hero:Management Fallacies: The project mode override

Management Fallacies: The project mode override


Most management fallacies aren’t born from bad ideas. Instead, they stem from the good ones applied in the wrong context. A prime example of this is the project management model1.

Designed for large-scale, time-limited operations, the project model excels at coordinating resources and achieving specific goals. Think of building a bridge or launching a new product line. Treating labor as an interchangeable resource, like any other material, makes sense in these scenarios. The problems arise when a model is applied to individuals, atomic tasks, and ongoing operations, leading to a cascade of flawed assumptions.

It’s easy to start believing that we can swap individuals in and out of tasks without losing valuable contextual knowledge, like cogs in a machine. Or fall into the trap of aiming for 100% utilization2 of a “resource,” forgetting that humans need time for skill development and knowledge transfer and simply avoiding burnout. Suddenly, the pursuit of efficiency becomes a detriment to the very things that drive it: skilled, motivated, and engaged employees.

The most common fallacies created by trying to see everything through the project model language and mental model include:

  1. The fallacy of task-level project planning: Mechanisms designed for complex projects are ill-suited for managing individual workloads. 3
  2. The staffing fallacy: Treating people as interchangeable resources ignores the unique skills and knowledge each individual brings. Never mind the personal preferences and motivations.
  3. The 100% utilization myth: While consuming 100% of a resource makes sense in a project context, striving for constant maximum output for each employee is unsustainable and counterproductive. Furthermore, the rigid approach inspired by successful projects ignores a fundamental truth about work: unpredictability. Changes happen. Random events occur. Accidents, illnesses, and unforeseen complications are not anomalies; they are the norm. Trying to plan every detail at the minute level is an exercise in futility, a denial of the dynamic nature of real-world work. The project model, emphasizing pre-defined schedules and resource allocation, cannot accommodate this uncertainty when applied at the micro-level.

Finally, let’s address the insidious way this fallacy creeps into our language. We start talking about individual work using project model terms like “resources4,” “allocation,” and “deliverables.” This language, while appropriate for large-scale projects, dehumanizes individuals and reinforces the misconception that people are interchangeable components. Using project model language when discussing individual work is a clear indicator that we’ve fallen into the trap of misapplication.

The takeaway here isn’t to abandon the projects altogether. They are a powerful tool when used correctly. Instead, we need to be mindful of its limitations and resist the urge to apply it universally. Let’s recognize that managing people isn’t the same as managing resources on a construction site. By understanding the proper context for each management approach, we can avoid these common fallacies and build truly effective and sustainable work environments. This should make us feel cautious and alert, always on the lookout for these pitfalls.

Let’s call this what it is: an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. You cannot effectively plan individual tasks, re-staff a team without losing contextual knowledge, or achieve sustainable 100% utilization. It’s not about trying harder; it’s about using the right tool for the job. If you believe you’re succeeding at those things with this approach, you’re lying to yourself or others, and the results will speak for themselves. The project model is a powerful tool, but its misapplication creates a lie we need to stop telling ourselves. By using the right tool for the job, we can feel reassured and confident in our management practices.

Footnotes

  1. I was mainly thinking about PMBoK and Prince 2 type models and models derived from these. Some Lean-inspired approaches switch these problems to another set of problems.

  2. Depending on the industry and business model, it might be 100% billable, 100% utilization, 100% efficiency, or something else. It does not matter - the issue is that while a project can pull 100% of the labor available, an operation can’t maintain the workers’ motivation, engagement, capabilities, and skills without using any time or effort. Never mind the cyclical nature of your business.

  3. this is the most common source of micromanagement or helicopter-manager findings when coaching organizations on practices, leadership, or excellence.

  4. I managed to write a whole post on “resources” without referring to the origins of the word’s usage in the management context. Yay!