Project Manager - "Jack of all trades, master of none"?

Question

Project management

Hello,

Our PM is a kind of god object: it accepts a project, writes documentation, designs UI and API, plans, acts as a Scrum master for the team, maintains all project reports, issues invoices to the client. If necessary, maybe write tests for the API, manually test, draw buttons in Photoshop, sometimes even code. Such a wonderful amateur - everything, but nothing in depth

Actually, I found a quote on the Internet that led me to some thoughts.
There is an opinion that it is necessary to develop and build a career only in one specific area, however, facts and practice show that the PM should be aware of a little bit of everything.
So, the question is: is it normal that the circumstances and the specifics of the project force the PMA to develop in all directions, in addition to management (layout, marketing, sales, administration, etc.), including directly performing some of the tasks (!), but not an expert in any of them? Is it worth it for such a person to start looking for another job in a specific profile, if such a situation at his current place of work has not changed for quite a long time?
I will be glad to any answers and thoughts on the topic. Thank you!

Answer 1

The PM should be able to do everything, but should not do everything
in the above - buttons, UI API and invoices to the client are not the business of
the PM
; either in programming: there should be specialization, but in general you need to have an idea about everything or where you can quickly get it, you
can sit in one place, but the problem of such sitting is in a lot of stress after a job change, it is unlikely that there will be another exactly such project, it will be required specialization, and it’s just bad with it
based on their last one - it’s more reliable to develop towards programming, and management is more profitable

Answer 2

Many young people confuse a job title with a real career.
Different companies, cities, countries - different official duties. You need to build a career not on paper, but in reality.
The adequacy of a person depends on what he was able to plan, and how much reality corresponds to this. Therefore, if you do not like that circumstances do not turn out the way you want, you can quit and look for something else. Will you find? Or reconcile? This is YOUR career, your choice. Your opportunities

Answer 3

It seems to me that the answer is, if a person is satisfied with this state of affairs, then he should not change his job, and vice versa. It's pointless to argue whether this is normal or not.

Answer 4

As Peter Ponomarev , whose opinion I share, says , the task of a project management manager is to set tasks for performers in their language to achieve business goals set by directors. Accordingly, in order to do this, it is important to understand the language of the performers. Since the performers are diverse (backend programmers, frontend programmers, testers, designers, copywriters, etc.), the project manager must understand different directions just enough to effectively reformulate business requirements (from the level of directors) to the level of final specialists who manually perform the final tasks.
In my opinion, doing work for employees is a bad practice that can be used only in extreme cases - only in the very short term (if there is an emergency, and employees are physically unable to perform the task effectively at the moment).
If in other cases to do the work for subordinates, then:
1. A signal is sent to them that they can not try to do this work.
2. Employees don't grow.
3. Only one thing you need (or in fact the employees are not motivated - then why are they needed, or it seems to you that "only you need", but in fact - you are afraid / do not know how to delegate) / you try consciously (not trusting the employees) or unconsciously (trying to become indispensable) close part of the tasks to yourself. You go on vacation / get sick / quit - and besides you, no one can solve the problem in an emergency situation.
4. There will be no one to leave behind in case of promotion / leaving the company. So, after yourself, you will leave a problem for the company instead of leaving a successor (and the glory of yourself as a person who solves the problems of the company - in this case, leaves a replacement for himself - and does not create problems).
Personally, I believe that a Project Manager is one who effectively (predictably) provides the company (in the person of directors and owners) with a predictable result in the form of projects completed (or ongoing) within the framework set from above (by directors / owners / clients / marketers / salesmen). - depending on the company) deadlines and budgets. The task of the project manager is to ensure that the goals of the project are achieved by the forces of subordinates, but under personal responsibility (for example, within Agile / Scrum, you can actively involve the team in decision-making, ask the team's opinion on various issues, but the responsibility for the success or failure of the project is on the project manager. If anything - they ask him, dismiss him / reward him, and employees are only responsible for the performance / non-performance / poor performance of their tasks - and they, in turn,

Answer 5

It seems to me that he is just a great person and even I would boldly hire him.

Answer 6

Correctly written here. Hmm. I don’t think that the PM will have the strength and time to fulfill his main duties (management, after all), if he sits in Photoshop and codes in parallel.
It’s just that our people are greedy, they want to eat fish and sit somewhere - everyone needs a priest, a reaper, and a player on the pipe, but the fact that after prayer and harvest you want to sleep, and not play the pipe - everyone cares, let the person burn, let's hire another.

Answer 7

In my humble understanding, a PM is a person who is personally responsible for the success of a project entrusted to him by a sponsor. Responds personally. For the field of software outsourcing, success is the achievement of an acceptable quality result required by the Customer within the time and resource constraints for the Sponsor to receive profit. Once again - the real goal of the manager's activity is the receipt by the Sponsor (conditionally - the Employer) of profit. Everything else, even achieving results, is secondary.

Answer 8

This is a direct management issue, the PM must understand what he is implementing, otherwise he will not be able to properly accept the results from the performers. And if the contractor is an external company, then you can generally fly with the project.
On the other hand, the PM should not do the work for the performers.