Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Colleagues,
If you are managing a program and have a colleague PM who constantly overpromises (sells smoke), delivers work below average, and often tries to take credit for others’ work—sometimes just doing copy-paste from the team—how would you approach this situation?
I’m curious to hear your strategies for handling this type of behavior while keeping the program on track and maintaining a professional environment.
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
This behavior isn’t just a performance issue; it’s a governance and integrity risk. My approach: 1. Document patterns, not emotions. Track missed commitments, rework, and quality issues. 2.Increase transparency through joint planning, shared RAID logs, and clear acceptance criteria. When facts are visible, “smoke” disappears. 3. Protect the team by clearly recognizing who actually delivered the work. 4. Have a private, factual conversation focused on expectations, impacts, and commitments. 5. Escalate only if trust continues to be broken. Present it as a delivery and governance risk, not a personal complaint.
In short: structure, transparency, and ethics. When the system becomes clear, overpromising has nowhere to hide and trust can be rebuilt in a constructive way.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Dec 04, 2025 12:40 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Thanks Luis for sharing your structured approach to managing this governance and integrity risk. Your strategy is based on documenting factual patterns of performance issues (missed commitments, rework) rather than emotions. The core of your plan involves increasing transparency through joint planning and shared logs to make facts visible, protecting the team by recognizing who actually delivered the work, and addressing the situation through a private, factual conversation focused on clear expectations and commitments. Escalation is reserved for broken trust and framed strictly as a delivery and governance risk. This focus on structure, transparency, and ethics is intended to eliminate ambiguity and constructively rebuild trust. Francisco.
It comes down to what the impact of that colleague's behavior is on you. If it doesn't affect you or your work, then let their manager deal with this. On the other hand, if it is affecting you and/or your ability to manage your projects effectively then you should gather some specific recent examples of the behavior and have a one on one discussion with them, leading with curiosity and keeping an open mind. If they are not receptive, then escalate.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Dec 08, 2025 6:10 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Thanks Kiron Bondale the action I should take depends entirely on the impact of the colleague's behavior on my work and project management effectiveness. I will address it by gathering specific examples and starting with a constructive one-on-one discussion only if the behavior is impacting my projects, escalating if necessary.. Regards! Francisco.
PMO Leader | Speaker & Mentor | Content Leader – PMOGA Latin America
Hub| Catholic University of UruguayMontevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
I’d set clear expectations, document responsibilities, and redirect credit to the team. At the same time, I’d address the behavior privately with constructive feedback, while ensuring the program stays focused on results and the environment remains respectful.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Dec 11, 2025 6:04 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Managing the environment and the individual behavior concurrently involves establishing clear professional boundaries (setting expectations, documenting responsibilities, and redirecting credit to the team) while also addressing the colleague's behavior privately with constructive feedback to maintain a respectful, results-focused program environment. Francisco
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Dec 03, 2025 2:57 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
This behavior isn’t just a performance issue; it’s a governance and integrity risk. My approach: 1. Document patterns, not emotions. Track missed commitments, rework, and quality issues. 2.Increase transparency through joint planning, shared RAID logs, and clear acceptance criteria. When facts are visible, “smoke” disappears. 3. Protect the team by clearly recognizing who actually delivered the work. 4. Have a private, factual conversation focused on expectations, impacts, and commitments. 5. Escalate only if trust continues to be broken. Present it as a delivery and governance risk, not a personal complaint.
In short: structure, transparency, and ethics. When the system becomes clear, overpromising has nowhere to hide and trust can be rebuilt in a constructive way.
Thanks Luis for sharing your structured approach to managing this governance and integrity risk. Your strategy is based on documenting factual patterns of performance issues (missed commitments, rework) rather than emotions. The core of your plan involves increasing transparency through joint planning and shared logs to make facts visible, protecting the team by recognizing who actually delivered the work, and addressing the situation through a private, factual conversation focused on clear expectations and commitments. Escalation is reserved for broken trust and framed strictly as a delivery and governance risk. This focus on structure, transparency, and ethics is intended to eliminate ambiguity and constructively rebuild trust. Francisco.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Dec 05, 2025 5:11 AM
Luis Branco
...
Francisco, thank you for the thoughtful summary.
What you highlighted goes to the core principle:
When expectations, ownership, and evidence are made explicit, the issue stops being personal and becomes a system-level clarity problem.
