page 354

CHAPTER

TEN

10

Being an Effective Project Manager

page 355

Images

I couldn’t wait to be the manager of my own project and run the project the way I thought it should be done. Boy, did I have a lot to learn!

—First-time project manager

This chapter is based on the premise that one of the keys to being an effective project manager is building cooperative relationships among different groups of people to complete projects. Project success does not just depend on the performance of the project team. Success or failure often depends on the contributions of top management, functional managers, customers, suppliers, contractors, and others.

The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the differences between managing and leading a project. The importance of engaging project stakeholders is then introduced. Managers require a broad influence base to be effective in this area. Different sources of influence are discussed and are used to describe how project managers build social capital. This management style necessitates constant interacting with different groups of people whom project managers depend on. Special attention is devoted to managing the critical relationship with top management and the importance of leading by example. The importance of gaining cooperation in ways that build and sustain the page 356trust of others is emphasized. The chapter concludes by identifying personal attributes associated with being an effective project manager. Subsequent chapters will expand on these ideas in a discussion of managing the project team and working with people outside the organization. It should be noted that the material presented in this chapter is from the point of view of a project manager assigned to a traditional, plan-driven project, although many of the ideas would apply to those leading agile projects. Applications will be addressed in Chapter 15.

10.1 Managing versus Leading a Project

In a perfect world, the project manager would simply implement the project plan and the project would be completed. The project manager would work with others to formulate a schedule, organize a project team, keep track of progress, and announce what needs to be done next, and then everyone would charge along. Of course, no one lives in a perfect world, and rarely does everything go according to plan. Project participants get testy; they fail to get along with each other; other departments are unable to fulfill their commitments; technical glitches arise; work takes longer than expected. The project manager’s job is to get the project back on track. A manager expedites certain activities; figures out ways to solve technical problems; serves as peacemaker when tensions rise; and makes appropriate trade-offs among the time, cost, and scope of the project.

However, project managers often do more than put out fires and keep the project on track. They also innovate and adapt to ever-changing circumstances. They sometimes have to deviate from what was planned and introduce significant changes in the project scope and schedule to respond to unforeseen threats or opportunities. For example, customers’ needs may change, requiring significant design changes midway through the project. Competitors may release new products that dictate crashing project deadlines. Working relationships among project participants may break down, requiring a reformulation of the project team. Ultimately, what was planned or expected in the beginning may be very different from what was accomplished by the end of the project.

Project managers are responsible for integrating assigned resources to complete the project according to plan. At the same time they need to initiate changes in plans and schedules as persistent problems make plans unworkable. In other words, managers want to keep the project going while making necessary adjustments along the way. According to Kotter (1990) these two different activities represent the distinction between management and leadership. Management is about coping with complexity, while leadership is about coping with change.

Good management brings about order and stability by formulating plans and objectives, designing structures and procedures, monitoring results against plans, and taking corrective action when necessary. Leadership involves recognizing and articulating the need to significantly alter the direction and operation of the project, aligning people to the new direction, and motivating them to work together to overcome hurdles produced by the change and to realize new objectives.

Strong leadership, while usually desirable, is not always necessary to successfully complete a project. Well-defined projects that encounter no significant surprises require little leadership, as might be the case in constructing a conventional apartment building in which the project manager simply administrates the project plan. Conversely, the higher the degree of uncertainty encountered on a project—whether in terms of changes in project scope, technological stalemates, or breakdowns in coordination between people—the more leadership is required. For example, strong page 357leadership would be needed for a software development project in which the parameters are always changing to meet developments in the industry.

It takes a special person to perform both roles well. Some individuals are great visionaries who are good at exciting people about change. Too often, though, these people lack the discipline or patience to deal with the day-to-day drudgeries of managing. Likewise, there are individuals who are very well organized and methodical but lack the ability to inspire others.

Strong leaders can compensate for their managerial weaknesses by having trusted assistants who oversee and manage the details of the project. Conversely, a weak leader can complement his strengths by having assistants who are good at sensing the need to change and rallying project participants. Still, one of the things that make good project managers so valuable to an organization is that they have the ability to both manage and lead a project. In doing so they recognize the need to create a social network that allows them to find out what needs to be done and obtain the cooperation necessary to achieve it.

10.2 Engaging Project Stakeholders

First-time project managers are eager to implement their own ideas and manage their people to successfully complete their project. What they soon find out is that project success depends on the cooperation of a wide range of individuals, many of whom do not directly report to them. For example, during the course of a system integration project, a project manager was surprised by how much time she was spending negotiating and working with vendors, consultants, technical specialists, and other functional managers:

Instead of working with my people to complete the project, I found myself being constantly pulled and tugged by demands of different groups of people who were not directly involved in the project but had a vested interest in the outcome.

Too often when new project managers do find time to work directly on the project, they adopt a hands-on approach to managing the project. They choose this style not because they are power-hungry egomaniacs but because they are eager to achieve results. They become quickly frustrated by how slowly things operate, the number of people that have to be brought on board, and the difficulty of gaining cooperation. Unfortunately, as this frustration builds, the natural temptation is to exert more pressure and get more heavily involved in the project. These project managers quickly earn the reputation of “micro managing” and begin to lose sight of the real role they play on guiding a project.

Some new managers never break out of this vicious cycle. Others soon realize that authority does not equal influence and that being an effective project manager involves managing a much more complex set of stakeholders than they had anticipated. They encounter a web of relationships that requires a much broader spectrum of influence than they felt was necessary or even possible.

For example, a significant project, whether it involves renovating a bridge, creating a new product, or installing a new information system, will likely involve, in one way or another, working with a number of different groups of stakeholders. First, there is the core group of specialists assigned to complete the project. This group is likely to be supplemented at different times by professionals who work on specific segments of the project. Second, there are groups of people within the performing organization who are either directly or indirectly involved with the project. The most notable is top management, to whom the project manager is accountable. There are also other managers, page 358who provide resources and/or may be responsible for specific segments of the project, and administrative support services such as Human Resources, Finance, and so on. Depending on the nature of the project, a number of groups outside the organization influence the success of the project; the most important is the customer for which the project is designed (see Figure 10.1).

FIGURE 10.1
Network of Stakeholders

Images

Each of these groups of stakeholders brings different expertise, standards, priorities, and agendas to the project. Stakeholders are people and organizations that are actively involved in the project or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by the project (Project Management Institute, 2017). The sheer breadth and complexity of stakeholder relationships distinguish project management from regular management. To be effective, a project manager must understand how stakeholders can affect the project and develop methods for managing the dependency. The nature of these dependencies is identified here:

These relationships are interdependent in that a project manager’s ability to work effectively with one group will affect his ability to engage other groups. For example, functional managers are likely to be less cooperative if they perceive that top management’s commitment to the project is waning. Conversely, the ability of the project manager to buffer the team from excessive interference from a client is likely to increase his standing with the project team.

The project management structure being used will influence the number and degree of external dependencies that need to be engaged. One advantage of creating page 360a dedicated project team is that it reduces dependencies, especially within the organization, because most of the resources are assigned to the project. Conversely, a functional matrix structure increases dependencies, with the result that the project manager is much more reliant upon functional colleagues for work and staff.

The old-fashioned view of managing projects emphasized planning and directing the project team; the new perspective emphasizes engaging project stakeholders and anticipating change as the most important jobs. Project managers need to be able to assuage the concerns of customers, sustain support for the project at higher levels of the organization, and quickly identify problems that threaten project work while defending the integrity of the project and the interests of the project participants.1

Within this web of relationships, the project manager must find out what needs to be done to achieve the goals of the project and build a cooperative network to accomplish it. Project managers must do so without the requisite authority to expect or demand cooperation. Doing so requires sound communication skills, political savvy, and a broad influence base. See Snapshot from Practice 10.1: The Project Manager as Conductor for more on what makes project managers special. See Research Highlight 10.1: Give and Take for an interesting finding regarding this concept.

page 361

10.3 Influence as Exchange

To successfully manage a project, a manager must adroitly build a cooperative network among divergent allies. Networks are mutually beneficial alliances that are generally governed by the law of reciprocity (Grant, 2013; Kaplan, 1984). The basic principle is that “one good deed deserves another, and likewise one bad deed deserves another.” The primary way to gain cooperation is to provide resources and services for others in exchange for future resources and services. This is the age-old maxim “Quid pro quo (something for something)” or, in today’s vernacular, “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”

Cohen and Bradford (1990) described the exchange view of influence as “currencies.” If you want to do business in a given country, you have to be prepared to use the appropriate currency, and the exchange rates can change over time as conditions change. In the same way, what is valued by a marketing manager may be different from what is valued by a veteran project engineer, and you are likely to need to use different influence currency to obtain the cooperation of each individual. Although this analogy is a bit of an oversimplification, the key premise holds true that in the long page 362run, “debit” and “credit” accounts must be balanced for cooperative relationships to work. Table 10.1 presents the commonly traded organizational currencies identified by Cohen and Bradford; they are then discussed in more detail in the following sections.

