It's about power. For better or worse, PM is a power center in many organizations, and the implication is that if you want to vest power in someone, they should be strong in multiple disciplines to wield it responsibly. That's why you don't see "top 1% HRBP" articles. (The fact that HR decided they had to add "business partner" to their …
It's about power. For better or worse, PM is a power center in many organizations, and the implication is that if you want to vest power in someone, they should be strong in multiple disciplines to wield it responsibly. That's why you don't see "top 1% HRBP" articles. (The fact that HR decided they had to add "business partner" to their titles tells me how much they are NOT seen as a business partner by executive teams.) But you do see "top CEO" articles. Heck, HBR does a review every year of them.
I agree with you -- headlines like this are harmful and gatekeep-y. But if the point is to bring forth an author's viewpoint about what qualities and behaviors make a good versus great PM, I think that's still a fine topic of debate.
It's about power. For better or worse, PM is a power center in many organizations, and the implication is that if you want to vest power in someone, they should be strong in multiple disciplines to wield it responsibly. That's why you don't see "top 1% HRBP" articles. (The fact that HR decided they had to add "business partner" to their titles tells me how much they are NOT seen as a business partner by executive teams.) But you do see "top CEO" articles. Heck, HBR does a review every year of them.
I agree with you -- headlines like this are harmful and gatekeep-y. But if the point is to bring forth an author's viewpoint about what qualities and behaviors make a good versus great PM, I think that's still a fine topic of debate.