In my experience, once visibility, role clarity, and factual tracking are in place, two things tend to happen:
Overpromising collapses under transparency, and conversations shift from opinions to observable patterns.
Trust becomes actionable, because everyone is aligned around the same facts and commitments.
And if alignment still doesn’t happen, escalation is not emotional, it is simply responsible governance to protect delivery, the team, and the program.
Happy to continue the discussion.
These cases are challenging, but they often become catalysts for stronger culture and better leadership.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Francisco, if you are their manager, then start with a private, candid conversation with this person to align on performance standards and responsibilities. I’d increase transparency by documenting commitments, tracking progress, and reinforcing ownership within the team. At the same time, I’d recognize and elevate the actual contributors to ensure credit is given fairly.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Dec 12, 2025 1:19 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Thanks for the advive Rami Kaibni ! Regards! Francisco.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dec 04, 2025 12:40 PM
Replying to Francisco Herrera
...
Thanks Luis for sharing your structured approach to managing this governance and integrity risk. Your strategy is based on documenting factual patterns of performance issues (missed commitments, rework) rather than emotions. The core of your plan involves increasing transparency through joint planning and shared logs to make facts visible, protecting the team by recognizing who actually delivered the work, and addressing the situation through a private, factual conversation focused on clear expectations and commitments. Escalation is reserved for broken trust and framed strictly as a delivery and governance risk. This focus on structure, transparency, and ethics is intended to eliminate ambiguity and constructively rebuild trust. Francisco.
Francisco, thank you for the thoughtful summary.
What you highlighted goes to the core principle:
When expectations, ownership, and evidence are made explicit, the issue stops being personal and becomes a system-level clarity problem.
In my experience, once visibility, role clarity, and factual tracking are in place, two things tend to happen:
Overpromising collapses under transparency, and conversations shift from opinions to observable patterns.
Trust becomes actionable, because everyone is aligned around the same facts and commitments.
And if alignment still doesn’t happen, escalation is not emotional, it is simply responsible governance to protect delivery, the team, and the program.
Happy to continue the discussion.
These cases are challenging, but they often become catalysts for stronger culture and better leadership.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Dec 16, 2025 1:07 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
HiLuis Branco , I have a meeting with my boss this weekend, I will try to mention the isse and see what happens. I will share the outcome with you.. Regards! Francisco
I deal with “selling smoke” by keeping everything transparent. I document commitments, align expectations in front of stakeholders, and let facts speak. Private conversations help set boundaries, while clear ownership in meetings protects the team. It stays professional, but the message is firm: ambition is welcome, misleading signals are not.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Dec 15, 2025 2:22 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Thanks Pavan, It is excellent advice to tackle "selling smoke" by maintaining complete transparency. Using documentation, aligning expectations publicly, and letting facts lead the conversation is a very professional and effective way to protect the team and establish firm boundaries against misleading signals. Regards! Francisco.
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Kiron provided a valid point. If it doesn't affect you, you might well ignore it. You will have the chance to mention this to his manager - as a valid concern, not just throwing him under the bus - or during the 360 evalution.
At the end of the day, no one wishes to work with someone like this, so this is something to keep in mind for future " teaming-up" occasions.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Dec 18, 2025 12:16 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Eduard Hernandez that's true I don't want to team with they in future projects. Regards! Francisco.
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
When a PM “sells smoke,” the real risk it’s the impact on delivery and trust. Something that we can do is: 1. Create structural transparency: Clear acceptance criteria, documented ownership, and visible progress dashboards make overpromising impossible to hide. Facts do the talking, not conflict. 2. Redirect the behavior, not the person: I give feedback privately, anchor it on delivery risks, and set expectations around commitments, quality, and accountability. If patterns continue, I escalate early with evidence, not emotion.
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Dec 03, 2025 7:13 PM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Francisco -
It comes down to what the impact of that colleague's behavior is on you. If it doesn't affect you or your work, then let their manager deal with this. On the other hand, if it is affecting you and/or your ability to manage your projects effectively then you should gather some specific recent examples of the behavior and have a one on one discussion with them, leading with curiosity and keeping an open mind. If they are not receptive, then escalate.
Kiron
Thanks Kiron Bondale the action I should take depends entirely on the impact of the colleague's behavior on my work and project management effectiveness. I will address it by gathering specific examples and starting with a constructive one-on-one discussion only if the behavior is impacting my projects, escalating if necessary.. Regards! Francisco. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
