|Leadership in triangle or vs. Technical Skills. Why the practical
Not being familiar with inconsistencies of ProjectManagement.com, I have first posted this under "Ask a Question", just to see that it then does not show in the "list of questions". I am posting it in this place now, while not being able to remove the original post at this time. This is not a spam posting. I apologize for the duplication. Then also, since the web site does not show the text line wrapping in the preview, I attach the text in a file which shows it with breaks between paragraphs, which should make it easier to read. Website still needs some work, but it is a good start.
Now, back to subject of the post.
I would like to initiate discussion and call for opinions on this new PMI path declared so bluntly with new CCRs.
Webinar explaining the new CCR processes, states that “industry” emphasized interest in leadership vs. “technical skills”, because (sic!), technical skills can be coached, while leadership is different. And then, as a result of action along that line, guess what, training in leadership is being requested and offered.
All of that said in the same breath. Cannot be trained, but training required. That contradiction brings up a question of how much was the charter (as stated in the webinar) and development of this new CCR process in line with PMI’s own BOK.
Aside from new CCRs, which have just been made easier to obtain, though at possibly higher cost, there are much wider repercussions of such course by PMI.
In my humble opinion, and even more humble witnessing (from the first row, and hands deep in somebody else’s mess) of many project management disasters, all of them were strictly the result of one and only thing: management not knowing much, or anything, about the nature of business or project, whether it is what needed to be done, or what it would take to do it.
And that always came in package with deafness coming from delusion of being a divinity-appointed leader. That caused failures on every level of the business/project, and, certainly, nobody followed.
Projects carried on till their eventual end, not because of some leadership, but because there were still people who liked doing things right for the sake of doing things right, as well as those who failed to duck.
With this new “almost manifest”, expressed in terms of CCR processes, PMI is blazing even deeper ruts into irrelevance when it comes to being a benchmark and source for standardized skills and processes. This time, it is not just separation of skills which should be merged, but a clearly stated disparaging view of so called “technical skills”, which means anything to do with the actual business/project itself.
Now, an already noticeable trend will have almost official justification, the trend where all of those without “technical skills” or knowledge of the business/project automatically assume that they must be having those “leadership” skills, “not acquirable by training” (according to “industry’). The very definition of the “illusion of grandeur” and fine vehicle for sociopathic conduct.
Combined with the ease of obtaining a PMP certification, it just scares me that one of the leading (and certainly the highest profile) institutions has decided to stab itself into the back.
And, talking about the “industry” referenced in that PMI’s explanation of reasoning behind new CCRs, I bet that Branson, Jobs, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerman, Bryn, Bezos (mentioning all of them because we are forced to think in bombastic terms, instead of appreciating the quiet achievers, too), living or not, would have had a word or two to say about lack of necessity to know anything about your business. Or should we look, as our guiding light, at makers of various exploding devices and vehicles, non-functioning national web sites, or caretakers of many, many overblown infrastructure and resources projects.
PMI, please, do not provide lifeline to incompetence, and do not promote lemming leadership.
Lemming leadership and bleeting yesmanship have destroyed many a business, project and country