Self-managed teams and Project Management

Hi Thomas,

What are you saying may be true for permanent long running teams in which the same individuals work together for many years.

Projects are different as the project team is temporary and never develops as a unitary group. In many projects team members from different functions don't even get to work together at all.

Adding the fact that the team members report to different managers and you end up to the conclusion that a project team usually can't have a true leader at all. At most it can have a facilitator that manages the communication between the different parts of the team and also between all the stakeholders.

The facilitator is usually the PM but usually he can't make decisions that the team must follow. The PM is the glue that links all the stakeholders together enabling them to work together.

A team can really have a leader only if it is composed of a single function and the leader is an experienced SME in that function. But even in this case that leader would focus entirely on leading the work and may not necessarily get involved in all the project related issues.

Self organized teams may mean that there is no facilitator and no functional leads and the team members have to figure by themselves how to communicate and also how to decide about the solution to be used without having a technical lead to make the final decision. Also the team would have to deal with the communication with the stakeholders. This is really inefficient in my opinion and also get lead to conflicts and deadlocks. That's why I believe self-organized team are not good.

Dear Thomas
Thank you for your opinion

Is it the existence of a leader (other than a team member) who will fill these "gaps"?

Dear Adrian
Thank you for participating in this reflection and for your opinion

What about the army teams?

When on a mission, are they self-managing?

Hi Adrian,

your statement 'Projects are different as the project team is temporary and never develops as a unitary group' is opposed to the experience of all the project managers who exactly are able to do that. I developed 'unitary' groups for 40 years, for temporary project from 9 months to 3 years. One tool is to understand and accelerate Tuckman's ladder.

It is harder in a weak matrix environment where you apparently live, but believe me this is not at all the majority of projects. And even then, good leaders can establish a project identity and cohesiveness. The focus is on people management.

Hi Peter,

I agree with you that a PM is a project management SME but delivering the project means mainly working as a facilitator and coordinator.

A project usually has 3 key decision makers:
1) the sponsor who has the ultimate responsibility for the project, he creates the project assigns the budget and defines at a high level what it needs to be delivered;
2) the business users who decide at a lower level what needs to be deliver in line with the sponsors definition;
3) the technical SMEs who decide about the solution to be used in order to deliver.

So all the decision makers exist and the project management SME is not among them. So how can the PM deliver in these circumstances? Well obviously but acting as a facilitator between all the decision making and also by setting up and applying project management processes.

If the PM is also a technical SME that he can be a decision maker at point 3) if not than his role is to help others decide.

Delivery in project management terms in my opinion means making the stakeholders work efficient together and enabling them to make good decisions. At least this is how I see things, I am not saying I am totally right. :)

Dear Peter
Thank you for sharing your vision of what a Project Manager is

It is very important to clarify our perspective on themes and roles so that we can continue to exchange views
Thanks for doing it

Returning to the self-managing teams.

Does this model of organization and management replace the role of the Project Manager?

Hi Luis,

if you mean the temperaments to be the potential gaps in team capability, the answer is no.

The leader is not the one who fills these gaps by themselves. The leader is the one who makes sure the gaps are filled by selecting the right team members, or adding to the team. If the leader shows 2-3 of the missing temperaments, it might help but it is better to have them among other team members.

BTW, there is a helpful model by Humm-Wadsworth, I use a lot when composing a team. It includes 7 temperaments, everybody has 2-3 strong ones from them, the full team should have all:

1. Mover – communicate, positive, talks quickly and often, smiles, comes late and apologizescasual, light colors, no tie, sneakers, funny accessories
2. Double-Checker – safety, family, problems, sickness, lethargic, natural colors, big handbags
3. Politician – winning, power savvy, status, competition, comes late and does not apologize, overdressed, dark colors, well dressed
4. Hustler – earn money quickly, show what you have, expensive watch, rings, gold, brand savvy, colors red & gold (youtu.be/Deif8h3LLZ4)
5. Artist – individuality, creative, colors black or fitting, amuletts, casual but individual dress, beards
6. Engineer – perfection, planning, structure, practical, technical accessoires,
7. Normal – reason, not be exposed, follows rules

I am strong as hustler and engineer.

Hi Thomas,

The relationship the project team members have with the organization that is delivering the project does play a key role.

If the project team members have been contracted or hired just for the project then they will feel the project as being their home in the organization and it is easier to define a team identity.

On the other hand if they are permanent employees or they are contracted to work for a functional unit that assigns them to projects then they would feel that the functional unit is their home and not the project. In these cases it is much harder to define a team identity.

These project team members would consider as teammates the other employees from the functional unit and not the other project team members. For them working on the project is just a temporary work assignment.

In my mind a project has to be managed whichever model you apply. "Managed" goes beyond coordination.
Managing can be defined as: organizing, planning, controlling and directing towards a defined goal or objective.
I can see three possible models to achieve this:
1) traditional PMO with identified singular PM
2) self managed PMO with management role split between team members
3) self managed PMO with management role being alternated within staff.
In my mind option based on 40 years experience with the delivery of infrastructure projects: 1) provides the strongest management with consistency and effectiveness through out the project
Option 3) provides the weakest management and is the least effective due to inconsistency, short range planning, conflicts from one assignment to the previous and the next, differing management styles, assignment of blame, etc.
A proper analysis of these options should be done through a risk/benefit assessment process with due consideration of project needs, personnel involved and corporate culture.