporting.
Too often, the traffic-light system – the simplest of PMO tools – becomes a stage for performance rather than a mirror for progress:
- Some sponsors deliberately report red because they crave senior-leadership attention, confident that dramatic visibility will attract resources and sympathy, while the PM absorbs the perception of failure.
- Others keep everything green to avoid scrutiny, masking issues until they metastasise into crises that were “impossible to foresee.”
- And then there are those who hover eternally on amber – unwilling to admit loss of control, paralysed between optimism and avoidance, waiting for someone else to take ownership of hard decisions.
None of these behaviours serves delivery.
They turn governance into theatre and weaponise transparency against the very people trying to deliver.
A mature PMO doesn’t tolerate colour politics.
It interprets them. It uses them. And crucially, it responds with SMART recovery actions –
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound – agreed between Sponsor, PM, and PMO.
Because in a professional environment:
- Accountability for recovery sits with the Sponsor to ensure the project has the support, authority, and funding to get back on track.
- The responsibility for enabling that recovery sits with the PMO – to help the PM access the necessary resources, approvals, and adjustments to the delivery plan.
- The execution of the recovery sits with the PM and delivery team – supported, not scapegoated.
An immature PMO lets red and amber status devolve into blame sessions.
A mature one turns them into structured problem-solving.
Because projects don’t need politics; they need partnership.
Accountability with Consequence
Linking pay to delivery outcomes isn’t about punishment – it’s about professional equivalence.
If a Project Manager repeatedly fails to deliver, their performance is questioned, their methods reviewed, and ultimately, they’re removed from delivery responsibility.
The same principle must apply to Sponsors and Executives.
If a sponsor continues to under-deliver after two consecutive projects, they should be stripped of the responsibility to sponsor or run further projects.
That’s not draconian; it’s professional hygiene. Sponsorship is a privilege, not a title.
Repeated delivery failure should trigger a capability review, coaching plan, or replacement.
A PMO serious about governance must treat poor sponsorship as a delivery risk – and act accordingly.
Sponsor Succession: You Inherit the Project, You Inherit the Accountability
A frequent dodge in corporate delivery is the mid-project sponsor switch – often presented as an act of rescue or “fresh oversight.”
But too often it becomes a convenient reset button for accountability.
Let’s be clear:
A new sponsor inherits not only the project but the full accountability for its state.
They cannot blame the previous sponsor for poor initiation, nor the Project Manager for inherited challenges.
Taking over sponsorship means taking ownership of all that comes with it – history, risks, decisions, and outcomes.
To allow otherwise would legitimise abdication: a revolving door of sponsors who rewrite history every time performance falters.
A mature organisation must make it explicit that succession does not erase responsibility; it transfers it.
Addressing the Common Objections
“Executives can’t control everything.”
Correct – neither can PMs.
But accountability is about influence, not omnipotence. Sponsors control the environment in which delivery takes place – priorities, funding, and organisational will.
“This will discourage innovation.”
On the contrary, it encourages disciplined innovation. High-risk projects will still be funded, but with clear risk disclosure, sensible guardrails, and leadership visibility.
“It’s hard to measure.”
Only if you’ve never run a PMO properly. The data already exists: schedules, budgets, post-implementation reviews, and benefits logs. The issue isn’t measurability; it’s willingness.
Implementation Blueprint: How a PMO Can Operationalise It
- Integrate delivery metrics into corporate scorecards.
- Establish standard KPIs (on-time, on-budget, benefits realisation).
- Weigh these appropriately within annual performance assessments.
- Create a Sponsorship Performance Register.
- Record sponsor engagement, decisions, and outcomes.
- Track repeat underperformance to inform eligibility for future sponsorship roles.
- Run bi-annual Sponsor Effectiveness Reviews.
- Conducted by the PMO or Delivery Governance Committee.
- Identify coaching needs or capability gaps.
- Link outcome data to remuneration committees.
- Ensure HR and Finance functions integrate delivery data into bonus deliberations.
- Establish clear escalation and removal criteria.
- After two consecutive under-delivering projects, sponsors enter review.
- After three, they lose project responsibility until retrained or reassessed.
- Clarify succession accountability.
- Update governance frameworks so that any incoming sponsor formally accepts the project’s current state and all associated outcomes.
- Prevent retrospective blame-shifting by documenting the handover and explicitly linking future success or failure to the new sponsor’s stewardship.
- Rebuild colour reporting integrity.
- Define objective criteria for red/amber/green.
- Require SMART recovery plans for any deviation from green.
- Hold Sponsors accountable for implementing those actions.
- Make the PMO responsible for enabling them – providing the structure, resources, and authority to make the plan deliverable.
- Ensure transparency dashboards make political colouring visible for what it is.
The Endgame: Delivery Culture that Starts at the Top
Professionalism doesn’t trickle upwards.
If the people with the most power to influence success are insulated from consequence, delivery culture will always be fragile.
Tie executive rewards to delivery outcomes, and you immediately change the conversation.
Sponsorship becomes an active role of stewardship, not a ceremonial signature.
PMOs become enablers of corporate accountability, not administrators of templates.
Real project maturity doesn’t come from process – it comes from aligned incentives.
And alignment starts where bonuses are decided.
Closing Thought
If a Project Manager is accountable for the “how,” then a Sponsor must be accountable for the “why” and the “whether.”
If a new sponsor steps in, they inherit both.
And if any sponsor hides behind amber, red, or green for the wrong reasons, it’s the colour of their credibility that should change first.
Leave a Reply