Project management: refusing a request without making the process unfair
Some project change requests must be rejected, even when they address a genuine need. The management question is specific: does allowing requesters to present their arguments make the procedure seem fairer to them, without giving them a veto?
What the literature establishes
Robert Folger (1977, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) experimentally examined how the opportunity to express one's views and changes in an allocation affect perceived inequity. His findings show that reactions to an allocation depend on more than what a person receives: the opportunity for voice also matters. In project management, this supports distinguishing the rejection of a request from the conditions under which it was considered, without assuming that listening removes disappointment.
Being heard does not mean deciding
E. Allan Lind, Ruth Kanfer and P. Christopher Earley (1990, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) distinguished instrumental and noninstrumental dimensions of voice. In their experiment, an opportunity to speak after the decision also improved fairness judgments compared with no opportunity to speak, but less than an opportunity before the decision. The mechanism therefore extends beyond the ability to change the outcome: being able to present one's perspective matters too.
The premature conclusion
It is tempting to conclude that consultation is enough to make a refusal acceptable. These studies show neither that consultation guarantees support nor that it makes a discriminatory decision, or one that breaches project obligations, fair. A cautious management application is to state what remains negotiable and explicitly distinguish the opportunity to speak from decision-making authority. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
These experimental studies concern bounded situations, not the longitudinal management of projects in Geneva. They do not demonstrate that a procedure perceived as fairer reduces costs, prevents disputes or improves deliverable quality. A request log may document consultation without establishing that the arguments were genuinely considered.
A practical check in Genève
Within SHR's « Gestion de projet » programme, an exercise applicable in Geneva would be to review change requests rejected over one month, whether they concern a private banking process, an international organisation's tool, a luxury watchmaking specification or a commodity trading document flow. For each refusal, check for an argument from the requester recorded before the decision and a reasoned response addressing that argument; then calculate the proportion of all reviewed refusals containing both elements. Separately asking requesters whether they could present their perspective before the decision allows the documentary record to be compared with their experience. This check measures a request-handling practice, not the fairness of the decision or the success of the project. To go further: explore the Project Management training in Geneva in the canton of Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Project Management in Geneva
- project management
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva