Most teams have a project manager. Someone whose job is to keep things organized, on track, and moving forward.
But some teams don't. They distribute the PM work across the team. Everyone co manages the project.
Is that brilliant, or just asking for chaos?
The Case Against a PM Role
Here's the argument for PM less teams:
PMs can become bottlenecks. If everyone needs the PM to make decisions or update status, velocity suffers.
Teams can become dependent. Instead of self organizing, they wait for the PM to tell them what to do.
PMs add overhead. Another person in meetings. Another layer between the work and the team.
Small teams don't need one. When you're five people building a product, everyone already knows what's happening. A dedicated PM is overkill.
Distributed ownership increases engagement. When everyone shares responsibility for success, they're more invested.
The Case For a PM Role
But there's a reason most teams have PMs:
Someone needs to own coordination. Without a PM, coordination becomes everyone's problem and no one's responsibility.
Context gets fragmented. When ten people each hold 10% of the project context, no one has the full picture.
Prioritization needs an owner. Teams can debate priorities, but someone needs to make the final call.
Stakeholder management is work. Shielding the team from noise, communicating status, managing expectations. That's a full time job.
Focus is preserved. If engineers are also doing PM work, they're context switching constantly. A PM lets them stay focused on building.
What "No PM" Actually Looks Like
Teams without a dedicated PM don't have no project management. They distribute it:
Engineers own delivery. They plan their own work, coordinate dependencies, and manage technical scope.
Designers own the roadmap. They gather user feedback, define what to build, and prioritize.
Someone facilitates. Not a PM, but maybe a tech lead or product person who runs planning and keeps things moving.
Everyone shares status. Updates are async. No one "chases" for information.
The team self organizes. When priorities shift, the team discusses and adapts without needing a PM to direct them.
This works, but only under specific conditions.
When It Works
PM less teams thrive when:
The team is small. Five people or fewer. At that size, coordination is light and informal works.
The team is senior. Everyone knows how to self manage. They don't need structure imposed.
Trust is high. People are aligned, communicate well, and don't need oversight.
Scope is clear. When the goal and strategy are well defined, you don't need a PM to clarify direction.
The team is colocated or has strong async practices. Coordination needs to be frictionless.
When It Breaks Down
PM less teams struggle when:
Coordination overhead grows. At 10+ people, informal coordination doesn't scale.
Alignment is weak. If people don't agree on priorities, someone needs to own that decision.
Stakeholders demand attention. Managing up, sideways, and external communication takes time.
The team lacks experience. Junior teams need more structure and guidance.
Conflict emerges. When there's disagreement, who makes the call?
In these cases, the team either devolves into chaos or someone starts acting like a PM anyway.
The Accidental PM
Here's what often happens: you say "no PM role," but someone ends up doing the work anyway.
The tech lead starts running planning. The designer starts managing stakeholders. Someone starts tracking progress and chasing blockers.
They're doing PM work. They just don't have the title.
And because it's not their official role, they do it in addition to their other responsibilities. Now they're overloaded and context switching constantly.
This is the worst of both worlds: PM work without dedicated time or authority.
The Hybrid Models
Some teams split the difference:
Rotating PM: Someone takes PM duties for a sprint or quarter, then passes it to someone else. This distributes the load and builds shared understanding.
Part time PM: A tech lead or product person spends 20-30% of their time on PM work. Not a full role, but acknowledged and timeboxed.
PM as facilitator: The PM doesn't make decisions or own the roadmap. They just run meetings, track progress, and unblock people. The team owns the strategy.
These can work well for mid sized teams that don't need full time PM but need more than nothing.
The Key Skills
Whether you have a PM or not, someone needs to do these things:
Maintain clarity on priorities. What's most important right now?
Track progress. Are we on track? Where are we stuck?
Unblock people. When someone hits a wall, help them get past it.
Coordinate dependencies. Make sure work happens in the right order.
Communicate with stakeholders. Keep external parties informed and manage their expectations.
Facilitate decisions. When the team disagrees, drive toward resolution.
If no one's doing these things, the project will drift.
The Real Question
The question isn't "should we have a PM?" It's: "How do we want to distribute PM work?"
You can give it to one person full time. You can share it across the team. You can rotate it.
But the work itself is necessary. Someone has to own coordination, or it won't happen.
The Bottom Line
Can you manage projects without a PM role?
Yes, if the team is small, senior, aligned, and has strong self organization skills.
But most teams benefit from someone owning the PM work, even if it's not a full time dedicated role.
The mistake is assuming "no PM" means "no project management." The work still needs to happen.
The question is who does it, and how.
Choose intentionally. Don't just drift into chaos and call it autonomy.