Theory also says that people want projects because they have benefits, and benefits are usually associated with change.
Okay, so projects are about change, but they are also about the people delivering that change. And successful change needs good leadership and probably some form of vision in order to be implemented appropriately. So I'm a Project Leader, right? Then why am I always referred to as a Project Manager?
Management is about maintaining the status quo, achieving performance targets and operational efficiencies, and keeping things ticking along nicely thank you. That's what some HR people tell me anyway. Yes, I do some of that, that's where I have to make sure that the right people (and their resources) are in the right place at the right time even if they do not want to be, keep them enthused, solve problems, liaise and communicate with lots of stakeholders, and all the other softer skills kind of things that I think they pay me for. So are they getting from me more or less than they should?
Sometimes people talk about team leadership, and I often 'manage' the leaders of teams, does that then make me a Meta-Team Leader or a Mega-Team Manager? Whatever they want to call me, perhaps it is time to re-think exactly what it is I do looking beyond just project budgets, plans and outcomes - and that's lead, manage, coordinate ... coerce, convince, connive ... The 'Dark Side' of what it is that needs to be done to get the job completed. Is that really what we do?