Heroic management.

Dear Editor:

The recent article "Heroics, Process, and Program Management" (PM, September-December 2003) properly honors the many heroes that deliver repeated successes despite the challenges imposed by an overly bureaucratic Defense establishment. Unfortunately, the authors quickly confuse the issue by describing heroics as an acceptable substitute for basic project management skills. Effective organizations need both. To truly honor our heroes, we should recognize them as the "sprinters" who doggedly carry projects across the finish line when things don't go as expected. Managers must use these valuable resources wisely--good coaches don't force sprinters to run marathons. Individuals get tired, transfer (along with their heroic knowledge), and sometimes fail to grasp essential elements of the "big picture" precisely because they're individuals. It's the manager's responsibility to ensure organizational learning and synergy by providing an enabling framework which allows everyone on the team to be a hero when the opportunity arises. Let's honor the heroes, but if you're managing by heroics, you're not managing!

Lt. Col. Rod Wilkinson USAF (retired)

The authors respond: We appreciate the thoughtful comments. We hope our article did not give the impression that we advocate heroics as a substitute for good management or that managing by heroics is the best way to proceed. Rather, we were challenging the belief that heroics are something to be avoided, rejected, or disparaged. As our conclusion stated, heroics can indeed be a sign of a disorganized mess (i.e., a lack of solid management practices),... but even in that case, the heroes are still heroic and their contributions should not be downplayed.