TABLE 10-1
Commonly Traded Organizational Currencies

Task-related currencies
Resources Lending or giving money, budget increases, personnel, etc.
Assistance Helping with existing projects or undertaking unwanted tasks.
Cooperation Giving task support, providing quicker response time, or aiding implementation.
Information Providing organizational as well as technical knowledge.
Position-related currencies
Advancement Giving a task or assignment that can result in promotion.
Recognition Acknowledging effort, accomplishments, or abilities.
Visibility Providing a chance to be known by higher-ups or significant others in the organization.
Network/contacts Providing opportunities for linking with others.
Inspiration-related currencies
Vision Being involved in a task that has larger significance for the unit, organization, customer, or society.
Excellence Having a chance to do important things really well.
Ethical correctness Doing what is “right” by a higher standard than efficiency.
Relationship-related currencies
Acceptance Providing closeness and friendship.
Personal support Giving personal and emotional backing.
Understanding Listening to others’ concerns and issues.
Personal-related currencies
Challenge/learning Sharing tasks that increase skills and abilities.
Ownership/involvement Letting others have ownership and influence.
Gratitude Expressing appreciation.

Source: Adapted from A. R. Cohen and David L. Bradford, Influence without Authority (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990).

Task-Related Currencies

Task-related currencies come in different forms and are based on the project manager’s ability to contribute to others’ accomplishing their work. Probably the most significant form of this currency is the ability to respond to subordinates’ requests for additional manpower, money, or time to complete a segment of a project. This kind of currency is also evident in sharing resources with another project manager who is in need. At a more personal level, it may simply mean providing direct assistance to a colleague in solving a technical problem.

Providing a good word for a colleague’s proposal or recommendation is another form of this currency. Because most work of significance is likely to generate some form of opposition, the person who is trying to gain approval for a plan or proposal can be greatly aided by having a “friend in court.”

Another form of this currency includes extraordinary effort. For example, fulfilling an emergency request to complete a design document in two days instead of the normal four days is likely to engender gratitude. Finally, sharing valuable information that would be useful to other managers is another form of this currency.

page 363

Position-Related Currencies

Position-related currencies stem from the manager’s ability to enhance others’ positions within their organization. A project manager can do this by giving someone a challenging assignment that can aid her advancement by developing her skills and abilities. Being given a chance to prove yourself naturally generates a strong sense of gratitude. Sharing the glory and bringing to the attention of higher-ups the efforts and accomplishments of others generate goodwill.

Project managers confide that a useful strategy for gaining the cooperation of professionals in other departments/organizations is figuring out how to make these people look good to their bosses. For example, a project manager worked with a subcontractor whose organization was heavily committed to total quality management (TQM). The project manager made it a point in top-level briefing meetings to point out how quality improvement processes initiated by the contractor contributed to cost control and problem prevention.

Another variation of recognition is enhancing the reputation of others within the firm. “Good press” can pave the way for lots of opportunities, while “bad press” can quickly shut a person off and make it difficult to perform. This currency is also evident in helping to preserve someone’s reputation by coming to the defense of someone unjustly blamed for project setbacks.

Finally, one of the strongest forms of this currency is sharing contacts with other people. Helping individuals expand their own networks by introducing them to key people naturally engenders gratitude. For example, suggesting to a functional manager that he should contact Sally X if he wants to find out what is really going on in that department or to get a request expedited is likely to engender a sense of indebtedness.

Inspiration-Related Currencies

Inspiration-related currencies are perhaps the most powerful form of influence. Most sources of inspiration derive from people’s burning desire to make a difference and add meaning to their lives. Creating an exciting, bold vision for a project can elicit extraordinary commitment. For example, many of the technological breakthroughs associated with the introduction of the original Macintosh computer were attributed to the feeling that the project members had a chance to change the way people approached computers. A variant form of vision is providing an opportunity to do something really well. Being able to take pride in your work often drives many people.

Often the very nature of the project provides a source of inspiration. Discovering a cure for a devastating disease, introducing a new social program that will help those in need, or simply building a bridge that will reduce a major traffic bottleneck can provide opportunities for people to feel good about what they are doing and to feel that they are making a difference. Inspiration operates as a magnet—pulling people as opposed to pushing people toward doing something.

Relationship-Related Currencies

Relationship-related currencies have more to do with strengthening the relationship with someone than directly accomplishing the project tasks. The essence of this form of influence is forming a relationship that transcends normal professional boundaries and extends into the realm of friendship. Such relationships develop by giving personal and emotional backing. Picking people up when they are feeling down, boosting their confidence, and providing encouragement naturally breed goodwill. Sharing a sense of humor and making difficult times fun is another form of this currency. Similarly, engaging in non–work-related activities such as sports and family outings is another way relationships are naturally enhanced.

page 364

Perhaps the most basic form of this currency is simply listening to other people. Psychologists suggest that most people have a strong desire to be understood and that relationships break down because the parties stop listening to each other. Sharing personal secrets/ambitions and being a wise confidant also creates a special bond between individuals.

Personal-Related Currencies

Personal-related currencies deal with individual needs and an overriding sense of self-esteem. Some argue that self-esteem is a primary psychological need; the extent to which you can help others feel a sense of importance and personal worth will naturally generate goodwill. A project manager can enhance a colleague’s sense of worth by asking for help and seeking opinions, delegating authority over work, and allowing individuals to feel comfortable stretching their abilities. This form of currency can also be seen in sincere expressions of gratitude for the contributions of others. Care, though, must be exercised in expressing gratitude, since it is easily devalued when overused. That is, the first thank you is likely to be more valued than the fiftieth.

The bottom line is that a project manager will be influential only insofar as she can offer something that others value. Furthermore, given the diverse cast of people a project manager depends on, it is important that she be able to acquire and exercise different influence currencies. The ability to do so will be constrained in part by the nature of the project and how it is organized. For example, a project manager who is in charge of a dedicated team has considerably more to offer team members than a manager who is given the responsibility of coordinating the activities of different professionals across different departments and organizations. In such cases, that manager will probably have to rely more heavily on personal and relational bases of influence to gain the cooperation of others.

10.4 Social Network Building

Mapping Stakeholder Dependencies

The first step to social network building is identifying those stakeholders on whom the project depends for success. The project manager and his key assistants need to ask the following questions:

  • Whose cooperation will we need?

  • Whose agreement or approval will we need?

  • Whose opposition would keep us from accomplishing the project?

Many project managers find it helpful to draw a map of these dependencies. For example, Figure 10.2 contains the dependencies identified by a project manager responsible for installing a new financial software system in her company.

FIGURE 10.2
Stakeholder Map for Financial Software Installation Project

Images

It is always better to overestimate rather than underestimate dependencies. All too often, otherwise talented and successful project managers have been derailed because they were blindsided by someone whose position or power they had not anticipated. After identifying the stakeholders associated with your project, it is important to assess their significance. Here the power/interest matrix introduced in Chapter 3 becomes useful. Those individuals with the most power over and interest in the project are the most significant stakeholders and deserve the greatest attention. In particular, you need to “step into their shoes” and see the project from their perspective by asking the following questions:

  • What differences exist between myself and the people on whom I depend (goals, values, pressures, working styles, risks)?

  • page 365How do these different people view the project (supporters, indifferents, antagonists)?

  • What is the current status of the relationship I have with the people I depend on?

  • What sources of influence do I have relative to those on whom I depend?

Once you start this analysis you can begin to appreciate what others value and what currencies you might have to offer as a basis on which to build a working relationship. You begin to realize where potential problems lie—relationships in which you have a current debit or no convertible currency. Furthermore, diagnosing others’ points of view as well as the basis for their positions will help you anticipate their reactions and feelings about your decisions and actions. This information is vital for selecting the appropriate influence strategy and tactics and producing win/win solutions.

For example, after mapping her dependency network, the project manager who was in charge of installing the software system realized that she was likely to have serious problems with the manager of the Receipts Department, who would be one of the primary users of the software. She had no previous history of working with this individual but had heard through the grapevine that the manager was upset with the choice of software and that he considered this project to be another unnecessary disruption of his department’s operation.

Prior to project initiation the project manager arranged to have lunch with the manager, where she sat patiently and listened to his concerns. She invested additional time and attention to educate him and his staff about the benefits of the new software. She tried to minimize the disruptions the transition would cause in his department. She altered the implementation schedule to accommodate his preferences as to when the software would be installed and the subsequent training would occur. In turn, the receipts manager and his people were much more accepting of the change, and the transition to the new software went more smoothly than anticipated.

page 366

Management by Wandering Around (MBWA)

The preceding example illustrates a key point—project management is a “contact sport.” Once you have established who the key players are, then you initiate contact and begin to build a relationship with those players. Building this relationship requires an interactive management style employees at Hewlett Packard referred to as management by wandering around (MBWA) to reflect that managers spend the majority of their time outside their offices. MBWA is somewhat of a misnomer in that there is a purpose/pattern behind the “wandering.” Through face-to-face interactions, project managers are able to stay in touch with what is really going on in the project and build cooperation essential to project success.

Effective project managers initiate contact with key players to keep abreast of developments, anticipate potential problems, provide encouragement, and reinforce the objectives and vision of the project. They are able to intervene to resolve conflicts and prevent stalemates from occurring. In essence, they “manage” the project. By staying in touch with various aspects of the project they become the focal point for information. Participants turn to them to obtain the most current and comprehensive information about the project, which reinforces their central role as project manager.

We have also observed less effective project managers who eschew MBWA and attempt to manage projects from their offices and computer terminals. Such managers proudly announce an open-door policy and encourage others to see them when a problem or an issue comes up. To them, no news is good news. This allows their contacts to be determined by the relative aggressiveness of others. Those who take the initiative and seek out the project manager get too high a proportion of the project manager’s attention. Those people less readily available (physically removed) or more passive get ignored. This behavior contributes to the adage “Only the squeaky wheel gets greased,” which breeds resentment within the project team.

Effective project managers also find the time to interact regularly with more distal stakeholders. They keep in touch with suppliers, vendors, top management, and other functional managers. In doing so they maintain familiarity with different parties, sustain friendships, discover opportunities to do favors, and understand the motives and needs of others. They remind people of commitments and champion the cause of their project. They also shape people’s expectations (see Snapshot from Practice 10.2: Managing Expectations). Through frequent communication they alleviate people’s concerns about the project, dispel rumors, warn people of potential problems, and lay the groundwork for dealing with setbacks in a more effective manner.

Unless project managers take the initiative to build a supportive network up front, they are likely to see a manager (or other stakeholder) only when there is bad news or when they need a favor (e.g., they don’t have the data they promised or the project has slipped behind schedule). Without prior, frequent, easy give-and-take interactions around nondecisive issues, the encounter prompted by the problem is likely to provoke excess tension. The parties are more likely to act defensively, interrupt each other, and lose sight of the common goal.

Experienced project managers recognize the need to build relationships before they need them. They initiate contact with the key stakeholders at times when there are no outstanding issues or problems and therefore no anxieties and suspicions. On these social occasions, they naturally engage in small talk and responsive banter. They respond to others’ requests for aid, provide supportive counsel, and exchange information. In doing so they establish good feelings which will allow them to deal with more serious problems down the road. When one person views another as pleasant, credible, page 367and helpful based on past contact, she is much more likely to be responsive to requests for help and less confrontational when problems arise.2

Managing Upward Relations

Research consistently points out that project success is strongly affected by the degree to which a project has the support of top management.3 Such support is reflected in an appropriate budget, responsiveness to unexpected needs, and a clear signal to others in the organization of the importance of the project and the need to cooperate.

Visible top management support is not only critical for securing the support of other managers within an organization but also key in the project manager’s ability to motivate the project team. Nothing establishes a manager’s right to lead more than his ability to defend. To win the loyalty of team members, project managers have to be effective advocates for their projects. They have to be able to get top management to rescind unreasonable demands, provide additional resources, and recognize the accomplishments of team members. This is more easily said than done.

page 368

Working relationships with upper management are a common source of consternation. Laments like the following are often made by project managers about upper management:

They don’t know how much it sets us back losing Neil to another project.

I would like to see them get this project done with the budget they gave us.

I just wish they would make up their minds as to what is really important.

While it may seem counterintuitive for a subordinate to “manage” a superior, smart project managers devote considerable time and attention to influencing and garnering the support of top management. Project managers have to accept profound differences in perspective and become skilled at the art of persuading superiors.

Many of the tensions that arise between upper management and project managers are a result of differences in perspective. Project managers become naturally absorbed with what is best for their project. To them the most important thing in the world is their project. Top management should have a different set of priorities. They are concerned with what is best for the entire organization. It is only natural for these two interests to conflict at times. For example, a project manager may lobby intensively for additional personnel, only to be turned down because top management believes that the other departments cannot afford a reduction in staff. Although frequent communication can minimize differences, the project manager has to accept the fact that top management is inevitably going to see the world differently.

Once project managers accept that disagreements with superiors are more a question of perspective than substance, they can focus more of their energy on the art of persuading upper management. But before they can persuade superiors, they must first prove loyalty (Sayles, 1989). Loyalty in this context simply means that most of the time project managers consistently follow through on requests and adhere to the parameters established by top management without a great deal of grumbling or fuss. Once managers have proven loyalty to upper management, senior management is much more receptive to their challenges and requests.

Project managers have to cultivate strong ties with upper managers who are sponsoring the project. As noted earlier, these are high-ranking officials who have championed approval and funding of the project; as such, their reputations are aligned with the project. Sponsors are also the ones who defend the project when it is under attack in upper circles of management. They shelter the project from excessive interference (see Figure 10.3). Project managers should always keep such people informed of any problems that may cause embarrassment or disappointment. For example, if costs are beginning to outrun the budget or a technical glitch is threatening to delay the completion of the project, managers make sure that the sponsors are the first to know.

FIGURE 10.3
Significance of a Project Sponsor

Images

Timing is everything. Asking for additional budget the day after disappointing third-quarter earnings are reported is going to be much more difficult than making a similar request four weeks later. Good project managers pick the optimum time to appeal to top management. They enlist their project sponsors to lobby their cause. They also realize there are limits to top management’s accommodations. Here, the Lone Ranger analogy is appropriate—you have only so many silver bullets, so use them wisely.

Project managers need to adapt their communication pattern to that of the senior group. For example, one project manager recognized that top management had a tendency to use sports metaphors to describe business situations, so she framed a recent slip in schedule by admitting that “we lost five yards, but we still have two plays to make a first down.” Smart project managers learn the language of top management and use it to their advantage.

page 369

Finally, a few project managers admit ignoring chains of command. If they are confident that top management will reject an important request and that what they want to do will benefit the project, they do it without asking permission. While acknowledging that this is very risky, they claim that bosses typically won’t argue with success.

Leading by Example

A highly visible, interactive management style not only is essential to building and sustaining cooperative relationships but also allows project managers to utilize their most powerful leadership tool—their own behavior (Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Peters, 1988). Often, when faced with uncertainty, people look to others for cues as to how to respond and demonstrate a propensity to mimic the behavior of people they respect. A project manager’s behavior symbolizes how other people should work on the project. Through his behavior, a project manager can influence how others act and respond to a variety of issues related to the project. (See Snapshot from Practice 10.3: Leading at the Edge for a dramatic example of this.)

To be effective, project managers must “walk the talk” (see Figure 10.4). Six aspects of leading by example are discussed next.

FIGURE 10.4
Leading by Example

Images

Priorities

Actions speak louder than words. Subordinates and others discern project managers’ priorities by how they spend their time. If a project manager claims that this project is critical and then is perceived as devoting more time to other projects, then all her verbal reassurances are likely to fall on deaf ears. Conversely a project manager who takes the time to observe a critical test instead of simply waiting for a report affirms the importance of the testers and their work. Likewise, the types of questions project managers pose communicate priorities. By repeatedly asking how specific issues relate to satisfying the customer, a project manager can reinforce the importance of customer satisfaction.

page 370

Urgency

Through their actions, project managers can convey a sense of urgency, which can permeate project activities. This urgency in part can be conveyed through stringent deadlines, frequent status report meetings, and aggressive solutions for expediting the page 371project. The project manager uses these tools like a metronome to pick up the beat of the project. At the same time, such devices will be ineffective if there is not also a corresponding change in the project manager’s behavior. If project managers want others to work faster and solve problems quicker, then they need to work faster. They need to hasten the pace of their own behavior. They should accelerate the frequency of their interactions, talk and walk more quickly, get to work sooner, and leave work later. By simply increasing the pace of their daily interaction patterns, project managers can reinforce a sense of urgency in others.

Problem Solving

How project managers respond to problems sets the tone for how others tackle problems. If bad news is greeted by verbal attacks, then others will be reluctant to be forthcoming.4 If the project manager is more concerned with finding out who is to blame instead of how to prevent problems from happening again, then others will tend to cover their tracks and cast the blame elsewhere. If, on the other hand, project managers focus more on how they can turn a problem into an opportunity or what can be learned from a mistake, then others are more likely to adopt a more proactive approach to problem solving.

Cooperation

How project managers act toward outsiders influences how team members interact with outsiders. If a project manager makes disparaging remarks about the “idiots” in the Marketing Department, then this oftentimes becomes the shared view of the entire team. If project managers set the norm of treating outsiders with respect and being responsive to their needs, then others will more likely follow suit.

Standards of Performance

Veteran project managers recognize that if they want participants to exceed project expectations, then they have to exceed others’ expectations of a good project manager. They establish a high standard for project performance through the quality of their daily interactions. They respond quickly to the needs of others, carefully prepare and run crisp meetings, stay on top of all the critical issues, facilitate effective problem solving, and stand firm on important matters.

Ethics

How others respond to ethical dilemmas that arise in the course of a project will be influenced by how the project manager has responded to similar dilemmas. In many cases, team members base their actions on how they think the project manager would respond. If project managers deliberately distort or withhold vital information from customers or top management, then they are signaling to others that this kind of behavior is acceptable. Project management invariably creates a variety of ethical dilemmas; this would be an appropriate time to delve into this topic in more detail.

page 372

10.5 Ethics and Project Management

Questions of ethics have already arisen in previous chapters that discussed padding of cost and time estimations, exaggerating pay-offs of project proposals, and so forth. Ethical dilemmas involve situations where it is difficult to determine whether conduct is right or wrong.

In a survey of project managers, 81 percent reported that they encounter ethical issues in their work.5 These dilemmas include being pressured to alter status reports, backdate signatures, compromising safety standards to accelerate progress, and approving shoddy work. The more recent work of Müller and colleagues suggests that the most common dilemma project managers face involves transparency issues related to project performance (Müller et al., 2013, 2014). For example, is it acceptable to falsely assure customers that everything is on track when in reality you are doing so to prevent them from panicking and making matters even worse?

Project management is complicated work, and, as such, ethics invariably involve gray areas of judgment and interpretation. For example, it is difficult to distinguish deliberate falsification of estimates from genuine mistakes or the willful exaggeration of project payoffs from genuine optimism. It becomes problematic to determine whether unfulfilled promises were deliberate deception or an appropriate response to changing circumstances.

To provide greater clarity to business ethics, many companies and professional groups publish a code of conduct. Cynics see these documents as simply window dressing, while advocates argue that they are important, albeit limited, first steps. In practice, personal ethics do not lie in formal statutes but at the intersection of one’s work, family, education, profession, religious beliefs, and daily interactions. Most project managers report that they rely on their own private sense of right and wrong—what one project manager called his “internal compass.” One common rule of thumb for testing whether a response is ethical is to ask, “Imagine that whatever you did was going to be reported on the front page of your local newspaper. How would you like that? Would you be comfortable?”

Unfortunately, scandals at Wells Fargo, Enron, Worldcom, and Arthur Andersen have demonstrated the willingness of highly trained professionals to abdicate personal responsibility for illegal actions and to obey the directives of superiors (see Snapshot from Practice 10.4: The Collapse of Arthur Andersen). Top management and the culture of an organization play a decisive role in shaping members’ beliefs of what is right and wrong. Many organizations encourage ethical transgressions by creating a “win at all cost” mentality. The pressures to succeed obscure the consideration of whether the ends justify the means. Other organizations place a premium on “fair play” and command a market position by virtue of being trustworthy and reliable.6

Many project managers claim that ethical behavior is its own reward. By following your own internal compass, your behavior expresses your personal values. Others suggest that ethical behavior is doubly rewarding. You not only are able to fall asleep at night but also develop a sound and admirable reputation. As will be explored in the next section, such a reputation is essential to establishing the trust necessary to exercise influence effectively.

page 373

10.6 Building Trust: The Key to Exercising Influence

The significance of trust can be discerned by its absence. Imagine how different a working relationship is when you distrust the other party as opposed to trusting them. Here is what one line manager had to say about how he reacted to a project manager he did not trust:

Whenever Jim approached me about something, I found myself trying to read between the lines to figure what was really going on. When he made a request, my initial reaction was “no” until he proved it.

page 374

Conversely trust is the “lubricant” that maintains smooth and efficient interactions. For example, here is what a functional manager had to say about how he dealt with a project manager he trusted:

If Sally said she needed something, no questions were asked. I knew it was important or she wouldn’t have asked. Likewise, if I needed something, I knew she would come through for me if she could.

Trust is an elusive concept. It is hard to nail down in precise terms why some project managers are trusted and others are not. One popular way to understand trust is to see it as a function of character and competence. Character focuses on personal motives (e.g., does he or she want to do the right thing?), while competence focuses on skills necessary to realize motives (e.g., does he or she know the right things to do?).

Stephen Covey resurrected the significance of character in the leadership literature in his best-selling Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Covey criticized popular management literature as focusing too much on shallow human relations skills and manipulative techniques, which he labeled the personality ethic. He argues that at the core of highly effective people is a character ethic that is deeply rooted in personal values and principles such as dignity, service, fairness, the pursuit of truth, and respect.

One of the distinguishing traits of character is consistency. When people are guided by a core set of principles, they are naturally more predictable because their actions are consistent with these principles. Another feature of character is openness. When people have a clear sense of who they are and what they value, they are more receptive to others. This trait provides them with the capacity to empathize and the talent to build consensus among divergent people. Finally, another quality of character is a sense of purpose. Managers with character are driven not only by personal ambitions but also for the common good. Their primary concern is what is best for their organization and the project, not what is best for themselves. This willingness to subordinate personal interests to a higher purpose garners the respect, loyalty, and trust of others.

The significance of character is summarized by the comments made by two team members about two very different project managers:

At first everyone liked Joe and was excited about the project. But after a while, people became suspicious of his motives. He had a tendency to say different things to different people. People began to feel manipulated. He spent too much time with top management. People began to believe that he was only looking out for himself. It was HIS project. When the project began to slip he jumped ship and left us holding the bag. I’ll never work for that guy again.

My first impression of Jack was nothing special. He had a quiet, unassuming management style. Over time I learned to respect his judgment and his ability to get people to work together. When you went to him with a problem or a request, he always listened carefully. If he couldn’t do what you wanted him to do, he would take the time to explain why. When disagreements arose he always thought of what was best for the project. He treated everyone by the same rules; no one got special treatment. I’d jump at the opportunity to work on a project with him again.

Character alone will not engender trust. We must also have confidence in the competency of individuals before we really trust them (Kanter, 1979). We all know well-intended managers whom we like but do not trust because they have a history of coming up short on their promises. Although we may befriend these managers, we don’t like to work with or for them.

Competence is reflected at a number of different levels. First, there is task-related knowledge and skills reflected in the ability to answer questions, solve technical problems, and excel in certain kinds of work. Second, there is competence at an interpersonal level demonstrated in being able to listen effectively, communicate clearly, resolve arguments, provide encouragement, and so forth. Finally, there is organizational page 375competence. This includes being able to run effective meetings, set meaningful objectives, reduce inefficiencies, and build a social network. Too often young engineers and other professionals tend to place too much value on task or technical competence. They underestimate the significance of organizational skills. Veteran professionals, on the other hand, recognize the importance of management and place a greater value on organizational and interpersonal skills.

One problem new project managers experience is that it takes time to establish a sense of character and competency. Character and competency are often demonstrated when they are tested, such as when a tough call has to be made or when difficult problems have to be solved. Veteran project managers have the advantage of reputation and an established track record of success. Although endorsements from credible sponsors can help a young project manager create a favorable first impression, ultimately her behavior will determine whether she can be trusted. Recent research suggests that the first step in building trust is connecting. Instead of starting off emphasizing your competency, focus on exhibiting warmth and concern.7 In doing so, you demonstrate to others that you hear them, understand them, and can be trusted by them (Cuddy, Kohu, & Neffinger, 2013).

So far this chapter has addressed the importance of building a network of relationships to complete a project based on trust and reciprocity. The next section examines the nature of project management work and the personal qualities needed to excel at it.

