Project success is determined by a variety of factors. The project manager’s personality and approach are some of them. The more I contemplate this, the clearer the significance of this aspect becomes. Based on my observations, project managers can be divided into three types: oppressive, laissez-faire, and active. Oppressive Leadership The searing heat of the desert, a man ordering slaves to transport huge stones up a ramp to build a monolith. The classic image of tyranny also translates to project management. Some project managers place tyrannical emphasis on task completion. For them, a project is a task that a set of “resources” must complete on time and on budget. They “drive hard” to deliver the project to targets set by their seniors. Micro-management is also part of this mix. Impersonal, autocratic command can drive task efficiency to a point. Soon, however, a plateau is reached, followed by a precipitous decline in morale. How It Emerges New project managers, in their quest for control, can tend towards tyranny. Deep subject matter experts, who are promoted to project management, are also prone to this. Of course, some project managers simply lack the crucial soft skills needed for effective management. Oppressive PMs represent one end of the spectrum. Their way is not ideal, but it exists in real life. Some of their projects are indeed successful, but invariably leave behind a bad aftertaste. Thankfully, we’re seeing less and less of such types. New age sensibilities, introspection, prior experiences, or political imperatives may be behind this decline. Laissez-Faire Leadership Laissez-faire means an unwillingness to get involved. It’s the other end of the spectrum. These project managers take a “hands-off” approach — sometimes to an excessive degree, which can be detrimental to the project. What might seem like granting the team autonomy is actually a dereliction of duties. They are “absent” project managers who fail to manage the project effectively. To maintain appearances, they may pester the team about deadlines, but the shallowness of their approach is quickly revealed. Laissez-faire project management invites conflict and uncertainty. Once project staff sense this style, they become disillusioned, go around the PM to get things done, and generally take a dim view of the PM. This is not good for the project, the team, or the PM. How It Emerges Laissez-faire project management can sometimes, ironically, start with good intentions. Project managers may want to give their teams freedom, but end up ceding too much control. Horse riding comes to mind. Compassion and respect for the horse are essential, but firmness is also required. Otherwise, the rider won’t be in control. Project managers who have no idea about the subject matter of the project are also prone to this style. Many project managers today, whether inadvertently or to compensate for a shortcoming, adopt a form of laissez-faire management. This approach is ineffective, and when faced with pressure, these managers tend to shift to the opposite extreme — oppressive leadership. Active Leadership The third approach, I term "active" project management, combines the best elements of the above styles while mitigating their drawbacks. Active project managers take a genuine interest in the project, the people, the problem domain, and in ensuring holistic delivery. They actively lead, manage, and support the team at all times. Active project managers stay engaged with the work without being intrusive. They recognize the appropriate times to take charge and when to enable others. Their defining trait is their perception of projects as tools for problem-solving. They understand the subject/problem conceptually and communicate the big picture to their team, enabling them to proceed in the correct direction with minimal supervision. The most effective product managers I’ve collaborated with have all been “active” PMs. I personally aim to be an “active” PM as well, and endeavor to incorporate the qualities I’ve observed in other “active” PMs into my style. How It Emerges Active project managers are quite rare. It takes a certain level of intellectual curiosity to become one. Moreover, the necessary hard and soft skills can only be honed through experience. Project managers of all styles will oversee project execution — in some way or another. The difference arises from where, when, and how they focus their attention. Project managers have one job: to manage the project. They use a variety of styles to accomplish that, a choice that might be situational or just reflect their personality. Using the analogy of a journey, all three approaches will reach the destination. Yet, the experiences will vary greatly. The first will be tumultuous, the second forgettable, but the third, exhilarating. Project success is determined by a variety of factors. The project manager’s personality and approach are some of them. The more I contemplate this, the clearer the significance of this aspect becomes. Based on my observations, project managers can be divided into three types: oppressive, laissez-faire, and active. success success Oppressive Leadership The searing heat of the desert, a man ordering slaves to transport huge stones up a ramp to build a monolith. The classic image of tyranny also translates to project management. Some project managers place tyrannical emphasis on task completion. For