If every difficult program depends on finding one exceptional individual, the organisation does not have a complexity capability. It has a staffing risk.
Complex programs often produce heroic leadership stories. A highly experienced program manager arrives, aligns the stakeholders, rebuilds governance, negotiates resources, rescues delivery and restores executive confidence.
The organisation celebrates the individual and moves on.
The problem appears when the next program requires the same combination of judgement, credibility, political awareness and systems thinking and the organisation has no repeatable way to supply it.
Complexity cannot be managed sustainably through heroics. It must become organisational capability.
The Strategic Context
The source set consistently moves beyond tools.
PMI's 2013 Navigating Complexity report argues that disciplined project and program practices, effective communication and a strong talent base are all important, while highlighting leadership capability and committed senior sponsorship as important differentiators in complex work.
The 2014 From Complexity to Dexterity paper makes the point more explicitly: process can only take an organisation so far. It discusses training, mentoring, stretch assignments, industry knowledge, communication and leadership as part of the capability required for complex projects.
Levin and Ward's 2013 paper develops this into a competency perspective for program managers. Their model distinguishes performance competencies from personal competencies and positions competency assessment as a tool for organisational leaders, individual program managers and prospective program managers.
Oehmen and colleagues add two useful human dimensions: mindfulness in decision-making and learning from uncertainty. Their paper also discusses antifragility, including learning across projects and using smaller, cheaper experiments where appropriate.
The common message is that complexity management is not a methodology. It is a system of people, judgement, organisational support and learning.
What Leaders Commonly Misread
The first misread is to promote successful project managers into program roles based mainly on delivery control. Program leadership requires broader capability: benefits, stakeholder relationships, cross-component trade-offs, strategic interpretation and comfort with ambiguity.
The second is to equate certification with readiness. Formal knowledge matters, but complex work also tests judgement under incomplete information, negotiation, influence and the ability to recognise when the management model itself is wrong.
The third is to treat "soft skills" as secondary. In a complex program, communication and relationship capability affect access to information, stakeholder commitment, resource negotiation and decision speed. They are operating capabilities.
The fourth is to rely on training courses without experiential development. PMI's practitioner material stresses exposure to real-world conditions, mentoring and stretch assignments. Complexity is partly learned by encountering consequences that are difficult to reproduce in a classroom.
The fifth is to measure capability only at individual level. A brilliant program manager can still fail inside weak sponsorship, fragmented governance, poor information systems and a culture that punishes escalation.
Reframing the Issue
The strategic objective is not to develop "better program managers" in isolation. It is to build a complexity-capable management system.
That system has at least five layers.
Individual judgement
Leaders need critical thinking, decision discipline, communication, negotiation, active listening and the ability to operate without false certainty.
Role fit
The complexity of the assignment should influence who leads it. Different programs require different combinations of industry knowledge, technical credibility, stakeholder skill and transformation experience.
Governance support
Program managers need enough authority to act and clear access to sponsors when enterprise trade-offs exceed their mandate.
Information and sensemaking
Good decisions require high-quality information, but also the ability to interpret conflicting signals and stakeholder perspectives.
Organisational learning
Experience from one program should improve the next without creating a heavy central bureaucracy that slows delivery.
Related article: The Portfolio Manager Is an Enterprise Integrator, Not a Senior Project Manager
What Competence Looks Like Under Complexity
Levin and Ward emphasise communication, leadership, relationship building, negotiation, mentoring and the ability to embrace change alongside performance competencies.
These are not independent traits.
A program manager negotiating for scarce resources needs strategic understanding to know what should be protected, stakeholder awareness to understand competing claims, communication skill to make the case, and governance judgement to know when to escalate.
Leadership under complexity is therefore integrative.
It also includes restraint. The strongest leader is not always the person with the quickest answer. Oehmen's mindfulness discussion is relevant here. Mindful leaders remain alert to context, deviations and confirmation bias. They know that experience can improve pattern recognition but can also encourage premature certainty.
The organisation should therefore value leaders who can say:
- "We do not yet know."
- "Our original assumption is no longer holding."
- "This needs a different management approach."
- "We should test this before committing further."
- "The enterprise trade-off exceeds my authority."
Those statements are signs of management maturity when they are supported by disciplined reasoning.
A Capability Architecture for Complex Programs
1. Complexity-based assignment
Do not allocate leaders only by availability or grade. Define the complexity profile of major programs and match leaders accordingly.