10.7 Qualities of an Effective Project Manager

Project management is, at first glance, a misleading discipline in that there is an inherent logic to the process. There is a natural progression from formulating a project scope statement to creating a WBS, developing a network, adding resources, finalizing a plan, and reaching milestones. However, when it comes to actually implementing and completing projects, this logic can quickly disappear. Project managers often encounter a much messier world, filled with inconsistencies and paradoxes. Effective project managers have to be able to deal with the contradictory nature of their work. Some of those contradictions are listed here:

Managing these and other contradictions requires finesse and balance. Finesse involves the skillful movement back and forth between opposing behavioral patterns (Sayles, 1989). For example, most of the time project managers actively involve others, move by increment, and seek consensus. There are other times when project managers must act as autocrats and take decisive, unilateral action. Balance involves recognizing the danger of extremes and that too much of a good thing invariably becomes harmful. For example, many managers have a tendency to always delegate the most stressful, difficult assignments to their best team members. This habit often breeds resentment among those chosen (“why am I always the one who gets the tough work?”) and never allows the weaker members to develop their talents further.

There is no one management style or formula for being an effective project manager. The world of project management is too complicated for formulas. Successful project managers have a knack for adapting styles to specific circumstances of the situation.

So what should one look for in an effective project manager? Many authors have addressed this question and have generated list after list of skills and attributes associated with being an effective manager (Posner, 1987; Shenhar & Nofziner, 1997; Turner & Müller, 2005). When reviewing these lists, one sometimes gets the impression that to be a successful project manager requires someone with superhuman powers. While not everyone has the right stuff to be an effective project manager, there are some core traits and skills that can be developed to successfully perform the job. The following are eight of these traits.

  1. Effective communication skills. Communication is critical to project success. Project managers need to speak the language of different stakeholders and be empathetic listeners.

  2. Systems thinking. Project managers must be able to take a holistic rather than a reductionist approach to projects. Instead of breaking up a project into individual pieces (planning, budget) and managing it by understanding each part, a systems perspective focuses on trying to understand how relevant project factors collectively interact to produce project outcomes. The key to success then becomes managing the interaction between different parts and not the parts themselves.8

  3. Personal integrity. Before you can lead and manage others, you have to be able to lead and manage yourself (Bennis, 1989). Begin by establishing a firm sense of who you are, what you stand for, and how you should behave. This inner strength provides the buoyancy to endure the ups and downs of the project life cycle and the credibility essential to sustaining the trust of others.

  4. Proactivity. Good project managers take action before it is needed to prevent small concerns from escalating into major problems. They spend the majority of their page 377time working within their sphere of influence to solve problems and not dwelling on things they have little control over. Project managers can’t be whiners.9

  5. High emotional intelligence (EQ). Project management is not for the meek. Project managers have to have command of their emotions and be able to respond constructively to others when things get a bit out of control. See Research Highlight 10.2: Emotional Intelligence to read more about this quality.

  6. General business perspective. Because the primary role of a project manager is to integrate the contributions of different business and technical disciplines, it is important that a manager have a general grasp of business fundamentals and how the different functional disciplines interact to contribute to a successful business.

  7. Effective time management. Time is a manager’s scarcest resource. Project managers have to be able to budget their time wisely and quickly adjust their priorities. They need to balance their interactions so no one feels ignored.

  8. Optimism. Project managers have to display a can-do attitude. They have to be able to find rays of sunlight in a dismal day and keep people’s attention positive. A page 378good sense of humor and a playful attitude are often a project manager’s greatest strengths.

So how does one develop these traits? Workshops, self-study, and courses can upgrade one’s general business perspective and capacity for systems thinking. Training programs can improve emotional intelligence and communication skills. People can also be taught stress and time management techniques. However, we know of no workshop or magic potion that can transform a pessimist into an optimist or provide a sense of purpose when there is not one. These qualities get at the very soul or being of a person. Optimism, integrity, and even proactivity are not easily developed if there is not already a predisposition to display them.

Summary

To be successful, project managers must build a cooperative network among a diverse set of allies. They begin by identifying the key stakeholders on a project, then diagnose the nature of the relationships and the basis for exercising influence. Effective project managers are skilled at acquiring and exercising a wide range of influence. They use this influence and a highly interactive management style to monitor project performance and initiate appropriate changes in project plans and direction. They do so in a manner that generates trust, which is ultimately based on others’ perceptions of their character and competence.

Project managers are encouraged to keep in mind the following suggestions.

Ultimately, exercising influence in an effective and ethical manner begins and ends with how you view the other parties. Do you view them as potential partners or obstacles to your goals? If obstacles, then you wield your influence to manipulate and gain compliance and cooperation. If partners, you exercise influence to gain their commitment and support. People who view social network building as building partnerships see every interaction with two goals: resolving the immediate problem/concern and improving the working relationship so that next time it will be even more effective. Experienced project managers realize that “what goes around comes around” and try at all cost to avoid antagonizing players for quick success.

page 379

Key Terms

Review Questions

  1. What is the difference between managing and leading a project?

  2. What does the exchange model of influence suggest you do to build cooperative relationships to complete a project?

  3. What differences would you expect to see between the kinds of influence currencies that a project manager in a functional matrix would use and the influence a project manager of a dedicated project team would use?

  4. Why is it important to build a relationship before you need it?

  5. Why is it critical to keep the project sponsor informed?

  6. Why is trust a function of both character and competence?

  7. Which of the eight traits/skills associated with being an effective project manager is the most important? The least important? Why?

SNAPSHOT Images FROM PRACTICE

Discussion Questions

  • 10.1 The Project Manager as Conductor

  1. Why is a conductor of an orchestra an appropriate metaphor for a project manager?

  2. What aspects of being a project manager are not reflected in this metaphor?

  3. Can you think of other metaphors that would be appropriate?

  • 10.3 Leading at the Edge

  1. How important is leading by example on a project?

  2. What do you think would have happened to the crew of the Endurance if Shackleton had not led by example?

  • 10.4 The Collapse of Arthur Andersen

  1. It seems like every 5–10 years a scandal damages, if not brings down, a well-known business. Is this inevitable, given the competitive nature of business?

  2. What aspects of the Arthur Andersen culture contributed to the scandal?

Exercises

  1. Do an Internet search for the Keirsey Temperament Sorter Questionnaire and find a site that appears to have a reputable self-assessment questionnaire. Respond to the questionnaire to identify your temperament type. Read supportive documents associated with your type. What does this material suggest are the kinds of projects that would best suit you? What does it suggest your strengths and weaknesses are as a project manager? How can you compensate for your weaknesses?

  2. Access the Project Management Institute website and review the standards contained in the PMI Member Ethical Standards section. How useful is the information for helping someone decide what behavior is appropriate and inappropriate?

  3. You are organizing a benefit concert in your hometown that will feature local heavy metal rock groups and guest speakers. Draw a dependency map identifying page 380the major groups of people that are likely to affect the success of this project. Who do you think will be most cooperative? Who do you think will be least cooperative? Why?

  4. You are the project manager responsible for the overall construction of a new international airport. Draw a dependency map identifying the major groups of people that are likely to affect the success of this project. Who do you think will be most cooperative? Who do you think will be least cooperative? Why?

  5. Identify an important relationship (co-worker, boss, friend) in which you are having trouble gaining cooperation. Assess this relationship in terms of the influence currency model. What kinds of influence currency have you been exchanging in this relationship? Is the “bank account” for this relationship in the “red” or the “black”? What kinds of influence would be appropriate for building a stronger relationship with that person?

  6. The following seven mini-case scenarios involve ethical dilemmas associated with project management. How would you respond to each situation and why?

Jack Nietzche

You returned from a project staffing meeting in which future project assignments were finalized. Despite your best efforts, you were unable to persuade the director of project management to promote one of your best assistants, Jack Nietzche, to a project manager position. You feel a bit guilty because you dangled the prospect of this promotion to motivate Jack. Jack responded by putting in extra hours to ensure that his segments of the project were completed on time. You wonder how Jack will react to this disappointment. More importantly, you wonder how his reaction might affect your project. You have five days remaining to meet a critical deadline for a very important customer. While it won’t be easy, you believed you would be able to complete the project on time. Now you’re not so sure. Jack is halfway through completing the documentation phase, which is the last critical activity. Jack can be pretty emotional at times, and you are worried that he will blow up once he finds he didn’t get the promotion. As you return to your office, you wonder what you should do. Should you tell Jack that he isn’t going to be promoted? What should you say if he asks about whether the new assignments were made?

Seaburst Construction Project

You are the project manager for the Seaburst construction project. So far the project is progressing ahead of schedule and below budget. You attribute this in part to the good working relationship you have with the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and machine operators who work for your organization. More than once you have asked them to give 110 percent, and they have responded.

One Sunday afternoon you decide to drive by the site and show it to your son. As you point out various parts of the project to your son, you discover that several pieces of valuable equipment are missing from the storage shed. When you start work again on Monday, you are about to discuss this matter with a supervisor when you realize that all the missing equipment is back in the shed. What should you do? Why?

