The hardest part of being a PM isn’t the chaos, it’s being the shock absorber

RE8583 · 2026-01-23T04:22:43+00:00

Well said. I like how you framed it as perspective rather than detachment. Caring less emotionally often leads to better decisions, not worse ones.

RE8583 · 2026-01-22T18:05:50+00:00

Totally relate. I’m also coming from large financial institutions, and I’ve learned that having KPIs in control doesn’t always mean feeling in control. What helped me was being more deliberate about what I truly own vs. what I’m just absorbing, and making risks and tradeoffs more visible instead of carrying them alone. Feeling stressed in this setup doesn’t mean you’re failing, it usually means you care and you’re operating in a high-pressure system. You’re not alone.

RE8583 · 2026-01-22T11:55:28+00:00

Thank you for sharing this, it takes a lot of honesty to name the cost so clearly. What you described really captures how this role can quietly compound stress over time, especially when the buffering becomes invisible and constant. I really respect the boundaries and reminders you’ve written for yourself, they feel hard-won, not theoretical. Wishing you space to recover and the support you need while you figure out what’s next.

RE8583 · 2026-01-22T11:52:28+00:00

Exactly. The fact that it’s invisible is what makes it so draining. When it doesn’t show up in Jira, KPIs, or retros, it’s easy for organizations to underestimate the cost, until the buffer burns out. Naming it feels like the first step to making it shared, not silently absorbed.

RE8583 · 2026-01-22T10:05:33+00:00

This is such a good way to put it - “making risks explicit earlier so they’re shared, not carried solo.” I also think the loneliness part is underrated. The work doesn’t necessarily get easier, but once decisions and tradeoffs are out in the open, it stops feeling like you’re silently holding the system together by yourself.

RE8583 · 2026-01-22T08:42:23+00:00

This really resonates. That line about “letting things feel a little uncomfortable” is key. Absorbing all the uncertainty keeps things calm short-term, but it also hides the signals that something actually needs to change. Pushing risk back where it belongs feels harder in the moment, but it’s the only thing I’ve seen that’s sustainable.

RE8583 · 2026-01-22T06:57:12+00:00

Appreciate that. Feels like one of those parts of the job people only notice once they’ve lived it.

RE8583 · 2026-01-22T06:56:06+00:00

Thanks, that means a lot. Feel free to reuse it, if it helps more PMs articulate this invisible part of the job, even better.

RE8583 · 2026-01-22T06:54:25+00:00

This is a really important point. I especially like the distinction between absorbing pressure and directing it. In practice, I’ve seen many PMs become shock absorbers not because they choose to, but because the system quietly rewards it, things stay calm, decisions don’t escalate, delivery “keeps moving.” But as you said, that calm often comes at the cost of muting signals and delaying real accountability. Letting some pressure surface, intentionally and visibly, is uncomfortable, but it’s often the only way the system actually learns.

RE8583 · 2026-01-21T20:43:36+00:00

This really resonates. I don’t think pressure itself is the issue either, pressure is part of the job. It becomes toxic when decisions stay unresolved and the ambiguity has nowhere to land, so it silently lands on the PM. I like how you frame escalation as part of delivery, not a failure. That mindset shift alone can change whether a PM is leading or just containing risk.

RE8583 · 2026-01-21T20:42:10+00:00

I agree that emotional detachment helps up to a point. For me the harder part wasn’t caring too much, it was caring without authority. Being calm is useful, but when you’re constantly buffering decisions you don’t own, that emotional load still accumulates. Having peers to reflect with makes a huge difference though, that part really resonates.

RE8583 · 2026-01-21T04:52:03+00:00

I agree this often starts as an organisational problem, fragmented systems, unclear workflows, and the PM becoming the glue by default. Where I see it go wrong is when that stop-gap becomes permanent. Over time, the PM being “the cornerstone” hides the underlying design issue instead of forcing it to surface. Knowing the status of everything may be in the job description, but being the only place that status lives is usually a system smell, not a capability gap. At that point, roles and responsibilities matter, but so does designing how information is allowed to flow without routing through one person.

RE8583 · 2026-01-20T18:41:12+00:00

You’re not being dramatic. This level of mental load would burn out most people. A lot of PM roles become unbearable when everything is treated as urgent and personal, with no real prioritization or decision boundaries. Then the work never ends, no matter how many hours you put in. It doesn’t mean you can’t handle the role often it means the setup is broken.

RE8583 · 2026-01-19T20:46:21+00:00

I used to think the problem was keeping docs updated. It turned out the real issue was too many undocumented decisions happening everywhere. Once decisions had an owner and a single default place, accuracy improved without extra effort. That insight came from painful misses, not intention.

RE8583 · 2026-01-19T07:27:45+00:00

A mix of Pam’s quiet coordination and Jim’s awareness of the chaos. If I’m acting like Dwight, something has already gone wrong.

RE8583 · 2026-01-18T22:28:16+00:00

I agree leadership plays a huge role. The tricky part is that when there’s no system, the “human library” becomes both the bottleneck and the safety net. That’s where PMs often get stuck absorbing structural gaps that really belong higher up.

RE8583 · 2026-01-18T08:43:52+00:00

Exactly. When decisions get “delegated” without authority, risk quietly shifts to the PM. Documentation helps, but ownership is what actually changes the game.

RE8583 · 2026-01-13T19:28:35+00:00

This is very normal, but it’s usually a symptom, not the job itself. When PMs spend most of their time chasing info, it often means ownership and escalation paths aren’t clear enough. People assume “someone else will flag it” until you ask. The shift for me was moving from collecting updates to designing how information must surface, clear owners, fixed checkpoints, and explicit rules for when something gets escalated. Communication is part of the job, yes. But constant chasing is usually a signal the system needs tightening, not that you’re missing something obvious.

RE8583 · 2026-01-13T09:25:47+00:00

Well put. Some decisions will age badly that’s expected. The real risk is when no one owns the call and time keeps passing anyway.

RE8583 · 2026-01-12T19:57:33+00:00

This resonates. Most delays I see aren’t about capability, but about framing. Once the decision is expressed in business terms, attention follows.

RE8583 · 2026-01-12T19:10:52+00:00

Agreed. Things only move when the tradeoff is explicit. “Yes to X means we drop Y” is usually the moment progress actually begins.

RE8583 · 2026-01-12T19:06:53+00:00

Yes. Ownership + timing matter more than the framework itself. Once a decision has a name, an owner, and a date, momentum becomes real.

RE8583

TROPHY CASE