Taking the management out of project management?

@Kiron

It's a correct way to see the approach, but not the only way, thanks for your contribution.

Alexandre.

This almost sounds like the self-organizing team principle applied to project management teams. My personal opinion is that I just cannot see it working except if there is some underlying structure to guide the process i.e. like a scrum master in Scrum.

Thomas,

Thank you for sharing your opinion with the community.
Probably they use the concept of shared leadership I don't know if it works , but it's an option.

Alexandre

Dear Luis,

Thank you for share your knowledge with us.
It's clear that we cannot lead things only persons, but do you think is possible to apply the concept of shared management removing pressure from one person only ( project manager) ?

Alexandre

Alexandre, shared Leadership sounds like an Oxomoron to me. Either someone leads or not. It is in the human nature (and that of some animals too) to have tribal leaders. We are not bees or ants yet.

Even in the most effective teams there is someone to whom the others look in case of insecurity.

There might be management without leadership, as can be observed in many places. Leadership is not necessary if there are no humans. Think about factory of the future, IoT, even self driving cars do not need a conductor.

Dear Alexandre
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing

Right now I am reading (studying) Frederic Laloux - Reinventing Organizations.
It lists the different paradigms of the human organizations through the ages and proposals a new one: Teal organization.

Teal organization is built on three pillars related to wholeness, self-management and evolutionary purpose.

In addition to Frederic Laloux, I am also studying Brian Robertson on Holacracy : The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World

Holacracy is a method of decentralized management and organizational governance, in which authority and decision-making are distributed throughout a holarchy of self-organizing teams rather than being vested in a management hierarchy.
Holacracy has been adopted by for-profit and non-profit organizations in several countries

In other words, I still have no opinion on your question.

Thomas,

I understand you opinion, but I cannot exclude shared leadership because there are practical cases of their existence. I know that the stereotype of leader sees him as in a solitary role. The reality more often means a leader shares that role, whether collaborating on a time-limited project or in an ongoing position. Examples of these shared leadership projects include a task force composed of members from different divisions of an organization, a collaborative project between two or more organizations, and a public-private partnership to meet a community goal. Whatever the specifics, leaders work collaboratively and share power with other leaders who bring their own perspectives and skill sets.

Alexandre

Hi Alexandre

a leader does not have to have the authority and mission to lead from the beginning (remember Tuckman's ladder: storming phase will result in everybody finding their role on the task). I am saying some people will stick out, and will be seen as leaders by the others. Sometimes they will accept it only reluctantly.

For me shared leadership is a term that describes servant leadership, group decision making, trust and other good habits for building a team. It conveys the value of fairness/equality, which is often contradicted by the value of autonomy/freedom (and I see that currently the latter dominates).

The term is potentially divisive, alienating great leaders we have and need by being disrespectful to their role.

I have been in teams as you describe, and I could easily identify the most influential person, the leader. If there were 2 or more of them, the team was fighting. Sometimes I stepped in to lead, sometimes I lean back and try not to be involved in leading, but I may support others.