2. Development through exposure
Use rotations, deputy roles, stretch assignments and mentoring to expose emerging leaders to different stakeholder environments, technologies and governance conditions.
3. Sponsor development
Sponsors also need capability. A weak sponsor can neutralise a strong program manager by failing to resolve cross-enterprise conflict or by introducing inconsistent direction.
4. Peer learning
Create communities where leaders can discuss live complexity without turning every lesson into mandatory procedure. The aim is better judgement, not a larger manual.
5. Evidence-based reflection
After major decisions, review the assumptions, alternatives and signals that were available at the time. Avoid hindsight bias that labels every good outcome a good decision.
6. Succession and redundancy
Critical programs should not depend on one individual's relationships or tacit knowledge. Build deputies, documented decision logic and shared stakeholder understanding.
Related article: Project Manager Career Paths Are Capability Architecture, Not HR Administration
Decision Framework
Use a Complexity Capability Review before appointing the leadership team for a major program.
| Capability | Questions |
|---|---|
| Strategic judgement | Can the leader connect component decisions to enterprise value? |
| Systems thinking | Can they reason across dependencies and second-order effects? |
| Stakeholder leadership | Can they build relationships across conflicting interests? |
| Decision-making | Can they act with incomplete information without becoming reckless? |
| Adaptability | Can they change the management approach when conditions change? |
| Governance fluency | Do they understand authority, escalation and sponsor use? |
| Learning orientation | Do they challenge assumptions and seek disconfirming evidence? |
| Domain credibility | Do they have enough contextual understanding to ask the right questions? |
The objective is not to find a perfect individual. It is to design a leadership team whose combined capability matches the system.
Build Organisational Dexterity, Not Dependence
The PMI material uses "dexterity" to describe the ability to navigate complexity effectively. A practical interpretation is organisational responsiveness with discipline.
That capability improves when the organisation can:
- mobilise experienced leaders quickly;
- provide strong sponsorship;
- create temporary specialist support around emerging problems;
- share lessons without over-standardising;
- conduct low-cost experiments where uncertainty is high;
- stop initiatives when evidence deteriorates;
- preserve institutional memory when leaders move.
Oehmen's antifragility discussion is useful as a provocation here. The strongest system is not merely one that survives uncertainty. It learns from variation and failure. For project-based organisations, that means turning individual program experience into improved future decisions without constructing an unwieldy control structure.
From Strategy to Execution
Immediate action is to review the leadership capability of the organisation's three most complex initiatives. Identify where success depends on one person, one relationship or one untested leadership skill.
Medium-term capability is to establish a development pathway for program and portfolio leadership. Combine formal learning with mentoring, rotations, real decision responsibility and sponsor feedback. Make complexity exposure deliberate rather than accidental.
Long-term positioning is to integrate capability planning with the portfolio. If strategy depends on digital transformation, regulatory expansion, major capital programs or cross-enterprise change, build the leadership pipeline before those bets become critical.
Capability investment should follow strategic exposure.
Signals to Monitor
The organisation is relying on heroics when:
- the same small group is repeatedly assigned to every troubled program;
- major stakeholder relationships are held by one individual;
- deputies cannot explain the rationale behind key decisions;
- capability reviews focus on credentials but not assignment complexity;
- lessons learned exist as documents but do not change future decisions;
- sponsors vary widely in effectiveness with no development support;
- leaders hide uncertainty because the culture rewards confidence;
- burnout is treated as evidence of commitment.
Questions for the Leadership Team
- Which programs would become materially weaker if one leader left tomorrow?
- Do we match leaders to complexity or simply to availability and seniority?
- What experiences are developing the next generation of program and portfolio leaders?
- Are our sponsors equipped to resolve enterprise trade-offs?
- How do we distinguish good judgement from a good outcome produced by luck?
- Where is tacit knowledge becoming a single point of failure?
- Does our learning system improve judgement or merely generate more procedure?
Closing Perspective
Complexity exposes the limits of process, but it should not force organisations to depend on exceptional individuals.
The durable advantage comes from building leaders who can think across systems, communicate through ambiguity, negotiate trade-offs, use governance intelligently and learn faster than conditions change.
Heroic managers can rescue programs. A capability system changes the organisation's odds before rescue is required.
About EraNorth Insights
EraNorth Insights publishes practical analysis on strategy, projects, operations, transformation and decision intelligence for professional and organisational use. About EraNorth.