The Project Status Report Meeting

You are driving to a project status report meeting with your client. You encountered a significant technical problem on the project that has put your project behind schedule. This is not good news because completion time is the number one priority for the project. You are confident that your team can solve the problem if they are free to give their undivided attention to it and that with hard work you can get back on schedule. You also believe if you tell the client about the problem, she will demand a meeting with your team to discuss the implications of the problem. You can also expect her to page 381send some of her personnel to oversee the solution to the problem. These interruptions will likely further delay the project. What should you tell your client about the current status of the project?

Gold Star LAN Project

You work for a large consulting firm and were assigned to the Gold Star LAN project. Work on the project is nearly completed and your clients at Gold Star appear to be pleased with your performance. During the course of the project, changes in the original scope had to be made to accommodate specific needs of managers at Gold Star. The costs of these changes were documented as well as overhead and submitted to the centralized Accounting Department. They processed the information and submitted a change order bill for your signature. You are surprised to see the bill is 10 percent higher than what you submitted. You contact Jim Messina in the accounting office and ask if a mistake has been made. He curtly replies that no mistake was made and that management adjusted the bill. He recommends that you sign the document. You talk to another project manager about this and she tells you off the record that overcharging clients on change orders is common practice in your firm. Would you sign the document? Why? Why not?

Cape Town Bio-Tech

You are responsible for installing the new Double E production line. Your team has collected estimates and used the WBS to generate a project schedule. You have confidence in the schedule and the work your team has done. You report to top management that you believe the project will take 110 days and be completed by March 5. The news is greeted positively. In fact, the project sponsor confides that orders do not have to be shipped until April 1. You leave the meeting wondering whether you should share this information with the project team or not?

Ryman Pharmaceuticals

You are a test engineer on the Bridge project at Ryman Pharmaceuticals. You have just completed conductivity tests of a new electrochemical compound. The results exceeded expectations. This new compound should revolutionize the industry. You are wondering whether to call your stockbroker and ask him to buy $20,000 worth of Ryman stock before everyone else finds out about the results. What would you do and why?

Princeton Landing

You are managing the renovation of the Old Princeton Landing Bar and Grill. The project is on schedule despite receiving a late shipment of paint. The paint was supposed to arrive on 1/30 but instead arrived on 2/1. The assistant store manager apologizes profusely for the delay and asks if you would be willing to sign the acceptance form and backdate it to 1/30. He says he won’t qualify for a bonus that he has worked hard to meet for the past month if the shipment is reported late. He promises to make it up to you on future projects. What would you do and why?

References

Anand, V., B. E. Ashforth, and M. Joshi, “Business as Usual: The Acceptance and Perpetuation of Corruption in Organizations,” Academy of Management Executive, vol. 19, no. 4 (2005), pp. 9–23.

Ancona, D. G., and D. Caldwell, “Improving the Performance of New-Product Teams,” Research Technology Management, vol. 33, no. 2 (March/April 1990), pp. 25–29.

Badaracco, J. L., Jr., and A. P. Webb, “Business Ethics: A View from the Trenches,” California Management Review, vol. 37, no. 2 (Winter 1995), pp. 8–28.

page 382

Baker, W. E., Network Smart: How to Build Relationships for Personal and Organizational Success (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994).

Bennis, W., On Becoming a Leader (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989).

Bertsche, R., “Seven Steps to Stronger Relationships between Project Managers and Sponsors,” PM Network, September 2014, pp. 50–55.

Bourne, L., Stakeholder Relationship Management (Farnham, England: Gower Publishing Ltd., 2009).

Cabanis-Brewin, J., “The Human Task of a Project Leader: Daniel Goleman on the Value of High EQ,” PM Network, November 1999, pp. 38–42.

Cohen, A. R., and D. L. Bradford, Influence without Authority (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990).

Cuddy, J. A., M. Kohu, and J. Neffinger, “Connect Then Lead,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 91, no. 7/8 (July/August 2013), pp. 54–61.

Dinsmore, P. C., “Will the Real Stakeholders Please Stand Up?” PM Network, December 1995, pp. 9–10.

Einsiedel, A. A., “Profile of Effective Project Managers,” Project Management Journal, vol. 31, no. 3 (1987), pp. 51–56.

Ferrazzi, K., Never Eat Alone and Other Secrets to Success One Relationship at a Time (New York: Crown Publishers, 2005).

Gabarro, S. J., The Dynamics of Taking Charge (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1987).

Hill, L. A., Becoming a Manager: Mastery of a New Identity (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992).

Kanter, R. M., “Power Failures in Management Circuits,” Harvard Business Review (July/August 1979), pp. 65–79.

Kaplan, R. E., “Trade Routes: The Manager’s Network of Relationships,” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 12, no. 4 (Spring 1984), pp. 37–52.

Kotter, J. P., “What Leaders Really Do,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 68, no. 3 (May/June 1990), pp. 103–11.

Kouzes, J. M., and B. Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993).

Kouzes, J. M., and B. Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge, 5th ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012).

Lewis, M. W., M. A. Welsh, G. E. Dehler, and S. G. Green, “Product Development Tensions: Exploring Contrasting Styles of Project Management,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 45, no. 3 (2002), pp. 546–64.

page 383

Müller, R., and R. Turner, “Leadership Competency Profiles of Successful Project Managers,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 28, no. 5 (July 2010), pp. 437–48.

Müller R., Erling S. Andersen, Ø. Kvalnes, J. Shao, S. Sankaran, J. R. Turner, C. Biesenthal, D. Walker, and S. Gudergan, “The Interrelationship of Governance, Trust, and Ethics in Temporary Organizations,” Journal of Project Management, vol. 44, no. 4 (August 2013), pp. 26–44.

Müller, R., R. Turner, E. Andersen, J. Shao, and O. Kvalnes, “Ethics, Trust, and Goverance in Temporary Organizations,” Journal of Project Management, vol. 45, no. 4 (August/September 2014), pp. 39–54.

Peters, L. H., “A Good Man in a Storm: An Interview with Tom West,” Academy of Management Executive, vol. 16, no. 4 (2002), pp. 53–63.

Peters, L. H., “Soulful Ramblings: An Interview with Tracy Kidder,” Academy of Management Executive, vol. 16, no. 4 (2002), pp. 45–52.

Peters, T., Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988).

Pinto, J. K., and D. P. Slevin, “Critical Success Factors in Successful Project Implementation,” IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, vol. 34, no. 1 (1987), pp. 22–27.

Posner, B. Z., “What It Takes to Be an Effective Project Manager,” Project Management Journal (March 1987), pp. 51–55.

Project Management Institute, PMBOK Guide, 6th ed. (Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2017).

Robb, D. J., “Ethics in Project Management: Issues, Practice, and Motive,” PM Network, December 1996, pp. 13–18.

Shenhar, A. J., and B. Nofziner, “A New Model for Training Project Managers,” Proceedings of the 28th Annual Project Management Institute Symposium, 1997, pp. 301–6.

Turner, J. R., and R. Müller, “The Project Manager Leadership Style as a Success Factor on Projects: A Literature Review,” Project Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 2 (2005), pp. 49–61.

page 384

Case 10.1

The Blue Sky Project*

Garth Hudson was a 29-year-old graduate of Eastern State University (ESU) with a BS degree in management information systems. After graduation he worked for seven years at Bluegrass Systems in Louisville, Kentucky. While at ESU he worked part time for an oceanography professor, Ahmet Green, creating a customized database for a research project he was conducting. Green was recently appointed director of Eastern Oceanography Institute (EOI), and Garth was confident that this prior experience was instrumental in his getting the job as information services (IS) director at the institute. Although he took a significant pay cut, he jumped at the opportunity to return to his alma mater. His job at Bluegrass Systems had been very demanding. The long hours and extensive traveling had created tension in his marriage. He was looking forward to a normal job with reasonable hours. Besides, Jenna, his wife, would be busy pursuing her MBA at Eastern State University. While at Bluegrass, Garth worked on a wide range of IS projects. He was confident that he had the requisite technical expertise to excel at his new job.

Eastern Oceanography Institute was an independently funded research facility aligned with Eastern State University. Approximately 50 full- and part-time staff worked at the institute. They worked on research grants funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the United Nations (UN), as well as research financed by private industry. There were typically 7 to 9 major research projects under way at any one time, as well as 20 to 25 smaller projects. One-third of the institute’s scientists had part-time teaching assignments at ESU and used the institute to conduct their own basic research.

