As product lifecycles shorten, functional groups must build seamless relationships to prevent schedule slips and rework. The pharmaceutical industry is a good example of this trend. Hoping to produce five or six new chemical entities per year--and aiming for blockbusters--pharmaceutical executives and professionals face the daunting dilemma of managing how scarce resources, people and time are allocated across projects. This article, based on field research in a biotechnology company, argues that good project managers are able to manage six polarities, which are intrinsic to their work. They must 1) take account of the big picture of the project versus pay attention to the details; 2) help team members advance a project versus help team members shut down a project; 3) play a supporting role to enable the project leader to lead versus provide project leadership; 4) be responsible for the outcome of a particular project versus be responsible for the outcome of the company's of projects; 5) Get resources for the team from the functional groups versus protect the functional groups from excessive demands on their time, attention and resources; and 6) focus on the project versus focus on the context for the project. I conclude with three suggestions for how project managers can acquire these skills. The Polarities Framework Barry Johnson has argued that most organizational dilemmas confront us with polarities that we must manage rather than resolve once and for all (1). For example, the skilled manager of a team is aware that she must constantly tack back and forth between focusing on the team's performance as a whole and on each individual team member's performance. Were she to focus on one to the exclusion of the other, we would surmise that she was not as effective as she could be. Similarly, a physician is required to give his or her patients undivided attention. Yet physicians are constantly allocating their attention and resources across their portfolio of patients, deciding which needs more or less attention at any given moment. How do they manage this seemingly contradictory task? How do they balance focusing on the individual patient while focusing on their of patients? Typically, experts become more proficient when they develop a rich set of of based on their experience of managing this dilemma effectively. As Gary Klein has emphasized, these rules of thumb are not so much formal decision rules as they are guidelines to help the expert recognize a particular pattern or configuration of constraints, opportunities and resources (2). For example, a patient facing an immediate life or death situation will get the physician's immediate attention, while other patients may receive painkillers to minimize their suffering as they wait for the physician's diagnosis. The effective physician knows how to use a set of tactics, administering painkillers versus doing emergency surgery, to optimize the well-being of his portfolio of patients. Following Barry Johnson, I call the process of exercising this skill, management. The concept of polarity management is often explicated in the form of a 2 x 2 table, where each dimension of the polarity is categorized into its hi or lo state. The box Hi-Hi (Table 1) represents the most expert exercise of the skill under consideration. Table 1.--Four Dimensions of Polarity Pay Attention to Individual Patients Pay Lo Hi Attention to Hi May neglect the Balances Portfolio short-term management of Patients needs of with individual patients he/she attention cannot attend to (Expert) (e.g., pain management) Lo Poor physician Does not manage practice the caseload (Novice) of patients well The Six Polarities I suggest that project managers in pharmaceutical firms (and any firm in which development projects are the lifeblood) are expected to manage the six polarities discussed below. …