Managing Conflicting Priorities in Multi-Country Programmes

1. Introduction

In today’s hyper-competitive global landscape, executing a multi-country programme is no small feat. For instance, managing a programme in the telecommunications sector presents a particularly complex challenge when it involves integrating a cohesive architecture from a single location and deploying cutting-edge technology across multiple markets, each with its own unique regulatory demands and readiness levels. The stakes were high, and the risk of losing market advantage in the region was high. I will share my experience from a real-world case on how I overcame conflicting priorities in a multi-country programme in the telco industry. 

Challenge Statement

As the appointed Programme Manager responsible for leading a multi-year initiative, I observed firsthand how local project managers in each subsidiary worked in silos, with regional requirements often clashing with the global contract and priorities. The telecommunications provider’s sponsors and Engineering team were under intense pressure from high-level executives to meet ambitious targets, and internal misalignment threatened to derail the roadmap. Without a cohesive, unified approach, conflicting priorities could undermine expansion goals and slow the path to 5G deployment on a grand scale. 

2. Understanding the Triggers of Conflict 

Conflicts Emerge

Shortly after I assumed responsibility for the programme, I discovered a half-built roadmap and a patchwork of local initiatives. Each country had its own angle on virtualisation, orchestration, and expansion, typically focusing on short-term gains rather than the broader vision. As deadlines slipped across multiple regions, local teams scrambled to protect their top concerns. Some wanted to fast-track local office KPIs, while others insisted on addressing subsidiary business needs. This tug-of-war underscored the central issue: misalignment in objectives was breeding operational friction and fueling disagreements about resource allocation, among others. 

3. Core Conflict Areas 

1. Siloed Project Management 

In some cases, local PMs managed activities and timelines independently, leading to scattered objectives. Without a unified framework or governance structure, even seemingly simple tasks like scheduling a software upgrade grew complicated. 

2. Diverse Regulatory C Technical Requirements

Regulatory approval processes varied significantly, especially when importing network equipment or licensing additional spectrum. On the technical side, for example, readiness for 5G and advanced cloud orchestration differed from country to country, introducing incompatible timelines. 

3. Stakeholder C Contractual Gaps 

Although the overarching contract required a standardised approach to cloud orchestration services, local teams often bypassed it in favour of legacy architectures or ad hoc solutions. This mismatch put the entire programme at risk. 

4. Resource C Budget Pressures 

Securing funds from the corporate office and distributing them equitably across multiple regions proved to be an ongoing challenge. Highly specialised engineering talent was also shared in some cases, causing delays when schedules overlapped. 

5. Governance C Communication 

In the early stages, the programme lacked a clearly defined governance model. As a result, the communication plan and escalation procedures were not well-aligned with the overall framework. 

4. Strategies to Address Conflicting Priorities 

1. Master Plan C Alignment Work Sessions

Organising a series of alignment workshops with key stakeholders and decision-makers was key. These sessions produced an updated single Master Plan capturing global milestones and linking them to subsidiary-specific tasks, bridging gaps between local priorities and the overarching contract. 

2. Programme Goals Alignment and Team Morale

To maintain programme alignment and morale, it’s imperative to define a clear vision and strategy so teams understand the programme’s global impact and long-term value. People engage more when we showcase regional contributions; this fosters ownership by highlighting each country’s specific role. Making priorities personal and meaningful helps team members connect programme goals to their own career development, which boosts commitment and collaboration. When priorities feel meaningful, commitment follows. 

3. Structured Stakeholder Engagement Communication

To maintain alignment, I updated our stakeholder register and communication plan. Weekly reviews with the CTO, engineering team, sponsors, and local PMs allowed new risks or changes to be addressed swiftly. Formal escalation paths helped local teams clarify issues and secure additional support, ensuring programme-wide transparency. 

4. Cultural Nuances C Negotiation Styles 

Understanding how each country’s culture approached negotiation and collaboration was crucial. What worked seamlessly in one country could backfire in another. By mapping cultural norms, the team was able to identify customs such as preferred communication styles, decision-making processes, and etiquette, which helped them overcome cultural barriers and accelerate their progress. 

5. Improved Risk C Issue Management 

We created a robust, centralised risk register that acknowledged each country’s unique regulatory and technical hurdles. For instance, Local PMs were assigned as risk owners, and we established clear triggers for escalating significant issues. This proactive stance replaced reactive firefighting with a continuous improvement cycle. 

6. Building Team Cohesiveness C Knowledge Sharing 

By mentoring local PMs and encouraging active knowledge exchange, we gradually dismantled silo mentalities. E.g. lessons learned from complex migrations, such as integrating legacy platforms with new virtualisation layers, were shared across regions, reducing rework and accelerating upgrade timelines. Regular sync sessions further built trust and camaraderie among geographically dispersed teams, boosting the programme’s collective expertise and unifying technical approaches. 

6. Conclusion

In large-scale, multi-country programmes, conflicting priorities are unavoidable, particularly when diverse markets, evolving technologies, and varied regulations converge. Yet these very complexities can become growth opportunities when teams align under a unified vision, shared governance, and effective communication. By establishing a robust Master Plan, adapting to cultural differences, proactively managing risks, and ensuring that local initiatives contribute to a broader strategic goal, silos can be dismantled, and collaboration can flourish. In doing so, each country’s unique perspective becomes an asset rather than an obstacle, helping accelerate innovation and strengthen long-term programme success. Above all, when teams understand how their work supports a clear, meaningful objective, they remain more engaged, motivated, and prepared to navigate future challenges in an increasingly competitive market.