When we designate a hands-on project manager, we're usually hoping to save money by having one person in two roles. The hands-on project manager is supposed to both manage the project and personally carry out part of the work. For small, low-risk projects, it probably works well, most of the time.
And then there are the other times.
The arrangement places the project at elevated risk, both for structural reasons and because of the conflicts of interest inherent in the role.
- Schedule collisions
- Project managers devise, negotiate, defend, explain, and adjust project schedules, but they can't control unanticipated events. Situations that demand the full attention of the project manager can collide with the parts of the schedule that demand the full attention of the same person as a team contributor.
- Conflict of love or fascination
- Sometimes, hands-on project managers have a love for or fascination with particular subsets of the project's work. Hands-on project managers tend to assign that work to themselves, independent of whether or not that assignment is a sound project management decision. Some will even contort the project schedule to make this assignment possible.
- At times when the project management work isn't fun, the hands-on project manager is often tempted to retreat to the hands-on part of the role, and when the hands-on part isn't going well, the hands-on project manager might retreat to the project management part of the role. Sadly, the right choice is usually exactly the opposite behavior.
- Teammate risk
- A special risk appears when the road gets so rocky that the hands-on project manager must ask for extra effort from the team. Unless everyone believes that the hands-on project manager bears a fair share of the extra load, some might experience resentment, because the hands-on project manager has a conflict of interest. The result can stress the team and its relationships.
- Financial conflicts
- The possibility Usually, hands-on project managers
have a love for or fascination
with particular subsets
of the project's workof savings from the hands-on project manager role sometimes biases those who decide whether or not a project will have a hands-on project manager. The bias likely arises from underestimating the risks of the combined role compared to a structure with a separation of the roles.
One factor that makes the device of hands-on project manager so tempting to sponsors and managers is the small size of the projects in which it's usually employed. According to this argument, even in the worst case, the downside for the organization is limited, because the project is so small.
But the small size of the project might not provide much protection. For instance, larger projects with big impact might depend on the success of one little project. Or the dependent projects might themselves be small, but the impact of their deliverables on the organization might be considerable. In assessing these risks, it's not the size of the project that matters — it's the size of the consequences. To think otherwise is risky. Top Next Issue
Projects never go
quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just USD 19.95. Order Now! .
This article is based on an excerpt from my ebook How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts, which has much more about the factors that put projects at risk.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenqPyarFclrBlMoPdaner@ChacZsStbitptnZFsdXMoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Project Management:
- Restarting Projects
- When a project gets off track, we sometimes cancel it. But since canceling projects takes a lot of courage,
we look for ways to save them if we can. Often, things do turn out OK, and at other times they don't.
There's a third choice, between pressing on with a project and canceling it. We can restart.
- Geese Don't Land on Twigs
- Since companies sometimes tackle projects that they have no hope of completing successfully, your project
might be completely wrong for your company. How can you tell whether your project is a fit for your company?
- Resuming Projects: Team Morale
- Sometimes we cancel a project because of budgetary constraints. We reallocate its resources and scatter
its people, and we tell ourselves that the project is on hold. But resuming is often riskier, more difficult
and more expensive than we hoped. Here are some reasons why.
- How to Make Good Guesses: Tactics
- Making good guesses probably does take talent to be among the first rank of those who make guesses.
But being in the second rank is pretty good, too, and we can learn how to do that. Here are some
tactics for guessing.
- Scope Creep, Hot Hands, and the Illusion of Control
- Despite our awareness of scope creep's dangerous effects on projects and other efforts, we seem unable
to prevent it. Two cognitive biases — the "hot hand fallacy" and "the illusion
of control" — might provide explanations.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings
- Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.
- And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I
- Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenwGyuVdiSfbGZBBnaner@ChacAoZMFcEiZeufKEnNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.