The dynamic between a Project Manager (PM) and a Change Manager (CM) can significantly influence the success of a project, especially when it involves organizational change. Let's break down the pros and cons of both scenarios and explore which might best support a successful outcomes.
Pros:
- Unified Leadership: A single point of leadership (the PM) ensures streamlined decision-making and a cohesive project vision. This can prevent confusion and fragmentation of goals.
- Clear Accountability: With the PM in charge, there is a clear line of accountability for the overall project. It reduces potential overlap or conflict in leadership.
- Resource Allocation: PMs often have control over project resources, so their leadership allows for more efficient allocation, minimizing bottlenecks that could arise if resources are divided between PM and CM.
Cons:
- Limited Change Focus: If the PM lacks deep expertise in Change Management, change initiatives may not get the necessary attention, leading to resistance or adoption issues.
- Conflict of Priorities: PMs are often focused on timelines, budgets, and deliverables, which may conflict with the CM’s focus on people, culture, and behavioral change. This misalignment could hinder the project’s overall success.
- Limited Influence for CM: The CM might struggle to advocate for necessary change strategies if they are seen as secondary to the PM’s priorities, leading to diluted change efforts.
Pros:
- People-Centric Focus: Prioritizing the CM’s leadership ensures that people, culture, and organizational alignment are central to the project. This can enhance adoption and sustainability of change.
- Behavioral Alignment: Since change initiatives often require behavioral shifts, having the CM lead ensures that these aspects are not sidelined in favor of purely technical or operational outcomes.
- Proactive Change Management: With the CM at the helm, resistance to change can be anticipated and managed earlier in the project lifecycle, potentially preventing major disruptions.
Cons:
- Operational Disconnect: CMs may not have the same level of expertise in technical project management, which could lead to challenges in managing project scope, timelines, and budgets efficiently.
- Lack of Structure: Change initiatives without strong operational backing may face delays or lack the rigor needed to ensure deliverables are met on time.
- Tension Over Deliverables: If the PM reports to the CM, there might be tension over the prioritization of tasks. Operational aspects of the project could take a backseat to people-centric initiatives, leading to imbalances.
Pros:
- Balanced Focus on People and Process … this model ensures that both the operational aspects (managed by the PM) and the people-centric aspects (managed by the CM) receive equal attention. This balance can lead to higher adoption rates and smoother transitions.
- Holistic Decision-Making … shared responsibility promotes a more comprehensive decision-making process, where both the technical and human elements of change are considered. This can result in more informed and sustainable project outcomes.
- Reduced Overload on One Role … by sharing responsibility, neither the PM nor the CM is overloaded with the entire weight of the project’s success. This can prevent burnout and allow both roles to focus on their areas of expertise.
- Collaborative Culture … equal responsibility encourages collaboration and fosters a culture of partnership. This can improve communication, alignment, and problem-solving within the project team.
- Flexibility in Leadership … in situations where the project focus shifts between technical execution and change management, having equal responsibility allows the leadership emphasis to adapt as needed without creating power struggles.
Cons:
- Potential for Conflict … equal responsibility can lead to conflicts over decision-making if the PM and CM have different priorities or strategies. Without a clear mechanism for resolving disputes, this could stall progress or create tension within the team.
- Ambiguity in Leadership … when both roles hold equal responsibility, it may become unclear who has the final say in critical decisions. This ambiguity can slow down decision-making and create confusion among the broader team.
- Duplication of Effort … there is a risk of duplicating efforts or stepping on each other’s toes, especially if roles and responsibilities aren’t clearly defined. This can lead to inefficiencies and resource wastage.
- Requires Strong Collaboration Skills … for this model to work, both the CM and PM need strong collaboration and interpersonal skills. Any lack of cooperation or miscommunication can quickly derail the project.
- Leadership Power Struggles … power dynamics can become problematic if either the PM or CM tries to assert dominance over the other, leading to potential struggles for control that could negatively impact the project.
DEALING WITH THE COMPLEXITIES
Yep all well and good, but it ain't as easy as that is it? How do you deal with the inevitable “drawbacks” that a collaborative model is bound to throw up? Because in my experience there are bound to be (loads).
