There’s a particular kind of person every experienced project sponsor learns to recognise. They’re the first to reply to every email. Their status reports are immaculate. They can produce, at a moment’s notice, a RAG summary, a risk register and a stakeholder map, all colour-coded, all current. Sponsors love this person. I’ve watched them get promoted over people who were quietly better at the actual job.
Here’s the thing nobody says at the promotion announcement. Being extremely good at producing artifacts about a project is not the same skill as being good at running one. They can look identical from a distance, particularly to a sponsor who’s busy and wants reassurance more than they want the truth. But they diverge hard the moment a project hits real trouble, and real trouble is the only place a project manager’s actual value ever gets tested.
I’ve been that person, at various points in my career. I’ve built the deck that made a shaky project look organised. It’s a genuinely useful skill in small doses, the same way a good bedside manner is useful in a doctor. But a doctor with an excellent bedside manner and no diagnostic instinct is not a doctor you want when something’s actually wrong with you, and a project manager with excellent reporting instincts and no appetite for hard conversations is not the person you want when a project is actually failing.
The trouble is that for the last two decades, in a lot of organisations, we’ve built promotion and reward systems that can’t tell the difference. Reporting is visible. It happens on a schedule, in a format everyone recognises, and it produces artefacts that can be pointed to as evidence of competence. Problem-solving is invisible until it isn’t. The good calls a project manager makes, the difficult conversation they have with a vendor in week six that prevents a disaster in week twenty, the risk they flag that never becomes a headline because someone dealt with it early, none of that shows up in a weekly status template. It shows up as the absence of a crisis, which is nearly impossible to reward because it’s nearly impossible to see.
So organisations, without ever deciding to, started promoting the visible thing. You cannot put “prevented a disaster nobody ever heard about” on a performance review with the same confidence you can put “delivered 47 consecutive on-time status reports.” One of those is legible. The other one is the actual job. Guess which one got rewarded, year after year, until an entire generation of project managers learned, correctly, that looking organised was a safer bet than being effective.
I don’t think this happened because anyone set out to hollow out the profession. I think it happened the way most institutional drift happens, one reasonable-seeming decision at a time. A sponsor wants visibility, so you build a dashboard. The dashboard becomes routine, so you refine it. The refined dashboard becomes the artefact by which your performance gets judged, because it’s the artefact everyone can actually see. Repeat that cycle across a thousand organisations for twenty years and you get an entire profession quietly optimised for the wrong output, with nobody ever having made a single decision that looks unreasonable in isolation.
What makes this genuinely hard to fix is that the busy-looking work isn’t fake. The dashboard is real. The status report took real time and real effort to produce, and it’s not nothing. It’s just not the thing. It’s the shadow of the thing, mistaken for the thing itself because the shadow is easier to measure. And once an organisation has spent two decades measuring the shadow, asking it to suddenly start measuring the substance instead is a much bigger cultural shift than it sounds like on a whiteboard.
I’ve started asking a different question when I meet a project manager for the first time, instead of asking what tools they use or what certifications they hold. I ask them to tell me about a project that was quietly going wrong, and what they did about it before anyone else noticed. The good ones have an answer immediately, usually a specific and slightly uncomfortable one. The ones who’ve spent a career optimising for visible busyness tend to reach for a story about a report they built instead, because that’s the story they’ve been trained, correctly, to tell.
That’s not their failure. It’s the system’s. But it’s worth being honest about which kind of busy you’ve spent your career getting good at, because only one of them was ever actually the job.
Leave a Reply