FIRST YEAR AT EOI

Garth made a point of introducing himself to the various groups of people upon his arrival at the institute. Still, his contact with the staff was limited. He spent most of his time becoming familiar with EOI’s information system, training his staff, responding to unexpected problems, and working on various projects. Garth suffered from food allergies and refrained from informal staff lunches at nearby restaurants. He stopped regularly attending the biweekly staff meetings in order to devote more time to his work. He only attended the meetings when there was a specific agenda item regarding his operation.

The IS staff at EOI consisted of two full-time assistants, Tom Jackson and Grant Hill. They were supported by five part-time student assistants from the Computer Science Department. Grant Hill was assigned full-time to a large five-year NSF grant aimed at creating a virtual library of oceanographic research. Grant worked out of the project leader’s office and had very little interaction with Garth or Tom. Garth’s relationship with Tom was awkward from the start. He found out, after the fact, that Tom thought he would get the job as director. They never talked about it, but he sensed tension the first couple of months on the job. One of the problems was that he and Tom were totally different personalities. Tom was gregarious and very talkative. He had a habit of walking around the institute after lunch, talking to different scientists and researchers. Often this led to useful information. Garth, on the other hand, preferred to stay in his office, working on various assignments, and ventured out only when called upon. While Garth felt Tom was not on top of the latest developments, as he was, he respected Tom’s work.

Last month the system was corrupted by a virus introduced over the Internet. Garth devoted an entire weekend to restoring the system to operation. A recurring headache was one of the servers, code-named “Poncho,” that would occasionally shut down for no apparent reason. Instead of replacing it, he decided to nurse Poncho along until it could page 385be replaced. His work was frequently interrupted by frantic calls from staff researchers who needed immediate help on a variety of computer-related problems. He was shocked at how computer illiterate some of the researchers were and how he had to guide them through some of the basics of e-mail management and database configuration. He did find time to help Assistant Professor Amanda Johnson on a project. Amanda was the only researcher to respond to Garth’s e-mail announcing that the IS staff was available to help on projects. Garth created a virtual project office on the Internet so that Amanda could collaborate with colleagues from institutes in Italy and Thailand on a UN research grant. He looked forward to the day when he could spend more time on fun projects like that.

THE BLUE SKY CONVERSION PROJECT

The “Blue Sky” conversion project began in earnest four months ago. Ahmet Green returned from Washington, D.C., with grim news. The economic downturn was going to lead to a dramatic reduction in funding. He anticipated as much as a 25 percent reduction in annual budget over the next three to five years. This would lead to staff reductions and cutting of operating costs. One cost-cutting measure was moving IT operations to the “cloud.” Ahmet had first proposed the idea to Garth after attending a meeting with several directors of other institutes who faced similar financial challenges.

The basic strategy was to move all of the institute’s databases, software, and even hardware to a “private cloud.” Staff would use their current PCs to simply access more powerful machines over the Internet. These powerful machines could be partitioned and configured differently according to the needs of research staff, giving each staff member his or her own virtual machine (VM). Staff could also access, use, and share virtual servers over the Internet as needed. Garth worked with the institute’s accountant on a cost/benefit analysis. From their standpoint it made perfect sense. First, the institute would not have to replace or upgrade aging computers and servers. Second, the institute would enjoy significant IT savings, since they would pay for only IT resources actually used. They would not have to make any major IT capital expenditures. Third, cloud computing would provide the scientists greater flexibility by accessing desired resources or software from anywhere at any time. And finally, once the system was up and running, the institute would no longer need the services of at least one full-time IT worker. Ahmet decided to name the project “Blue Sky” to put a positive spin on the conversion.

At first the associate directors balked at the idea. Some had a hard time conceptualizing what cloud computing meant. Others were worried about security and reliability. In the end they reluctantly signed off on the project when given alternative cost-cutting initiatives. Garth assured them that cloud computing was the wave of the future and setting up or accessing virtual machines on the “cloud” was as simple as setting up or accessing their g-mail account.

The conversion project would be completed in stages. The first stage was selecting a provider. The next stage was migrating non–mission critical information to the cloud. The next stages would entail migrating each of the six big grant projects in waves to the cloud. The final stage would focus on the remaining smaller projects. Training would be an integral part of each stage. The institute would maintain a back-up for all the data until six months after complete conversion. After that the cloud service provider would be responsible for backing up the data.

At first Tom was excited about the project. He was savvy enough to realize that this was the future of computing and he was intrigued with how the whole system would work. His feelings soon changed when he started thinking about the potential ramifications for his job. He asked Garth more than once what the department would look like after the conversion. Garth replied vaguely that they would figure it out once the system was up and running.

A task force was formed, headed by Garth, to select a cloud service provider. Garth was surprised by how many choices there were. Plans and cost structures varied page 386considerably. After much deliberation the committee narrowed the choices to three. The first two were among the bigger providers in the industry, VMWARE and Microsoft. The third choice was a relatively new company, OpenRange, which offered a cheaper solution. Tom argued that even though the bigger providers would cost more, they were a much safer bet. Garth responded that he had confidence in OpenRange and cutting costs was the primary goal behind the project. In the end, Garth persuaded the committee to choose OpenRange. Not only would cost be significantly cheaper, but OpenRange would help in training the personnel. Garth liked this idea; training was not his strength, and he wasn’t looking forward to holding senior scientists’ hands through the process.

It took Garth and Tom six weeks to identify noncritical data. Garth worked on the back end while Tom met with staff to identify noncritical information. The motto was when in doubt, leave it out. The actual migration only took a couple of days. Training proved to be more problematic. The staff sent by OpenRange appeared to be straight out of college. While enthusiastic, they were inexperienced in the art of getting older staff to accept and use new technology. Many trainers had the habit of simply doing things for the staff instead of showing them how to do it themselves. It all came to a head when a power outage at the OpenRange storage system shut down and disrupted operations at the institute for 36 hours.

Ahmet held an emergency meeting. Garth reported that the power outage occurred in North East India and that OpenRange was expanding their back-up systems. Several members argued that the institute should switch to one of the bigger providers. When this came up Garth looked at Tom and was relieved when he remained silent. In the end, Ahmet announced that it would be too costly to switch providers and Garth and his staff would have to make the conversion work. Tom stepped forward and volunteered to manage the training. Everyone agreed that the institute should hire three more part-time assistants to help the staff with the transition.

Garth worked behind the scenes, coordinating with his counterparts at OpenRange and planning the conversion of the next segment of the project. Tom worked closely with the OpenRange trainers and refocused their attention on teaching. Resistance was pretty high at first. Tom used his personal contacts within the institute to rally support for the change. He persuaded Garth to change the conversion schedule to begin with those projects in which the leads were most supportive of the change. Training improved and Tom created some useful training materials, including short videos on how to access the virtual machines.

One problem that occurred early in the process involved a graduate research assistant who mistakenly hit the wrong commands and terminated her virtual machine instead of logging off. This resulted in complete loss of that machine’s data in the cloud. Fortunately, the institute had back-up and Tom was able to recover the work. Collaborating with some programmers at OpenRange, Tom wrote a program that triggered a pop-up message on the screen, warning users not to terminate their virtual machine when logging off.

CLOSING OUT THE BLUE SKY PROJECT

It took almost a year to complete the Blue Sky project. After the rocky beginning things went relatively smoothly. Acceptance was slow, but Tom and his staff worked with the staff to demonstrate how the new system would make their work easier. Two student assistants were always on call to address any problem or question. Garth spent most of his time interacting with the OpenRange counterparts and rarely ventured out of his office. He had his student assistants collect information from staff so he could configure the new virtual machines to exactly match staff needs. He put in long hours so that customized databases would work in the new environment. This proved to be a very difficult task and page 387he was quite pleased with his work. Twice OpenRange experienced momentary power shortages at their server facility, which disrupted work at the institute. Garth was happy to report that OpenRange was breaking ground on an alternative server system in Ukraine.

When the institute conducted a retrospective (project review) on the Blue Sky project, some still questioned the choice of OpenRange as a cloud service provider but praised Tom’s work on helping the staff make the transition. Despite the criticism over the choice of OpenRange, Garth felt good about the project. The system was up and running and the staff was beginning to enjoy the flexibility it provided. Besides, the institute would achieve real savings from the new system.

Soon after the retrospective, Garth was surprised when Ahmet walked into his office and closed the door. Ahmet began by thanking Garth for his work on the project. He then cleared his throat and said, “You know, Garth, one of the consequences of Blue Sky is reducing our IT staff. Grant Hill is needed for the data library project. So it comes down to you or Tom. Frankly, there is general agreement among the associate directors that Tom is essential to the institute. I know this might come as a surprise to you, and before I make a decision I want to give you a chance to change my mind.”