First off let’s talk clearly defined Roles and Responsibilities. Even with equal responsibility, the CM and PM must have well-defined areas of focus. For example, the PM may lead on project scope, timelines, and deliverables, while the CM leads on stakeholder engagement, communication, and change adoption. This ensures clarity in leadership while maintaining balance.
Next up, an equally important aspect is that of having a Joint Decision-Making Framework which will need to be established to outline how the CM and PM will collaborate on key decisions. This could include regular meetings, defined processes for resolving conflicts, and clear escalation paths if agreement cannot be reached.
Next up good old communication. Having a sound Unified Communication Strategy that ensures both the CM and PM communicate a consistent message to the team and stakeholders is a must otherwise misalignment in messaging can create confusion and undermine both leaders’ authority.
I would put this next one as “numero uno” because, as we should all know from the plethora of surveys and research over the years, nothing makes change more successful than a good solid Executive Sponsorship Senior Leader who should actively support the equal responsibility model and be available to mediate if necessary. Their endorsement of this approach can prevent power struggles and reinforce the importance of both roles.
And finally, the good old perennial debate of success and failure, it is imperative that both parties agree and//or have shared KPIs and Metrics You will need to set shared key performance indicators (KPIs) and success metrics that both are responsible for achieving. This promotes alignment and ensures that both leaders are working towards the same goals.
One last thought before I put my brain in neutral …
The success of this model hinges on the relationship between the CM and PM, as well as the broader organizational culture's ability to support and reinforce shared leadership. While equal responsibility between the CM and PM can be an effective model, it requires careful planning, clear role definition, and strong collaboration. If managed well, this approach can deliver a balanced focus on both operational efficiency and change adoption, leading to more successful project outcomes. However, without the right structures in place, it risks creating confusion, conflict, or inefficiencies.
OTHER ARTICLES/POSTS ON THE SUBJECT OF PM AND CM
Driving successful organisational change through next-generation PMO's
2 个月Knowing the difference between a "program" and a "project" helps! https://www.prince2.com/uk/blog/project-vs-programme The Sponsor should lead - but perhaps few Sponsors have the awareness of this part of their role. The "Program Manager" provides day-to-day management of the "program" from initiation to handover to BAU when benefit realisation has sufficiently kicked in. "Project Managers" and "Change Managers" report into the "Program Manager". "Project Managers" come and go as outputs from the individual "projects" within the "program" are delivered. A "Benefits Manager" role, reporting to the "Program Manager" is appointed early in the "program" and has a role to play throughout the "program". And yes it is important that a "Change Manager" role is brought onboard very early in the "program" and plays an important role throughout the "program".
Sr. Organizational Change Manager
2 个月Insightful!
First time I came across a Change Manager I came to the conclusion the role was neither fish nor fowl and was viewed as not part of the business by business and not part of IT by IT. In reality the individual had very little clout to make things happen. To be clear projects are Business projects with an IT component, so in reality should be led by a business manager with the IT PM reporting into this person. Think builder. When I employed a builder I had oversight over all aspects of the build and I provided updates to the boss (my wife). If things went wrong it was my bad. Let's not forget that the business has a lot to do, from nominating individuals to define requirements, and making sure they are available, to defining new roles and handling any redundancies.
???? ???? ?? I Publishing you @ Forbes, Yahoo, Vogue, Business Insider and more I Helping You Grow on LinkedIn I Connect for Promoting Your AI Tool
2 个月Interesting debate! PMs and CMs both play crucial roles, but who should lead depends on the project.
Pragmatic IT Strategist | Digital Transformation Advisory | CIO Business Visionary | ERP Consultancy | Data Analytics
2 个月Interesting article! I’d have to agree with the collaborative approach. To use a metaphor (without turning this into a lengthy post), Change Management (CM) is like the bulldozer that clears the path for the Project Manager (PM) to move smoothly from point A to point B and beyond. Clearing the path involves navigating culture, managing organizational restructuring, and sometimes shifting from a traditional hierarchy to a more process-oriented structure. Disclaimer: The bulldozer shouldn’t be seen as an aggressive machine recklessly wiping out everything in its way. Think of it more like a friendly, yet determined gardener trimming the bushes and moving the rocks, just making sure the path is clear without any unnecessary destruction! ????