The Mercenary PMO

 

This may be one of my most controversial blogs ever, so strap in. I want to examine, under the rubric of PMO-on-a-budget (ProjectManagement.com’s theme for June), what would happen if the entire PMO staff were to be hired for a fixed rate, for a series of one-year contracts. Providing our jump-off point is my favorite NFL Team, the Dallas Cowboys.

Consider how different the payroll scheme is for the players as compared to the cheerleaders. The players have agents, who attempt to negotiate the highest possible salary, and for the longest period of time, for each of their players. The football clubs themselves have to observe a salary cap, determined by the League office. For the 2024 season, it’s $255.4M (USD)[i]. Dallas’ star quarterback, Dack Prescott, is in the last year of his contract. For this upcoming season, he’s scheduled to earn over 21% of the total allowed for the entire team[ii]. There are 53 people on an NFL team’s roster, which works out to 1.89% of the cap, if it were to be distributed evenly. Dak is not the only star earning significantly more than 1.89% of the cap, of course. Many other exemplary players, whom the Club wishes to retain on the roster for years to come, also easily top that figure. But it has to be said, that, within this business model, every percentage point those stars make over 1.89% simply has to come out the available cap. It’s why, when a particularly talented quarterback makes more than Dak’s 21% haul, it’s a real possibility that other parts of the team will experience a reduction in available talent.

Now, compare and contrast this talent attraction/retention model with that of the Dallas Cowboys’ Cheerleaders, or DCC. Each of them has a one-year contract. If they wish to be a DCC next year, they must compete against all of the other young women who also wish to belong to this elite group each and every time tryouts are held. Veterans can earn more, and are usually (but not always) given deference during the tryouts, but even they can (and do) fail to make the cut. Since both the players and the cheerleaders belong to the same organization, I can’t help but to wonder what would happen if the players’ talent attraction/retention model was identical to the cheerleaders? What would be the implications?

First, the Club would need to publish the payroll structure by position. Since quarterback talent tends to be rarer than, say, linebacker talent, adjustments would need to be made, but always based on percentage points of the total available salary cap. There are 24 “starters” (11 for offense, 11 for defense, with one punter and one kicker), who would receive a higher percentage for each game that they actually started (more incentive to practice well!). Backups would receive a lower percentage, for example:

• The starting QB would be paid 15% of the per-game cap ($2,253,529 USD), but his backup(s) would be back at the 1.89% ($283,945) figure.
• Defensive linemen (typically, 4 starters) would receive 4%, but backups would be 1%.

…and so forth, until 95% of the salary cap had been distributed, leaving 5% for in-season roster adjustments, or even end-of-season bonuses. One-year contracts only. If the veterans want to play next season, they will need to try out, along with all of the other vets, vets from other teams, rookies, undrafted free agents, and walk-ons.

Outrageous? Yeah, probably. But consider some of the implications:

• No more having a cap-busting QB’s salary draining the talent from the rest of the roster,
• Or having 25% (or more) of your payroll sitting on the bench due to injury.
• Agents – don’t bother. The payroll structure is what it is, and Jerry McGuire doesn’t need to shout “show me the money!”
• Think about how incentivized the players would be to achieve the coveted starter position. The energy the coaching staff is expending trying to motivate a bunch of 20-something-year-olds can be better spent in other victory-attaining strategies.
• I would speculate that this business model’s impact on the overall talent level of the team would be to lose super-star players; but, wouldn’t it also eliminate the overpaid ones, as well? And what would be a better predictor of team success, a talent profile that looked like a bell curve, or a roster of all B+ players, across each squad?

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World…

Sooooo, what would this kind of model look like at a mid- to large-scale organization’s PMO? To throw out a few numbers, the Director would receive 15% of the indirect budget for the PMO, with three mid-level managers getting 10% each. The Project Controls specialists typically charge their time directly to their projects, but, for the PMO’s “core” team, they would split the remaining indirect budget. Again, one-year contracts only. I believe that this model would bring with it the following advantages:

• No more (Maccoby archetype) Jungle Fighters! PM-types who don’t get ahead based on actual output won’t last long in this business model, and getting rid of the scheming and political maneuvering this type brings may be worth the price of conversion all by itself!
• Elimination of the training budget. Candidates are selected on their current capabilities, not on subjective perceptions of their potential. Note that this would also eliminate the harmful trend of an employee getting trained-up at your expense, only to leave and take this new capability to a competitor.
• No more pushing of superfluous or trendy, untried PM techniques. A given approach to advancing the PM capability has exactly one year to prove itself. If it doesn’t work, its advocates get replaced (risk managers [no initial caps] hardest hit).

For those members of GTIM Nation who would argue that this approach would all but destroy organizational unity and cohesion, I would counter with (a) natural turnover rates may not be that different using the traditional approach, and (b) with the removal of the Jungle Fighters, team comity has a much better chance of developing.

Outrageous? Probably. But that’s not the real question here, is it? The real question is, would this approach work?

[i] Retrieved from https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/_/year/2024/sort/cap_maximum_space on June 25, 2024, 21:04 MDT.

[ii] Retrieved from https://overthecap.com/player/dak-prescott/4848 on June 25, 2024, 21:06 MDT.