Comments on: Project Management: A New Definition or a 20 Year-Old Definition?

by: David Green

Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:32:18 +0000

Thanks Hal. I work in an organisation where the ‘9 managments’ of the PMBoK attract obeisance. All tosh, of course.
Managing projects is a special case of managing: providing the organisational/relational context where people can act purposefully to achieve an agreed objective. This entails a system of social relationships be developed (expressed in conversations to produce commitments); and a joint approach to identifying options to attain the objective be created. The PM, if there is a particular role, is the one to mentor the team through identifying and selecting options that will move it towards its objective, in my view. Perhaps the PM is the designer and coach of a purposeful social system working in a defined context. Very general, I know. But perhaps that’s what PM is.

by: Gary Kuhn

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Really enjoyed this one Hal. It is as you have said. It’s all about Leadership. It doesn’t take a Leader to tell people what to do. In fact, the usual outcome (for those Project Managers perceived as bullies) is ‘malicious obedience.’ When those under the ‘rule’ of the almighty PM do exactly what they are told to do, no more and no less. The usual result - disgruntled zombie-like workers, unsatisfied Customer and richer lawyers.

by: Claude Emond

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

I too agree with you Hal. (and still do, even when I do not have the time to comment much nowadays)

Mullaly’s definition is nothing new under the sun. It is the same old �command-and-control� discourse that has nothing to do with the real nature of the project manager’s work (leading, guiding, coaching and influencing WITHOUT formal power/authority); those folks ask for authority because they just do not have the proper leadership abilities to engage in linguistic action. It’s a pity but Gantthead, their staff of writers and the like just perpetuate the same old paradigm and a lot a people still go there for advice and �new� recipes from old cookbooks that just won’t help anybody anymore. A lot of monologue there and not much linguistic action, indeed !!

Claude

by: David Schmaltz

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Hal:

Thanks for this posting. Those who choose to complain about their lack of authority don’t understand where a project manager’s authority comes from. Can’t be bestowed. Besides, the most difficult dilemmas every project manager faces cannot be meaningfully addressed with authority. Can’t force understanding. Can’t demand coherence.

Seems to me that the effective project managers I’ve known could care less about any theory of management. They learn what works and replicate that. This often means working in ways that are considered at least orthogonal to the ones promoted and embraced by their sponsoring organization. Their operational counterparts often tolerate these infractions, quietly hoping that they won’t be expected to play out on the high steel with so much open space between them and the ground.

Those that complain about the lack of a safety net should probably stay on the ground.

by: Mike O'Callaghan

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Hi Hal

I agree with your comments, but I do need to qualify. My experience comes from trying to ‘manage’ 20 project managers. What we strice for is ‘Clarity of Purpose’, ‘Common Focus’ and ‘Commitment to Delivery’. This aligns with your comments. A good project manager does this.

A poor project manager struggles. For such an unfortunate, following the bureaucratic processes aligned to the above 3 goals will improve chances of success.

Mike