  1. If you were Garth, how would you respond to the director?

  2. What mistakes did Garth make?

  3. What are the lessons to be learned from this case?

* Prepared by Erik Larson and V. T. Raja, senior instructor at the College of Business, Oregon State University.

Case 10.2

Tom Bray

Tom Bray was mulling over today’s work schedule as he looked across the bay at the storm that was rolling in. It was the second official day of the Pegasus project and now the real work was about to begin.

Pegasus was a two-month renovation project for AtlantiCorp, a major financial institution headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Tom’s group was responsible for installing the furniture and equipment in the newly renovated Accounts Receivable Department on the third floor. The Pegasus project was a dedicated project team formed out of AtlantiCorp’s Facilities Department, with Tom as the project lead.

Tom was excited because this was his first major league project and he was looking forward to practicing a new management style—management by wandering around (MBWA). He had been exposed to MBWA in a business class in college, but it wasn’t until he attended an AtlantiCorp leadership training seminar that he decided to change how he managed people. The trainer was a devout MBWA champion (“You can’t manage people from a computer!”). Furthermore, the testimonies from his peers reinforced the difference that MBWA can make when it comes to working on projects.

Tom had joined the facilities group at AtlantiCorp five years earlier after working for Electronic Data Systems for six years. He quickly demonstrated technical competencies and good work habits. He was encouraged to take all the internal project management workshops offered by AtlantiCorp. On his last two projects he served as assistant project manager responsible for procurement and contract management.

He had read books about the soft side of project management, and MBWA made sense—after all, people, not tools, get projects done. His boss had told him he needed to refine his people skills and work on developing rapport with team members. MBWA seemed like a perfect solution.

page 388

Tom reviewed the list of team member names; some of the foreign names were real tongue twisters. For example, one of his better workers was from Thailand and her name was Pinyarat Sirisomboonsuk. He practiced saying “Pin-ya-răt See-rē-som-boon-sook.” He got up, tucked in his shirt, and walked out of his office and down to the floor where his team was busy unloading equipment.

Tom said “Hi” to the first few workers he met until he encountered Jack and three other workers. Jack was busy pulling hardware out of a box while his teammates were standing around, talking. Tom blurted, “Come on, guys, we’ve got work to do.” They quickly separated and began unloading boxes.

The rest of the visit seemed to go well. He helped Steve unload a heavy box and managed to get an appreciative grin from Pinyarat when he almost correctly pronounced her name. Satisfied, Tom went back up to his office, thinking that MBWA wouldn’t be that tough to do.

After responding to e-mails and calling some vendors, Tom ventured back out to see how things were going downstairs. When he got there, the floor was weirdly quiet. People were busy doing their work, and his attempts at generating conversation elicited stiff responses. He left thinking that maybe MBWA is going to be tougher than he thought.

  1. What do you think is going on at the end of this case?

  2. What should Tom do next and why?

  3. What can be learned from this case?

Case 10.3

Cerberus Corporation*

Cerberus is a successful producer of specialty chemicals. It operates nine large campus sites in the United States, with a number of different business units on each site. These business units operate independently, with direct reporting to corporate headquarters. Site functions such as safety, environmental, and facilities management report to a host organization—typically the business unit that is the largest user of their services.

SUSAN STEELE

Susan Steele has worked in the facilities group at the Cerberus Richmond site for the last two years. The facilities manager, Tom Stern, reports to the general manager of the largest business unit on-site, the highly profitable Adhesives and Sealants Division. Susan started with Cerberus when she graduated with her business degree from Awsum University. She was excited about her new assignment—leading a project for the first time. She remembered Tom saying, “We’ve got office furniture dating back to the ’80s. There are those ugly green-top desks that look like they came from military surplus! I’m especially concerned about computer workstation ergonomics—it’s a major issue that we absolutely must fix! I want you to lead a project to transition our office furniture to the new corporate standard.”

Susan assembled her project team: Jeff, the site safety/ergonomics engineer; Gretchen, the space planner; Cindy, the move coordinator; and Kari, the accounting liaison for Facilities. At their first meeting, everyone agreed that ergonomics was the most urgent concern. All five business units responded to a workstation survey that identified injury-causing ergonomics. The team was developing a plan to replace old page 389desks with new, ergo-adjustable furniture by the end of the year. Susan asked Kari about the budget, and Kari responded, “Facilities should not pay for this. We want the individual business units to pay so that the costs will show where they are incurred.”

Gretchen spoke up: “You know, we’ve got lots of department moves going on constantly. Everybody is always jockeying for space and location as their business needs change. Besides the ergonomics, could we say that only corporate standard furniture gets moved? That would force changing some of the stuff that’s just plain ugly.” Everyone agreed that this was a great idea.

Susan presented the project plan to Tom and got a green light to proceed.

JON WOOD

Jon Wood is a planning manager, with 22 years’ experience at Cerberus. His business unit, Photographic Chemicals Division (PCD), is losing money. Digital photography is continuing to reduce the size of the market, and PCD is having trouble matching the competition’s relentless price-cutting. Jon recently transferred to Richmond from corporate headquarters, where he ran the economic forecasting group. He is considered a new broom, and he is determined to sweep clean.

One of Jon’s early actions was to negotiate with his general manager for a department move. Money was tight, and the site facilities function charged an arm and a leg for moves (covering all their fixed overhead, the operations people groused). However, Jon felt it was important to move from Building 4, where they were next to Production, to Building 6, where they could be close to Marketing, Forecasting, and Accounting. His general manager agreed, and there was lots of excitement in his team about their upcoming move. Jon assigned one of his planners, Richard, to work with the facilities team on the layout and move plan for the group. Things seemed to be going fine—Jon saw Richard sitting down with the move coordinator, and they seemed to be on track.

The day before the move, Jon hung up the phone from a particularly tense teleconference with a Canadian subcontractor. Production was not going well, and product availability would be tight for the rest of the quarter. Clustered around his desk were Richard, Cindy, and a person he hadn’t met yet, Susan. After hurried introductions, Susan told Jon that his filing cabinets could not be moved. The cabinets are large lateral files, 5 feet wide and 2 feet deep, a combination of both filing cabinets and bookshelves. Jon brought them with him from Corporate because he thought they looked nice with their dark grey steel sides and wood veneer tops. Susan told him that he would have to replace them with new corporate standard cabinets, virtually the same size. Jon said, “You mean you want me to throw away perfectly good filing cabinets and spend another $2,000 on new ones, just so they match? I won’t do it!”

Susan replied, “Then I won’t authorize the movement of the old cabinets.”

Jon said, “You’re joking—these cabinets are grey, the new ones are grey—the only difference is the wood top! You’d throw away $2,000 for nothing?”

Susan replied stiffly, “I’m sorry, that’s the policy.”

Jon said, “I don’t care what the policy is. If I have to move them myself, those cabinets are not going to the dump. My division is losing money and I’m not going to throw money away. If you don’t like it, you’re going to have to get your general manager to convince my general manager to make me do it. Now would you please leave so I can get some work done.”

  1. If you were Susan, what would you do?

  2. What, if anything, could Susan have done differently to avoid this problem?

  3. What could the management of Cerberus do to more effectively manage situations like this?

* Courtesy of John Sloan, Oregon State University.

Design elements: Snapshot from Practice, Highlight box, Case icon: ©Sky Designs/Shutterstock

1 For a systematic treatise on stakeholder engagement, see: Bourne, Linda, Stakeholder Relationship Management (Farnham, England: Gower Publishing Ltd., 2009).

2 This discussion is based on Sayles, Leonard R., Leadership: Managing in Real Organizations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989), pp. 70–78.

3 See, for example: Pinto, J. L., and S. K. Mantel, “The Causes of Project Failure,” IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, vol. 37, no. 4 (1990), pp. 269–76.

4 This is the classic “kill the messenger” syndrome. This and other forces that contribute to distorting information can be found in Larson, Erik, and Jon King, “The Systemic Distortion of Information: An On-going Management Challenge,” Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1996, pp. 49–62.

5 While this survey is a bit old, our conversations with project managers suggest that the results hold true today: (Cabanis, J., “A Question of Ethics: The Issues Project Managers Face and How They Resolve Them,” PM Network, December 1996, pp. 8–28).

6 For a more in-depth discussion of ethics, see: Trevino, L., and K. Nelson, Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right, 5th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011).

7 Warmth is reflected nonverbally in terms of smiling, appropriate eye contact, and gestures as well as verbally in questions asked and empathetic listening. It must be genuine, rooted in the character of the person.

8 For a practical elaboration on what it means to be a systems thinker, see: Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline (New York: Doubleday, 1990).

9 For a more extensive discussion of the habit of being proactive, see: Covey, Stephen, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), pp. 65–94.