them, a project is a task that a set of “resources” must complete on time and on budget. They “drive hard” to deliver the project to targets set by their seniors. Micro-management is also part of this mix. Impersonal, autocratic command can drive task efficiency to a point. Soon, however, a plateau is reached, followed by a precipitous decline in morale. must How It Emerges New project managers, in their quest for control, can tend towards tyranny. Deep subject matter experts, who are promoted to project management, are also prone to this. Of course, some project managers simply lack the crucial soft skills needed for effective management. Oppressive PMs represent one end of the spectrum. Their way is not ideal, but it exists in real life. Some of their projects are indeed successful, but invariably leave behind a bad aftertaste. Thankfully, we’re seeing less and less of such types. New age sensibilities, introspection, prior experiences, or political imperatives may be behind this decline. Laissez-Faire Leadership Laissez-faire means an unwillingness to get involved. It’s the other end of the spectrum. These project managers take a “hands-off” approach — sometimes to an excessive degree, which can be detrimental to the project. What might seem like granting the team autonomy is actually a dereliction of duties. They are “absent” project managers who fail to manage the project effectively. To maintain appearances, they may pester the team about deadlines, but the shallowness of their approach is quickly revealed. Laissez-faire project management invites conflict and uncertainty. Once project staff sense this style, they become disillusioned, go around the PM to get things done, and generally take a dim view of the PM. This is not good for the project, the team, or the PM. Laissez-faire means Laissez-faire How It Emerges Laissez-faire project management can sometimes, ironically , start with good intentions. Project managers may want to give their teams freedom, but end up ceding too much control. Horse riding comes to mind. Compassion and respect for the horse are essential, but firmness is also required. Otherwise, the rider won’t be in control. Laissez-faire ironically Project managers who have no idea about the subject matter of the project are also prone to this style. Many project managers today, whether inadvertently or to compensate for a shortcoming, adopt a form of laissez-faire management. This approach is ineffective, and when faced with pressure, these managers tend to shift to the opposite extreme — oppressive leadership. laissez-faire Active Leadership The third approach, I term "active" project management, combines the best elements of the above styles while mitigating their drawbacks. Active project managers take a genuine interest in the project, the people, the problem domain, and in ensuring holistic delivery. They actively lead, manage, and support the team at all times. Active project managers stay engaged with the work without being intrusive. They recognize the appropriate times to take charge and when to enable others. actively Their defining trait is their perception of projects as tools for problem-solving. They understand the subject/problem conceptually and communicate the big picture to their team, enabling them to proceed in the correct direction with minimal supervision. The most effective product managers I’ve collaborated with have all been “active” PMs. I personally aim to be an “active” PM as well, and endeavor to incorporate the qualities I’ve observed in other “active” PMs into my style. How It Emerges Active project managers are quite rare. It takes a certain level of intellectual curiosity to become one. Moreover, the necessary hard and soft skills can only be honed through experience. Project managers of all styles will oversee project execution — in some way or another. The difference arises from where, when, and how they focus their attention. Project managers have one job: to manage the project. They use a variety of styles to accomplish that, a choice that might be situational or just reflect their personality. Using the analogy of a journey, all three approaches will reach the destination. Yet, the experiences will vary greatly. The first will be tumultuous, the second forgettable, but the third, exhilarating.

AI Threatens Traditional Consulting Model, but Politics May Save the Industry

Hybrid Work is Frustrating—Here's What Employers Can Do Instead

Read My Stories

Visit my website

Management Consultant

Too Long; Didn't Read

Download free Tech Leaders Productivity Report!

Project Management Styles: Oppressive, Aloof, and Active - Which Is the Best?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Agile Is Misleading Organizations: 6 Ways They Are Doing So

21 Traits in which Great Leadership is Defined

5 Essential Measures Startups can Take to Navigate the Cost of Living Crisis

5 Monthly Questions to Help Your Managers Grow as Leaders

A Path to Engineering Leadership: Perks, Lessons, and Food for Thought

Agile Is Misleading Organizations: 6 Ways They Are Doing So

21 Traits in which Great Leadership is Defined

5 Essential Measures Startups can Take to Navigate the Cost of Living Crisis

5 Monthly Questions to Help Your Managers Grow as Leaders

A Path to Engineering Leadership: Perks, Lessons, and Food for Thought

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps