page 390

CHAPTER

ELEVEN

11

Managing Project Teams

page 391

Images

Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.

—Henry Ford

The magic and power of teams are captured in the term synergy, which is derived from the Greek word sunergos: “working together.” There is positive and negative synergy. The essence of positive synergy can be found in the statement “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” Conversely negative synergy occurs when the whole is less than the sum of the parts. Mathematically, these two states can be symbolized by the following equations:

Images

Synergy perhaps can best be seen on a basketball court, a soccer pitch, or a football field where teammates play as one to defeat a superior foe (see Snapshot from Practice 11.1: The 2008 Olympic Redeem Team).

page 392

page 393

Although less visible than in team sports, positive and negative synergy can also be observed and felt in the daily operations of project teams. Here is a description from one team member:

Instead of operating as one big team we fractionalized into a series of subgroups. The marketing people stuck together as well as the systems guys. A lot of time was wasted gossiping and complaining about each other. When the project started slipping behind schedule, everyone started covering their tracks and trying to pass the blame on to others. After a while we avoided direct conversation and resorted to e-mail. Management finally pulled the plug and brought in another team to salvage the project. It was one of the worst project management experiences in my life.

Fortunately, the same individual was also able to recount a more positive experience:

There was a contagious excitement within the team. Sure, we had our share of problems and setbacks, but we dealt with them straight on and, at times, were able to do the impossible. We all cared about the project and looked out for each other. At the same time we challenged each other to do better. It was one of the most exciting times in my life.

The following is a set of characteristics commonly associated with high-performing teams that exhibit positive synergy:1

  1. The team shares a sense of common purpose, and each member is willing to work toward achieving project objectives.

  2. The team identifies individual talents and expertise and uses them, depending on the project’s needs at any given time. At these times, the team willingly accepts the influence and leadership of the members whose skills are relevant to the immediate task.

  3. Roles are balanced and shared to facilitate both the accomplishment of tasks and feelings of group cohesion and morale.

  4. The team exerts energy toward problem solving rather than allowing itself to be drained by interpersonal issues or competitive struggles.

  5. Differences of opinion are encouraged and freely expressed.

  6. To encourage risk taking and creativity, mistakes are treated as opportunities for learning rather than reasons for punishment.

  7. Members set high personal standards of performance and encourage each other to realize the objectives of the project.

  8. Members identify with the team and consider it an important source of both professional and personal growth.

High-performing teams become champions, create breakthrough products, exceed customer expectations, and get projects done ahead of schedule and under budget. They are bonded together by mutual interdependency and a common goal or vision. They trust each other and exhibit a high level of collaboration.

11.1 The Five-Stage Team Development Model

Many experts argue that just as infants develop in certain ways during their first months of life, groups develop in a predictable manner. One of the most popular models identifies five stages (see Figure 11.1) through which groups develop into effective teams (Tuchman, 1965; Tuchman & Jensen, 1977):

page 394

  1. Forming. During this initial stage the members get acquainted with each other and understand the scope of the project. They begin to establish ground rules by trying to find out what behaviors are acceptable with respect to both the project (what role they will play, what performance expectations are) and interpersonal relations (who’s really in charge). This stage is completed once members begin to think of themselves as part of a group.

  2. Storming. As the name suggests, this stage is marked by a high degree of internal conflict. Members accept that they are part of a project group but resist the constraints that the project and group put on their individuality. There is conflict over who will control the group and how decisions will be made. As these conflicts are resolved, the project manager’s leadership becomes accepted, and the group moves to the next stage.

  3. Norming. The third stage is one in which close relationships develop and the group demonstrates cohesiveness. Feelings of camaraderie and shared responsibility for the project are heightened. The norming phase is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group establishes a common set of expectations about how members should work together.

  4. Performing. The team operating structure at this point is fully functional and accepted. Group energy has moved from getting to know each other and how the group will work together to accomplishing the project goals.

  5. Adjourning. For conventional work groups, performing is the last stage of their development. However, for project teams, there is a completion phase. During this stage, the team prepares for its own disbandment. High performance is no longer a top priority. Instead, attention is devoted to wrapping up the project. The members’ responses vary in this stage. Some members are upbeat, basking in the project team’s accomplishments. Others may be depressed over the loss of camaraderie and friendships gained during the project’s life.

FIGURE 11.1
The Five-Stage Team Development Model

Images

page 395

This model has several implications for those working on project teams. The first is that the model provides a framework for the group to understand its own development. Project managers have found it useful to share the model with their teams. It helps members accept the tensions of the storming phase, and it directs their focus to moving toward the more productive phases. Another implication is that it stresses the importance of the norming phase, which contributes significantly to the level of productivity experienced during the performing phase. Project managers, as we will see, have to take an active role in shaping group norms that will contribute to ultimate project success. For an alternative model of group development, see Research Highlight 11.1: The Punctuated Equilibrium Model of Group Development.

11.2 Situational Factors Affecting Team Development

Experience and research indicate that high-performance project teams are much more likely to develop under the following conditions.2

In reality, it is rare that a project manager is assigned a project that meets all of these conditions. For example, many projects’ requirements dictate the active involvement of more than 10 members and may consist of a complex set of interlocking teams comprising more than 100 professionals. In many organizations, functional managers or central manpower offices assign project members with little input from the project manager. To optimize resource utilization, team member involvement may be part time, and/or participants may move into and out of the project team on an as-needed basis. In the case of ad hoc task forces, no member of the team works full time on the project. In many corporations an NIH (not invented here) culture discourages collaboration across functional boundaries.

Team members often report to different managers, and in some cases the project manager has no direct input over performance appraisals and advancement opportunities of team members. Key functional areas may not be represented during the entire duration of the project but may only be involved in a sequential manner. Not all projects have a compelling objective. It can be hard to get members excited about mundane projects such as a simple product extension or a conventional apartment complex. Finally, team members are often scattered across different corporate offices and buildings or, in the case of a virtual project, across the entire globe.

page 396

page 397

It is important for project managers and team members to recognize the situational constraints they are operating under and do the best they can. It is naive to believe that every project team has the same potential to evolve into a high-performance team. Under less-than-ideal conditions, it may be a struggle just to meet project objectives. Ingenuity, discipline, and sensitivity to team dynamics are essential to maximizing the performance of a project team.

11.3 Building High-Performance Project Teams

Project managers play a key role in developing high-performance project teams. They recruit members, conduct meetings, establish a team identity, create a common sense of purpose or a shared vision, manage a reward system that encourages teamwork, orchestrate decision making, resolve conflicts that emerge within the team, and rejuvenate the team when energy wanes (see Figure 11.3). Project managers take advantage of situational factors that naturally contribute to team development while improvising around those factors that inhibit team development. In doing so they exhibit a highly interactive management style that exemplifies teamwork and, as discussed in Chapter 10, manage the interface between the team and the rest of the organization.

FIGURE 11.3
Creating a High-Performance Project Team

Images

Recruiting Project Members

The process of selecting and recruiting project members will vary across organizations. Two important factors affecting recruitment are the importance of the project and the management structure being used to complete the project. Often for high-priority projects that are critical to the future of the organization, the project manager will be given virtual carte blanche to select whomever she deems necessary. For less significant projects, personnel will simply be assigned to the project.

In many matrix structures, the functional manager controls who is assigned to the project; the project manager will have to work with the functional manager to obtain necessary personnel. Even in a project team where members are selected and assigned full time to the project, the project manager has to be sensitive to the needs of others. There is no better way to create enemies within an organization than to be perceived as unnecessarily robbing other departments of essential personnel.

page 398

Experienced project managers stress the importance of asking for volunteers. However, this desirable step often is outside the manager’s control. Still, the value of having team members volunteer for the project as opposed to being assigned cannot be overlooked. Agreeing to work on the project is the first step toward building personal commitment to the project. Such commitment will be essential to maintain motivation when the project hits hard times and extra effort is required.

When selecting and recruiting team members, project managers naturally look for individuals with the necessary experience and knowledge/technical skills critical for project completion. At the same time, there are less obvious considerations that need to be factored into the recruitment process:

  • Problem-solving ability. If the project is complex and fuzzy, then a manager wants people who are good at working under uncertainty and have strong problem-identification and problem-solving skills. These people are likely to be bored and less productive working on straightforward projects that go by the book.

  • Availability. Sometimes the people who are most available are not the ones wanted for the team. Conversely if members recruited are already overcommitted, they may not be able to offer much.

  • Technological expertise. Managers should be wary of people who know too much about a specific technology. They may be technology buffs who like to study but have a hard time doing the work.

  • Credibility. The credibility of the project is enhanced by the reputation of the people involved in it. Recruiting a sufficient number of “winners” lends confidence to the project.

  • Political connections. Managers are wise to recruit individuals who already have a good working relationship with key stakeholders. This is particularly true for projects operating in a matrix environment in which a significant portion of the work will be under the domain of a specific functional department and not the core project team.

  • Ambition, initiative, and energy. These qualities can make up for a lot of shortcomings in other areas and should not be underestimated.

  • Familiarity. Research suggests repeat collaboration stifles creativity and innovation. On challenging, breakthrough projects it is wise to interject the team with experts who have little previous working experience with others (Skilton & Dooley, 2010).

After reviewing needed skills, the manager should try to find out through the corporate grapevine who is good, who is available, and who might want to work on the project. Some organizations may allow direct interviews. Often a manager will have to expend political capital to get highly prized people assigned to the project.

In matrix environments the project manager will have to request appointments with functional managers to discuss the project requirements for staffing. The following documents should be available at these discussions: an overall project scope statement, endorsements of top management, and a description of the tasks and general schedule that pertain to the people from their departments. Managers need to be precise as to what attributes they are seeking and why they are important.

page 399

Conducting Project Meetings

The First Project Team Meeting

Research on team development confirms what project managers have stated: the project kick-off meeting is critical to the early functioning of the project team. According to one veteran project manager,

The first team meeting sets the tone for how the team will work together. If it is disorganized, or becomes bogged down with little sense of closure, then this can often become a self- fulfilling prophecy for subsequent group work. On the other hand, if it is crisply run, focusing on real issues and concerns in an honest and straightforward manner, members come away excited about being part of the project team.

There are typically three objectives project managers try to achieve during the first meeting of the project team. The first is to provide an overview of the project, including the scope and objectives, general schedule, method, and procedures. The second is to begin to address some of the interpersonal concerns captured in the team development model: Who are the other team members? How will I fit in? Will I be able to work with these people? The third and most important objective is to begin to model how the team is going to work together to complete the project. The project manager must recognize that first impressions are important; his behavior will be carefully monitored and interpreted by team members. This meeting should serve as an exemplary role model for subsequent meetings and reflect the leader’s style.

The meeting itself takes a variety of forms. It is not uncommon in major projects for the kick-off meeting to involve one or two days, often at a remote site away from interruptions. This retreat provides sufficient time to complete a preliminary introduction, to begin to establish ground rules, and to define the structure of the project. One advantage of off-site kick-off meetings is that they provide ample opportunity for informal interaction among members during breaks, meals, and evening activities; such informal interactions are critical to forming relationships.

However, many organizations do not have the luxury of holding elaborate retreats. In other cases the scope of a project does not warrant such an investment of time. In these cases, the key operating principle should be KISS (keep it simple, stupid!). Too often when constrained by time, project managers try to accomplish too much during the first meeting; in such instances, issues do not get fully resolved, and members come away with an information headache.

The project manager needs to remember that the primary goal is to run a productive meeting, and objectives should be realistic, given the time available. If the meeting is only one hour, then the project manager should simply review the scope of the project, discuss how the team was formed, and provide an opportunity for members to introduce themselves to the team.

Establishing Ground Rules

Whether as part of an elaborate first meeting or during follow-up meetings, the project manager must quickly begin to establish operational ground rules for how the team will work together. These ground rules involve not only organizational and procedural issues but also normative issues on how the team will interact with each other. Although specific procedures will vary across organizations and projects, some of the major issues that need to be addressed include the following:

page 400

Planning Decisions

  • How will the project plan be developed?

  • Will a specific project management software package be used? If so, which one?

  • What are the specific roles and responsibilities of all the participants?

  • Who needs to be informed of decisions? How will they be kept informed?

  • What is the relative importance of cost, time, and performance?

  • What are the deliverables of the project planning process?

  • Who will approve and sign off at the completion of each deliverable?

  • Who receives each deliverable?

Tracking Decisions

  • How will progress be assessed?

  • At what level of detail will the project be tracked?

  • How will team members get data from each other?

  • How often will they get these data?

  • Who will generate and distribute reports?

  • Who needs to be kept informed about project progress, and how will they be informed?

  • What content/format is appropriate for each audience?

  • Meetings

    • – Where will meetings be located?

    • – What kind of meetings will be held?

    • – Who will run these meetings?

    • – How will agendas be produced?

    • – How will information be recorded?

Managing Change Decisions

  • How will changes be instituted?

  • Who will have change approval authority?

  • How will plan changes be documented and evaluated?

Relationship Decisions

  • What department or organizations will the team need to interact with during the project?

  • What are the roles and responsibilities of each organization (reviewer, approver, creator, user)?

  • How will all involved parties be kept informed of deliverables, schedule dates, expectations, etc.?

  • How will the team members communicate among themselves?

  • What information will and won’t be exchanged?

Checklists like these are only a guide; items should be added or deleted as needed. Many of these procedures will have already been established by precedent and will only have to be briefly reviewed. For example, Microsoft Project or Primavera may be the standard software for planning and tracking. Likewise, a firm is likely to have an established format for reporting status information. How to deal with other page 401issues will have to be determined by the project team. When appropriate, the project manager should actively solicit input from the project team members and draw upon their experience and preferred work habits. This process also contributes to their buying into the operational decisions. Decisions should be recorded and circulated to all members.

Establishing Team Norms

During the course of establishing these operational procedures, the project manager, through word and deed, should begin working with members to establish the norms for team interaction. Following are examples of some of the norms researchers have found to be associated with high-performance teams.3

  • Confidentiality is maintained; no information is shared outside the team unless all agree to it.

  • It is acceptable to be in trouble, but it is not acceptable to surprise others. Tell others immediately when deadlines or milestones will not be reached.

  • There is zero tolerance for bulling a way through a problem or an issue.

  • Agree to disagree, but when a decision has been made, regardless of personal feelings, move forward.

  • Respect outsiders, and do not flaunt one’s position on the project team.

  • Hard work does not get in the way of having fun.

One way of making these norms more tangible is by creating a team charter that goes beyond the scope statement of the project and states in explicit terms the norms and values of the team. This charter should be a collaborative effort on the part of the core team. Project managers can lead by proposing certain tenets, but they need to be open to suggestions from the team. Once there is general agreement to the rules of conduct, each member signs the final document to symbolize commitment to the principles it contains.

Unfortunately, in some cases creating a charter becomes a meaningless ritual because the charter is signed and filed away, never to be discussed again. To have a lasting effect, the charter has to be a legitimate part of the project monitoring system. Just as the team reviews progress toward project objectives, the team assesses the extent to which members are adhering to the principles in the charter.

Project managers play a major role in establishing team norms through personal example. If they freely admit mistakes and share what they have learned from them, other team members will do the same. At the same time, project managers need to intervene when they believe such norms are being violated. They should talk to offenders privately and clearly state their expectations. The amazing thing about groups is that once a group is cohesive, with well-established norms, the members will police themselves so that the manager doesn’t have to be the heavy. For example, one project manager confided that his team had a practice of having a small bean bag present at every meeting. If any one member felt that a colleague was shading the truth, she was obligated to toss the bean bag at the speaker. See Snapshot from Practice 11.2: Putting Ford on Fast Forward for examples of norms that encourage innovation.

page 402

Managing Subsequent Project Meetings

The project kick-off meeting is one of several kinds of meetings required to complete a project. Others are status report meetings, problem-solving meetings, and audit meetings. Issues unique to these meetings will be discussed in subsequent chapters. For now, here are some general guidelines for running effective meetings; they speak directly to the person chairing the meeting.

  • Start meetings on time regardless of whether everyone is present.

  • Prepare and distribute an agenda prior to the meeting.

  • Identify an adjournment time.

  • Periodically take time to review how effective previous meetings have been.

  • Solicit recommendations and implement changes.

  • Assign good recordkeeping.

  • Review the agenda before beginning, and tentatively allocate time for each item.

  • Prioritize issues so that adjustments can be made, given time constraints.

  • Encourage active participation of all members by asking questions instead of making statements.

  • Summarize decisions, and review assignments for the next meeting.

  • Prepare and distribute a summary of the meeting to appropriate people.

  • Recognize accomplishments and positive behavior.

page 403

Meetings are often considered anathema to productivity, but this does not have to be the case. The most common complaint is that meetings last too long. Establishing an agenda and adjournment time helps participants budget discussion time and provides a basis for expediting the proceedings. Recordkeeping can be an unwelcome, tedious task. Utilizing laptop computers to record decisions and information in real time can facilitate the communication process. Careful preparation and consistent application of these guidelines can make meetings a vital part of projects.

Establishing a Team Identity

One of the challenges project managers often face in building a team is the lack of full-time involvement of team members. Specialists work on different phases of the project and spend the majority of their time and energy elsewhere. They are often members of multiple teams, each competing for their time and allegiance. Project expert J. D. Frame (1995) points out that for many of these specialists a specific project is an abstraction; as a consequence their level of motivation suffers. Project managers need to make the project team as tangible as possible to the participants by developing a unique team identity to which participants can become emotionally attached. Team meetings, co-location of team members, team names, and team rituals are common vehicles for doing so.

  • Effective use of meetings. Periodic team meetings provide an important forum for communicating project information. A less obvious function of project meetings is to help establish a concrete team identity. During project meetings, members see that they are not working alone. They are part of a larger project team, and project success depends on the collective efforts of all the team members. Timely gatherings of all the project participants help define team membership and reinforce a collective identity.

  • Co-location of team members. The most obvious way to make the project team tangible is to have members work together in a common space. This is not always possible in matrix environments where involvement is part time and members are working on other projects and activities. A worthwhile substitute for co-location is the creation of a project office, sometimes referred to as the project war room or clubhouse. Such rooms are the common meeting place and contain the most significant project documentation. Frequently, their walls are covered with Gantt charts, cost graphs, and other output associated with project planning and control. These rooms serve as a tangible sign of project effort.

  • Creation of project team name. The development of a team name such as the “A-Team” or “Casey’s Crusaders” is a common device for making a team more tangible. Frequently an associated team logo is also created. Again, the project manager should rely on the collective ingenuity of the team to come up with the appropriate name and logo. Such symbols then can be affixed to stationery, T-shirts, coffee mugs, and so on to help signify team membership.

  • Get the team to build or do something together early on. Nothing reinforces a sense of a team more than working on something together. In the case of one international project, the manager simply hosted a potluck dinner where the members brought dishes their countries were famous for.

  • Team rituals. Just as corporate rituals help establish the unique identity of a firm, similar symbolic actions at the project level can contribute to a unique team subculture. For example, on one project, members were given ties with stripes that corresponded to the number of milestones on the project. After reaching each milestone, page 404the members gathered and cut the next stripe off their ties to signify progress.4 Ralph Katz (2004) reports it was common practice for Digital Equipment’s alpha chip design team to recognize people who found a bug in the design by giving them a phosphorescent toy roach. The bigger the bug that was discovered, the bigger the toy roach received. Such rituals help set project work apart from mainstream operations and reinforce a special status.

Creating a Shared Vision

Unlike project scope statements, which include specific cost, completion dates, and performance requirements, a project vision involves the less tangible aspects of project performance. A project vision is an image project team members hold in common about how the project will look upon completion, how they will work together, and/or how customers will accept the project. At its simplest level, a shared vision is the answer to the question “What do we want to create?” Not everyone will have the same vision, but the images should be similar. Visions come in a variety of forms; they can be captured in a slogan or symbol or can be written as a formal vision statement.

What a vision is, is not as important as what it does. A vision inspires members to give their best effort. (See Snapshot from Practice 11.3: A Good Man in a Storm.) Moreover, a shared vision unites professionals with different backgrounds and agendas to a common aspiration. It helps motivate members to subordinate their individual agendas and do what is best for the project. As psychologist Robert Fritz puts it, “In the presence of greatness, pettiness disappears.”5 Visions also provide focus and help communicate less tangible priorities, helping members make appropriate judgment calls. Finally, a shared vision for a project fosters commitment to the long term and discourages expedient responses that collectively dilute the quality of the project.

Visions can be surprisingly simple. For example, the vision for a new car could be expressed as a “pocket rocket.” Compare this vision with the more traditional product description—“a sports car in the midprice range.” The “pocket rocket” vision provides a much clearer picture of what the final product should be. Design engineers would immediately understand that the car will be both small and fast and that the car should be quick at the getaway, nimble in the turns, and very fast in the straightaways (Bowen et al., 1994). Alternatively, visions can be more concrete: “The Helpdesk Automated Site (HASS) Version 4.5 will address the top 10 customer complaints across the university without any negative impact on average performance, reliability or response time across the system.”6

There appear to be four essential qualities of an effective vision (see Figure 11.4). First, its essential qualities must be able to be communicated. A vision is worthless if it only resides in someone’s head. The use of concrete, image-based language, such as “pocket rocket,” is critical (Murphy & Clark, 2016). Second, visions have to be challenging but also realistic. For example, a task force directed at overhauling the curriculum at the college of business at a state university is likely to roll its collective eyes if the dean announces that their vision is to compete against the Harvard Business School. Conversely, developing the best undergraduate business program in that state may be a realistic vision for that task force. Third, the project manager has to believe in the vision. Passion for the vision is an essential element of an effective vision. Finally, it should be a source of inspiration to others.

FIGURE 11.4
Requirements for an Effective Project Vision

Images

page 405

page 406

Once a project manager accepts the importance of building a shared vision, the next question is how to get a vision for a particular project. First, project managers don’t get visions. They act as catalysts and midwives for the formation of a shared vision of a project team (Smith, 1994). In many cases visions are inherent in the scope and objectives of the project. People get naturally excited about being the first ones to bring a new technology to the market or solving a problem that is threatening their organization. Even with mundane projects, there are often ample opportunities for establishing a compelling vision. One way is to talk to various people involved in the project and find out early on what gets them excited about the project. For some it may be doing a better job than on the last project or the satisfaction in the eyes of the customers when the project is over. Many visions evolve reactively in response to competition—for example, Samsung engineers trying to develop a next generation smartphone that critics will proclaim superior to the iPhone.

Some experts advocate engaging in formal vision-building meetings. These meetings generally involve several steps, beginning with members identifying different aspects of the project and generating ideal scenarios for each aspect. For example, on a construction project the scenarios may include “no accidents,” “no lawsuits,” “winning a prize,” or “how we are going to spend our bonus for completing the project ahead of schedule.” The group reviews and chooses the scenarios that are most appealing and translates them into vision statements for the project. The next step is to identify strategies for achieving the vision statements. For example, if one of the vision statements is that there will be no lawsuits, members will identify how they will have to work with the owner and subcontractors to avoid litigation. Next, members volunteer to be responsible for each statement. The vision, strategies, and name of the responsible team member are published and distributed to relevant stakeholders.

In more cases than not, shared visions emerge informally. Project managers collect information about what excites participants about the project. They test bits of their working vision in their conversations with team members to gauge the level of excitement the early ideas elicit in others. To some extent they engage in basic market research. They seize opportunities to galvanize the team, such as a disparaging remark by an executive that the project will never get done on time or the threat of a competing firm launching a similar project. Consensus in the beginning is not essential. What is essential is a core group of at least one-third of the project team that is genuinely committed to the vision. They will provide the critical mass to draw others aboard. Once the language has been formulated to communicate the vision, the statement needs to be a staple part of every working agenda, and the project manager should be prepared to deliver a “stump” speech at a moment’s notice. When problems or disagreements emerge, all responses should be consistent with the vision.

Much has been written about visions and leadership. Critics argue that vision is a glorified substitute for shared goals. Others argue that it is one of the things that separate leaders from managers. The key is discovering what excites people about a project, being able to articulate this source of excitement in an appealing manner, and protecting and nurturing this source of excitement throughout the project.

Managing Project Reward Systems

Project managers are responsible for managing the reward system that encourages team performance and extra effort. One advantage they have is that often project work is inherently satisfying, whether it is manifested in an inspiring vision or a simple sense of accomplishment. Projects provide participants with a change in scenery, a chance to learn new skills, and an opportunity to break out of their departmental page 407cocoon. Another inherent reward is what has been referred to as “pinball”—project success typically gives team members an option to play another exciting game.7

Still, many projects are underappreciated and boring; interfere with other, more significant priorities; and are considered an extra burden. In some of these cases, the biggest reward is finishing the project so that team members can go back to what they really enjoy doing and what will yield the biggest personal payoffs. Unfortunately, when this attitude is the primary incentive, project quality is likely to suffer. In these circumstances, external rewards play a more important role in motivating team performance.

Most project managers we talk to advocate the use of group rewards. Because most project work is a collaborative effort, it only makes sense that the reward system would encourage teamwork. Recognizing individual members regardless of their accomplishments can distract from team unity. Project work is highly interdependent, so it can become problematic to distinguish who truly deserves additional credit. Cash bonuses and incentives need to be linked to project priorities. It makes no sense to reward a team for completing their work early if controlling cost was the number one priority.

One of the limitations of lump-sum cash bonuses is that all too often they are consumed by the household budget to pay the dentist or mechanic. To have more value, rewards need to have lasting significance (Smith & Reinertsen, 1997). Many companies convert cash into vacation rewards, sometimes with corresponding time off. For example, one firm rewarded a project team for getting the job done ahead of schedule with a four-day, all-expenses-paid trip to Walt Disney World for the members’ entire families. That vacation not only will be remembered for years but also recognizes spouses and children, who, in a sense, also contributed to the project’s success. Similarly, other firms have been known to give members home computers and entertainment centers. Wise project managers negotiate a discretionary budget so that they can reward teams’ surpassing milestones with gift certificates to popular restaurants or tickets to sporting events. Impromptu pizza parties and barbecues are also used to celebrate key accomplishments.

Sometimes project managers have to use negative reinforcement to motivate project performance. For example, Ritti and Levy recount the story of one project manager who was in charge of the construction of a new, state-of-the-art manufacturing plant. His project team was working with a number of different contracting firms. The project was slipping behind schedule, mostly because of a lack of cooperation among the different players. The project manager did not have direct authority over many key people, especially the contractors from the other companies. He did, however, have the freedom to convene meetings at his convenience. So the project manager instituted daily “coordination meetings,” which were required of all the principals involved, at 6:00 a.m. The meetings continued for about two weeks until the project got back on schedule. At that time the project manager announced that the next meeting was canceled, and no further sunrise meetings were ever scheduled.8

While project managers tend to focus on group rewards, there are times when they need to reward individual performance. This is done not only to compensate extraordinary effort but also to signal to the others what exemplary behavior is. Examples of this kind of rewards include

page 408

  • Letters of commendation. While project managers may not have responsibility for their team members’ performance appraisals, they can write letters commending their project performance. These letters can be sent to the workers’ supervisors to be placed in their personnel files.

  • Public recognition for outstanding work. Superlative workers should be publicly recognized for their efforts. Some project managers begin each status review meeting with a brief mention of project workers who have exceeded their project goals.

  • Job assignments. Good project managers recognize that while they may not have much budgetary authority, they do have substantial control over who does what, with whom, when, and where. Good work should be rewarded with desirable job assignments. Managers should be aware of member preferences and, when appropriate, accommodate them.

  • Flexibility. Being willing to make exceptions to rules, if done judiciously, can be a powerful reward. Allowing members to work at home when a child is sick or excusing a minor indiscretion can engender long-lasting loyalty.

Individual rewards should be used judiciously, and under extraordinary circumstances. Nothing undermines the cohesiveness of a team more than members beginning to feel that others are getting special treatment or that they are being treated unfairly. Camaraderie and collaboration can quickly vanish, only to be replaced by bickering and obsessive preoccupation with group politics. Such distractions can absorb energy that otherwise would be directed toward completing the project. Individual rewards typically should be used only when everyone in the team recognizes that a member is deserving of special recognition.

Orchestrating the Decision-Making Process

Most decisions on a project do not require a formal meeting to discuss alternatives and determine solutions. Instead, decisions are made in real time as part of the daily interactions among project managers, stakeholders, and team members. For example, as a result of a routine “How’s it going?” question, a project manager discovers that a mechanical engineer is stuck trying to meet the performance criteria for a prototype she is responsible for building. The project manager and engineer go down the hallway to talk to the designers, explain the problem, and ask what, if anything, can be done. The designers distinguish which criteria are essential and which ones they think can be compromised. The project manager then checks with the marketing group to make sure the modifications are acceptable. They agree with all but two of the modifications. The project manager goes back to the mechanical engineer and asks whether the proposed changes would help solve the problem. The engineer agrees. Before authorizing the changes he calls the project sponsor, reviews the events, and gets the sponsor to sign off on the changes. This is an example of how, by practicing MBWA (management by wandering around), project managers consult team members, solicit ideas, determine optimum solutions, and create a sense of involvement that builds trust and commitment to decisions.

Still, projects encounter problems and decisions that require the collective wisdom of team members, as well as relevant stakeholders. Group decision making should be used when it will improve the quality of important decisions (Vroom & Jago, 1988). This is often the case with complex problems that require the input of various specialists. Group decision making should also be used when strong commitment to the decision is needed and there is a low probability of acceptance if only one person page 409makes the decision. Participation is used to reduce resistance and secure support for the decision. Guidelines for managing group decision making are provided in the following section.

Facilitating Group Decision Making

Project managers play a pivotal role in guiding the group decision-making process. They must remind themselves that their job is not to make a decision but to facilitate the discussion within the group so that the team reaches a consensus on the best possible solution. Consensus within this context does not mean that everyone supports the decision 100 percent but that they all agree what the best solution is under the circumstances. Facilitating group decision making essentially involves four major steps.9

  1. Identifying problems. The project manager needs to be careful not to state the problem in terms of choices (e.g., “Should we do X or Y?”). Rather, the project manager should identify the underlying problem to which these alternatives and probably others are potential solutions. This allows group members to generate alternatives, not just choose among them. One useful way of defining problems is to consider the gap between where a project is (the present state) and where it should be (desired state). For example, the project may be four days behind schedule or the prototype weighs two pounds more than the specifications. Whether the gap is small or large, the purpose is to eliminate it. The group must find one or more courses of action that will change the existing state into the desired one.

    If defensive posturing is detected during the problem-identification discussion, then it may be wise to postpone the problem-solving step if possible. This allows for emotions to subside and members to gain a fresh perspective on the issues involved.

  2. Generating alternatives. Once there is general agreement on the nature of the problem(s), the next step is to generate alternative solutions. If the problem requires creativity, then brainstorming is commonly recommended. Here, the team generates a list of possible solutions on a flipchart or blackboard. During that time the project manager establishes a moratorium on criticizing or evaluating ideas. Members are encouraged to “piggyback” on others’ ideas by extending them or combining ideas into a new idea. The object is to create as many alternatives as possible, no matter how outlandish they appear to be. Some project managers report that for really tough problems they have found it beneficial to conduct such sessions away from the normal work environment; the change in scenery stimulates creativity.

  3. Reaching a decision. The next step is to evaluate the merits of alternative solutions. During this phase it is useful to have a set of criteria for this process. In many cases the project manager can draw upon the priorities for the project and have the group assess each alternative in terms of its impact on cost, schedule, and performance as well as reducing the problem gap. For example, if time is critical, then the solution that solves the problem as quickly as possible would be chosen.

    During the course of the discussion the project manager attempts to build consensus among the group. This can be a complicated process. Project managers need to provide periodic summaries to help the group keep track of its progress. They must protect those members who represent the minority view and ensure that such views get a fair hearing. They need to guarantee that everyone has an opportunity to share opinions and no one individual or group dominates the conversation. page 410It may be useful to regulate the use of air time with a two-minute timer. When conflicts occur, managers need to apply some of the ideas and techniques discussed in the next section.

    Project managers need to engage in consensus testing to determine what points the group agrees on and what are still sources of contention. They are careful not to interpret silence as agreement; they confirm agreement by asking questions. Ultimately, through thoughtful interaction, the team reaches a “meeting of the minds” as to what solution is best for the project.

  4. Following up. Once the decision has been made and implemented, it is important for the team to find the time to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision. If the decision failed to provide the anticipated solution, then the reasons should be explored and the lessons learned added to the collective memory bank of the project team.

Managing Conflict within the Project

Disagreements and conflicts naturally emerge within a project team during the life of the project. Participants will disagree over priorities, the allocation of resources, the quality of specific work, solutions to discovered problems, and so forth (see Snapshot from Practice 11.4: Managing Low-Priority Projects). Some conflicts support the goals of the group and improve project performance. For example, two members may be locked in a debate over a design trade-off decision involving different features of a product. They argue that their preferred feature is what the primary customer truly wants. This disagreement may force them to get more information from the customer, with the result that they realize neither feature is highly valued and the customer wants something else instead. On the other hand, conflicts can also hinder group performance. Initial disagreements can escalate into heated arguments with both parties refusing to work together.

Sources of conflict are likely to change as projects progress along the project life cycle (Adams & Brandt, 1988; Posner, 1986; Thamhain & Wilemon, 1975). Figure 11.5 summarizes the major sources of conflict in each phase.

FIGURE 11.5
Sources of Conflict over the Project Life Cycle

Images

During project definition, the most significant sources of conflict are priorities, administrative procedures, and schedule. Disputes occur over the relative importance of the project compared with other activities, which project management structure to use (especially how much control the project manager should have), the personnel to be assigned, and the scheduling of the project into existing workloads.

page 411

During the planning phase, the chief source of conflict remains priorities, followed by schedules, procedures, and technical requirements. This is the phase when the project moves from a general concept to a detailed set of plans. The relative importance of the project still must be established, as well as project priorities (time, cost, scope). Disagreements often emerge over the final schedule, the assignment of resources, communication and decision-making procedures, and the technical requirements for the project.

During the execution phase, friction arises over schedule slippage, technical problems, and staff issues. Milestones become more difficult to meet because of accumulating schedule slippages. This leads to tension within the team as delays prevent others from starting or completing their work. Managing the trade-offs among time, cost, and performance becomes paramount. Project managers must decide among letting the schedule slip, investing additional funds to get back on track, and scaling back the scope of the project in order to save time. Technical problems involve page 412finding solutions to unexpected problems and integrating the contributions of various people. The strain of the project may be expressed in interpersonal conflicts as well as pressures to use resources more effectively.

During the delivery phase, the level of conflict tends to subside. On troubled projects, schedules continue to be the biggest source of conflict as schedule slippages make it more difficult to meet target completion dates. Pressures to meet objectives coupled with growing anxiety over future assignments increase interpersonal tensions. Technical problems are rare, since most of them have been worked out during the earlier phases.

Encouraging Functional Conflict

The demarcation between functional and dysfunctional conflict is neither clear nor precise. In one team, members may exchange a diatribe of four-letter expletives and eventually resolve their differences. Yet in another project team, such behavior would create irreconcilable divisions and would prohibit the parties from ever working together productively again. The distinguishing criterion is how the conflict affects project performance, not how individuals feel. Members can be upset and dissatisfied with the interchange, but as long as the disagreement furthers the objectives of the project, the conflict is functional. Project managers should recognize that conflict is an inevitable and even a desirable part of project work; the key is to encourage functional conflict and manage dysfunctional conflict.

A shared vision can transcend the incongruities of a project and establish a common purpose to channel debate in a constructive manner. Without shared goals there is no common ground for working out differences. In the previous example involving the design trade-off decision, when both parties agreed that the primary goal was to satisfy the customer, there was a basis for more objectively resolving the dispute. Therefore, agreeing in advance which priority is most important—cost, schedule, or scope—can help a project team decide what response is most appropriate.

Sometimes it’s not the presence of conflict but the absence of conflict that is the problem. Often as a result of compressed time pressures, self-doubt, and the desire to preserve team harmony, members are reluctant to voice objections. This hesitation robs the team of useful information that might lead to better solutions and the avoidance of critical mistakes. Project managers need to encourage healthy dissent in order to improve problem solving and innovation. They can demonstrate this process by asking tough questions and challenging the rationale behind recommendations. They can also orchestrate healthy conflict by bringing people with different points of view to critical meetings.

Project managers can legitimize dissent within the team by designating someone to play the role of devil’s advocate or by asking the group to take 15 minutes to come up with all the reasons the team should not pursue a course of action. Functional conflict plays a critical role in obtaining a deeper understanding of the issues and coming up with the best decisions possible.

One of the most important things project managers can do is model an appropriate response when someone disagrees or challenges their ideas. They need to avoid acting defensively and instead encourage critical debate. They should exhibit effective listening skills and summarize the key issues before responding. They should check to see if others agree with the opposing point of view. Finally, project managers should value and protect dissenters. Organizations have a tendency to create too many yes-men, and the emperor needs to be told when he doesn’t have any clothes on.

page 413

Managing Dysfunctional Conflict

Managing dysfunctional conflict is a much more challenging task than encouraging functional conflict. First, dysfunctional conflict is hard to identify. A manager might have two highly talented professionals who hate each other but in the heat of competition produce meritorious results. Is this a pleasant situation? No. Is it functional? Yes, as long as it contributes to project performance. Conversely sometimes functional conflict degenerates into dysfunctional conflict. This change occurs when technical disagreements evolve into irrational personality clashes or when failure to resolve an issue causes unnecessary delays in critical project work.

The second major difficulty managers face is that there is often no easy solution to dysfunctional conflict. Project managers have to choose from among a number of strategies to manage it; following are five possibilities.

  1. Mediate the conflict. The manager intervenes and tries to negotiate a resolution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives and the like. One of the keys is trying to find common ground. In some cases the project manager can make the argument that the win/lose interchange has escalated to the point that it has become lose/lose for everyone and now is the time to make concessions.

  2. Arbitrate the conflict. The manager imposes a solution to the conflict after listening to each party. The goal is not to decide who wins but to have the project win. In doing so, it is important to seek a solution that allows each party to save face; otherwise, the decision may provide only momentary relief. One project manager admits that she has had great success using a King Solomon approach to resolving conflict. She announces a solution that neither party will like and gives the opponents two hours to come up with a better solution they can both agree on.

  3. Control the conflict. Reducing the intensity of the conflict by smoothing over differences or interjecting humor is an effective strategy. If feelings are escalating, the manager can adjourn the interaction and hope cooler heads prevail the next day. If the conflict continues to escalate, project assignments may need to be rearranged if possible so that two parties don’t have to work together.

  4. Accept the conflict. In some cases the conflict will outlive the project and, though a distraction, it is one the manager has to live with.

  5. Eliminate the conflict. Sometimes the conflict has escalated to the point that it is no longer tolerable. If there is a clear villain, then only he should be removed. If, as is often the case, both parties are at fault, then it is wise, if possible, to eliminate both individuals. Their removal gives a clear signal to the others on the team that this kind of behavior is unacceptable.

In summary, project managers create the foundation for functional conflict by establishing clear roles and responsibilities, developing common goals or a shared vision, and using group incentives that reward collaboration. Project managers have to be adroit at reading body language to identify unspoken disagreement. They also have to keep in touch with what is going on in a project to identify small problems that might escalate into big conflicts. Using well-timed humor and redirecting the focus to what is best for the project can alleviate the interpersonal tensions that are likely to flare up on a project team.

Rejuvenating the Project Team

Over the course of a long project, a team sometimes drifts off track and loses momentum. The project manager needs to swing into action to realign the team page 414with the project objectives. There are both formal and informal ways of doing this. Informally, the project manager can institute new rituals, like the “toy roaches,” to re-energize the team. On one project that was experiencing rough going, the project manager stopped work and took the team bowling to relieve frustrations. On another project, a manager showed her team the movie The Shawshank Redemption to rekindle hope and commitment to success.

Another option is to have the project sponsor give a pep talk to the “troops.” In other cases, a friendly challenge can reinvigorate a team. For example, one project sponsor offered to cook a five-course meal if the project got back on track and hit the next milestone.

Sometimes more formal action needs to be taken. The project manager may recognize the need for a team-building session devoted to improving the work processes of the team. This meeting is particularly appropriate if he senses that the team is approaching a transition point in its development. The goal of such a session is to improve the project team’s effectiveness through better management of project demands and group processes. It is the team’s inward look at its own performance, behavior, and culture to eliminate dysfunctional behaviors and strengthen functional ones. The project team critiques its performance, analyzes its way of doing things, and attempts to develop strategies to improve its operation.

Often an external consultant is hired or an internal staff specialist is assigned to facilitate the session. This process brings a more objective, outside perspective to the table, frees the project manager to be part of the process, and provides a specialist trained in group dynamics. Furthermore, if preliminary information is to be collected, team members may be more candid with and open to an outsider.

One caveat about using outside consultants is that too often managers resort to this as a method for dealing with a problem that they have been unable or unwilling to deal with. The marching order to the consultant is “Fix my team for me.” What the managers fail to recognize is that one of the keys to fixing the team is improving the working relationship between themselves and the remainder of the team. For such sessions to be effective, project managers must be willing to have their own role scrutinized and be receptive to changing their own behavior and work habits based on the team’s comments and suggestions.

Consultants use a wide variety of team-building techniques to elevate team performance. Here is a brief description of one of the more common approaches. The first step is to gather information and make a preliminary diagnosis of team performance. Whether through individual interviews or in a group forum, the consultant asks general questions about the project team performance, that is, what obstacles are getting in the way of the team being able to perform better? This information is summarized in terms of themes. When everyone has understood the themes, the group ranks them in terms of both their importance and the extent the team has ownership over them. This last dimension is critical. Ownership refers to whether the team has direct influence over the issue. For example, a team probably has little influence over delivery of contracted supplies, but team members do control how quickly they inform each other of sudden changes in plans.

If the group becomes preoccupied with issues outside its control, the meeting can quickly evolve into a demoralizing gripe session. Therefore, the most important issues they have direct control over become the subjects of the agenda. During the meeting, much interpersonal and group process information will be generated, and that is examined too. Thus, the group works on two sets of items: the agenda items and the items that emerge from the interaction of the participants. This is where the expertise page 415of the external facilitator becomes critical for identifying interaction patterns and their implications for team performance.

As important problems are discussed, alternatives for action are developed. The team-building session concludes by deciding on specific action steps for remedying problems and setting target dates for who will do what, when. These assignments can be reviewed at project status meetings or at a follow-up session.

It has become fashionable to link team-building activities with outdoor experiences. The outdoor experience—such as whitewater rafting down the Rogue River in Oregon or rock climbing in Colorado—places group members in a variety of physically challenging situations that must be mastered through teamwork, not individual effort. By having to work together to overcome difficult obstacles, team members are supposed to experience increased self-confidence, more respect for another’s capabilities, and a greater commitment to teamwork. No empirical data are available to support such exotic endeavors other than the enthusiastic support of the participants. Such activities are likely to provide an intense common experience that may accelerate the social development of the team. Such an investment of time and money communicates the importance of teamwork and is considered by some a perk for being on the project. At the same time, unless the lessons from these experiences can be immediately transferred to actual project work, their significance is likely to vanish.

11.4 Managing Virtual Project Teams

Building a high-performance project team among a mixture of part-time and full-time members is a challenging task. Consider how much more challenging it is to build a team when members cannot engage in face-to-face interactions. Such is the case for a virtual project team in which the team members are geographically situated so that they seldom, if ever, meet face-to-face as a team. For example, Hewlett Packard’s integrated circuit business headquarters and a portion of the R&D facilities are located in Palo Alto, California; the two wafer fabrication operations are located in Corvallis, Oregon, and Fort Collins, Colorado; and the packaging assembly process is primarily in Singapore and Korea. It is not uncommon for professionals at each of these locations to be involved in the same project. When team members are spread across different time zones and continents, the opportunity for direct communication is severely limited. Electronic communication such as the Internet, e-mail, and teleconferencing takes on much more importance in virtual projects because this is the primary means of communication. See Snapshot from Practice 11.5: Managing Virtual Global Teams for an example of how this works.

Two of the biggest challenges involved in managing a virtual project team are establishing trust and developing effective patterns of communication (Lipsinger & DeRosa, 2010). Trust is difficult to establish in virtual project management. Unlike working as a traditional team, where members can see whether someone has done what she says she has done, virtual team members depend on the word of distant members. At the same time, it can be difficult to trust someone you may have met only one or two times or not at all. Geographical separation also prohibits the informal social interactions that are often essential to building camaraderie among team members. As one virtual team member put it, “You can’t have a beer together over the Internet.”

So how can a project manager facilitate the development of trust within a virtual team? First, if it is impossible to hold a face-to-face meeting in the beginning, managers need to orchestrate the exchange of social information—who everyone is and page 416some personal background information during the initial electronic interchange. Second, they need to set clear roles for each team member. Ideally, specific tasks should be assigned to each member so that he can make an immediate contribution to the project. Trust in virtual projects grows through team member reliability, consistency, and responsiveness (Coutu, 1998). Finally, if possible, teams should be seeded with people who have already worked effectively together on projects.

page 417

The second major challenge for managing a virtual project team is to establish effective patterns of communication. E-mail and faxes are great for communicating facts—but not the feelings behind the facts; nor do they allow for real-time communication. Conference calls and project chat rooms can help, but they also have their limitations. Videoconferencing is a significant improvement over nonvisual electronic forms of communication. Still, videoconferencing is not always available or is of page 418such poor quality to be a distraction in many parts of the world. The maxim is “Match technology to the communication need.” The following are some guidelines developed by 3M for use on their distributed projects.10

Even with the best communication system, managers have to overcome the problems of working within time zone differences, working with cultural nuances, and finding a convenient time for people to conference.

Following are some additional tips for alleviating communication problems and enhancing the performance of virtual teams:

  1. Don’t let team members vanish. Virtual teams often experience problems getting in touch with each other. Use Internet scheduling software to store members’ calendars.

  2. Establish a code of conduct to avoid delays. Team members need to agree not only on what, when, and how information will be shared but also on how and when they will respond to it. Develop a priority system to distinguish messages that require immediate response from those with longer time frames.

  3. Establish clear norms and protocols for surfacing assumptions and conflicts. Because most communication is nonvisual, project managers cannot watch body language and facial expressions to develop a sense of what is going on. They need to probe deeper when communicating to force members to explain their viewpoints, actions, and concerns more clearly; they must double-check comprehension.

  4. Use electronic video technology to verify work. Instead of relying on others’ judgment, have members “show” work that has been done via Internet video. This can avoid costly misunderstanding and provide useful feedback.

  5. Share the pain. Do not require everyone to conform to your time zone and preferences. Rotate meeting times so that all team members have a turn working according to their clock.

To some extent managing a virtual project team is no different from managing a regular project team. The key is working within the constraints of the situation to develop effective ways for team members to interact and combine their talents to complete the project.

page 419

11.5 Project Team Pitfalls

High-performance project teams can produce dramatic results. However, like any good thing, there is a dark side to project teams that managers need to be aware of. In this section we examine some of the pathologies that high-performance project teams can succumb to and highlight what project managers can do to reduce the likelihood of these problems occurring.

Groupthink

Janis (1982) first identified groupthink as a factor that influenced the misguided 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. His term refers to the tendency of members in highly cohesive groups to lose their critical evaluative capabilities. This malady appears when pressures for conformity are combined with an illusion of invincibility to suspend critical discussion of decisions. As a result decisions are made quickly with little consideration of alternatives; often the practice leads to fiascoes that, after the fact, appear totally improbable. Some of the symptoms of groupthink include the following:

  • Illusion of invulnerability. The team feels invincible. It is marked by a high degree of esprit de corps, an implicit faith in its own wisdom, and an inordinate optimism that allows group members to feel complacent about the quality of their decisions.

  • Whitewash of critical thinking. The group members discuss only a few solutions, ignoring alternatives; they fail to examine the adverse consequences that could follow their preferred course of action; and they too quickly dismiss any alternatives that, on the surface, appear to be unsatisfactory.

  • Negative stereotypes of outsiders. “Good guy/bad guy” stereotypes emerge in which the group considers any outsiders who oppose their decisions as the “bad guys,” who are perceived as incompetent and malicious and whose points are unworthy of serious consideration.

  • Direct pressure. When a team member does speak out or question the direction in which the team is headed, direct pressure is applied to the dissenter. She is reminded that speed is important and that the aim is agreement, not argument.

Bureaucratic Bypass Syndrome

Project teams are often licensed to get things done without having to go through normal protocols of the parent organization. Bypassing bureaucratic channels is appealing and invigorating. However, if bypassing becomes a way of life, it results in the rejection of bureaucratic policies and procedures, which provide the glue for the overall organization. A team that operates outside the organization may alienate other workers, who are constrained by the norms and procedures of the organization; eventually, these outside bureaucrats will find ways to put up roadblocks and thwart the project team (Johansen et al., 1991).

Team Spirit Becomes Team Infatuation

High-performance project teams can be a tremendous source of personal satisfaction. The excitement, chaos, and joy generated by working on a challenging project can be an invigorating experience. Leavitt and Lipman-Blumen (1995) even go so far as to say that team members behave like people in love. They become infatuated with the challenge of the project and the talent around them. This total preoccupation with the project and the project team, while contributing greatly to the remarkable success of page 420the project, can leave in its wake a string of broken professional and personal relationships that contribute to burnout and disorientation upon completion of the project.

page 421

Summary

Project managers often work under less-than-ideal conditions to develop a cohesive team committed to working together and completing the project to the best of their abilities. They have to recruit personnel from other departments and manage the temporary involvement of team members. They often have to bring strangers together and quickly establish a set of operational procedures that unite their efforts and contributions. They have to be skilled at managing meetings so that they do not become a burden but, rather, a vehicle for progress. Project managers need to forge a team identity and a shared vision that command the attention and allegiance of participants. Project managers have to encourage functional conflict that contributes to superior solutions while being on guard against dysfunctional conflict that can break a team apart. In doing these things, they have to avoid the pitfalls of excessive group cohesion.

While agendas, charters, visions, rewards, and so forth are important tools and techniques, it was emphasized both in this chapter and in Chapter 10 that the most important tool a project manager has to build an effective project team is his or her own behavior. Just as the founding members of an organization shape the culture of the organization, the project manager shapes and influences the internal culture of the project team. A positive example can define how team members respond to changes, how they handle new tasks, and how they relate to one another and the rest of the organization. There is no easy way to lead by example. It requires personal conviction, discipline, sensitivity to team dynamics, and a constant awareness of how personal actions are perceived by others.

Key Terms

Review Questions

  1. What are the differences between the five-stage model of team development and the punctuated equilibrium model?

  2. What are the elements of an effective project vision? Why are they important?

  3. Why should a project manager emphasize group rewards over individual rewards?

  4. What is the difference between functional and dysfunctional conflict on a project?

  5. When would it be appropriate to hold a formal team-building session on a project?

  6. What are the unique challenges to managing a virtual project team?

  7. What can a project manager do to avoid some of the pitfalls of a highly cohesive project team?

  8. “Trust can actually encourage disagreement and conflict among team members.” Explain why this would be the case.

page 422

SNAPSHOT Images FROM PRACTICE

Discussion Questions

  • 11.1 The 2008 Olympic Redeem Team

  1. Which of the eight characteristics associated with positive synergy were evident in the case of the Redeem team?

  2. Which of the eight characteristics associated with positive synergy were not evident in the 2004 team that lost in the Olympics in Athens?

  • 11.2 Putting Ford on Fast Forward

  1. How important is a fun culture for innovation?

  2. What similarities do you see between the Ford Diesel team and the Mac team at Apple and the Skunk Works at Lockheed?

  • 11.3 A Good Man in a Storm

  1. How easy do you think it is to identify people who respond to challenges?

  2. In addition to acting as a cheerleader, what other important roles does Tom West suggest a project manager play?

  • 11.4 Managing Low-Priority Projects

  1. Looking back on your experience working on low-priority projects, did any of these strategies work?

  • 11.5 Managing Virtual Global Teams

  1. How did Singer enhance trust on his project?

  2. How did Singer establish effective patterns of communication?

  3. What do you think would have happened if the work had been completed in Japan instead of Australia?

  • 11.6 Nominal Group Technique

  1. How does the nominal group technique prevent groupthink from occurring on a project?

Exercises

  1. The following activities are based on a recently completed group project that you were involved in. This project may have been a student project, a work project, or an extracurricular project.

    1. Analyze the development of the team in terms of the five-stage model and the punctuated equilibrium model. Which model does the best job of describing how the team evolved?

    2. Analyze the group in terms of the nine situational factors that influence team development. What factors positively contributed to group performance? What factors negatively contributed to group performance? How did the group try to overcome the negative factors? What could you have done differently to overcome these negative factors?

    3. Analyze how effectively the group managed meetings. What did the group do well? What didn’t the group do well? If the group were formed again, what specific recommendations would you make about how the group should manage meetings?

  2. Assume that you have the following decision-making options: (1) make decisions on your own with available information, (2) consult others before making a decision, and (3) call a meeting and reach a consensus, seeking to arrive at a final decision everyone can agree on. Which approach would you use to make each of the following decisions and why?

    page 423

    1. You were the project leader for Casino Night on campus, a charitable event organized by your group to raise money for the homeless. The event was a big success, garnering a net profit of $3,500. Before the event your team researched nearby organizations that support the homeless and to whom the money could be given. You narrowed the choices to the Chunk of Coal House and St. Mary’s Soup Kitchen. Eventually your group decided that the funds should be given to Chunk of Coal House. You are about to write a check to its director when you read in the local newspaper that the Chunk of Coal House has terminated operations. What should you do with the money?

    2. You are a golf course designer hired by Trysting Tree Golf Club to renovate their golf course. You have worked closely with the board of directors of the club to develop a new layout that is both challenging and aesthetically pleasing. Everyone is excited about the changes. The project is nearly 75 percent complete when you encounter problems on the 13th hole. The 13th hole at Trysting Tree is a 125-yard par three in which golfers have to hit their tee shots over a lake to a modulated green. During the construction of the new tee box, workers discovered that an underground spring runs beneath the box to the lake. You inspected the site and agreed with the construction supervisor that this could create serious problems, especially during the rainy winter months. After surveying the area, you believe the only viable option would be to extend the hole to 170 yards and create elevated tees on the adjacent hillside. Which of the three decision-making options should you use to make a decision about Hole 13?

    3. You are the leader of a new-product development project. Your team has worked hard on developing a third-generation product that incorporates new technology and meets customer demands. The project is roughly 50 percent complete. You have just received a report from the Marketing Department detailing a similar product that is about to be released by a competitor. The product appears to utilize radical new design principles that expand the functionality of the product. This poses a serious threat to the success of your project. Top management is considering canceling your project and starting over again. They want you to make a recommendation.

  3. The following activities are based on a current or recently completed group project that you are (were) involved in. This project may be a student project, a work project, or an extracurricular project.

    1. How strong is the team identity on this project and why?

    2. What could participants do to strengthen team identity?

    3. What kind of informal activities could be used to rejuvenate the team? Why would these activities work?

References

Adams, J. R., and S. E. Brandt, “Behavioral Implications of the Project Lifecyle,” in D. I. Cleland and W. R. King (eds.), Project Management Handbook, 2nd ed. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988), pp. 206–30.

Bowen, K. H., K. B. Clark, C. A. Holloway, and S. C. Wheelwright, The Perpetual Enterprise Machine (New York: Oxford Press, 1994).

Cleland, D. I., “Team Building: The New Strategic Weapon,” PM Network, (January 1997).

page 424

Coutu, D. L., “Organization Trust in Virtual Teams,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 76, no. 3 (1998), pp. 20–21.

DeMarco, T., and T. Lister, Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams, 2nd ed. (New York: Dorsett House, 1999).

Ericksen, J., and L. Dyer, “Right from the Start: Exploring the Effects of Early Team Events on Subsequent Project Team Performance,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 3 (2004), pp. 438–71.

Frame, J. D., Managing Projects in Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995).

Hackman, J. R., Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002).

Hoegl, M., and K. P. Parboteeah, “Goal Setting and Team Performance on Innovative Projects: On the Moderating Role of Teamwork Quality,” Small Group Research, vol. 34 (2003), pp. 3–19.

Janis, I. L., Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982).

Johansen, R., D. Sibbett, S. Benson, A. Martin, R. Mittman, and P. Saffo, Leading Business Teams: How Teams Can Use Technology and Group Process Tools to Enhance Performance (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991).

Katz, R., “How a Team at Digital Equipment Designed the ‘Alpha’ Chip,” in Ralph Katz (ed.), The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 121–33.

Kirkman, B. L., B. Rosen, C. B. Gibson, P. E. Tesluk, and S. O. McPherson, “Five Challenges to Virtual Team Success: Lessons from Sabre, INC.,” Academy of Management Executive, vol. 16, no. 2 (2002), pp. 67–79.

Kuruppuarachchi, P., “Virtual Team Concepts in Projects: A Case Study,” Project Management Journal (June 2009), pp. 19–33.

Leavitt, H. J., and J. Lipman-Blumen, “Hot Groups,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 73 (1995), pp. 109–16.

Lipsinger, R., and D. DeRosa, Virtual Team Success: A Practical Guide for Working and Leading from a Distance (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010).

Malhotra, A., A. Majchrzak, and B. Rosen, “Leading Virtual Teams,” Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 21, no. 1 (2007), pp. 60–70.

Maznevski, M. L., and K. M. Chudoba, “Bridging Space over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness,” Organization Science, vol. 11. no. 5 (September/October 2000), pp. 473–92.

McComb, S. A., and S. G. Green, “Project Goals, Performance, and Shared Understanding,” Engineering Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 3 (1999), pp. 7–12.

Murphy, C., and J. Clark, “Picture This: How the Language of Leaders Drives Performance,” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 2 (March 2016), pp. 139–46.

page 425

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

Posner, B. Z., “What’s All the Fighting About? Conflicts in Project Management,” IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, EM-33, 1986, pp. 207–11.

Siebdrat, F., M. Hoegl, and H. Ernst, “How to Manage Virtual Teams,” MIT Sloan Management Review, http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the- magazine/2009-summer/50412/how-to manage-virtual teams/2009.

Skilton, P. F., and K. J. Dooley, “The Effects of Repeat Collaboration on Creative Abrasion,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 35, no. 1 (2010), pp. 118–34.

Smith, B. J., “Building Shared Visions: How to Begin,” in P. M. Senge, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, B. J. Smith, and A. Kleiner (eds.), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 312–27.

Smith, P. G., and D. G. Reinertsen, Developing Products in Half the Time, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley, 1997).

Thamhain, H. J., and D. L. Wilemon, “Conflict Management in Project Life Cycle,” Sloan Management Review, vol. 16, no. 3 (1975), pp. 31–41.

Thoms, P., “Creating a Shared Vision with a Project Team,” PM Network, January 1997, pp. 33–35.

3M, “Leading a Distributed Team,” www.3m.com/meetingnetwork/readingroom/meetingguide_distribteam.html. Accessed 6/6/06.

Tippet, D. D., and J. F. Peters, “Team Building and Project Management: How Are We Doing?” Project Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 4 (1995), pp. 29–37.

Tuchman, B. W., “Development Sequence of Small Groups,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 63 (1965), pp. 384–99.

Tuchman, B. W., and M. C. Jensen, “Stages of Small Group Development Revisited,” Group and Organizational Studies, vol. 2 (1977), pp. 419–27.

Vroom, V. H., and A. G. Jago, The New Leadership (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988).

Case 11.1

Kerzner Office Equipment

Amber Briggs looked nervously at her watch as she sat at the front of a large table in the cafeteria at Kerzner Office Equipment. It was now 10 minutes after 3:00 and only 10 of the 14 members had arrived for the first meeting of the Kerzner anniversary task force. Just then two more members hurriedly sat down and mumbled apologies for being late. Briggs cleared her throat and started the meeting.

page 426

KERZNER OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Kerzner Office Equipment is located in Charleston, South Carolina. It specializes in the manufacture and sales of high-end office furniture and equipment. Kerzner enjoyed steady growth during its first five years of existence with a high-water employment mark of more than 1,400 workers. Then a national recession struck, forcing Kerzner to lay off 25 percent of its employees. This was a traumatic period for the company. Justin Tubbs was brought in as the new CEO, and things began to slowly turn around. Tubbs was committed to employee participation and redesigned operations around the concept of self-managing teams. The company soon introduced an innovative line of ergonomic furniture designed to reduce back strain and carpal tunnel. This line of equipment proved to be a resounding success, and Kerzner became known as a leader in the industry. The company currently employs 1,100 workers and has just been selected for the second straight time by the Charleston Post and Courier as one of the 10 best local firms to work for in South Carolina.

AMBER BRIGGS

Amber Briggs is a 42-year-old human resource specialist who has worked for Kerzner for the past five years. During this time she has performed a variety of activities involving recruitment, training, compensation, and team building. David Brown, vice president of human resources, assigned Briggs the responsibility for organizing Kerzner’s 10th anniversary celebration. She was excited about the project because she would report directly to top management.

CEO Tubbs briefed her as to the purpose and objectives of the celebration. Tubbs stressed that this should be a memorable event and that it was important to celebrate Kerzner’s success since the dark days of the layoffs. Moreover, he confided that he had just read a book on corporate cultures and believed that such events were important for conveying the values at Kerzner. He went on to say that he wanted this to be an employee celebration—not a celebration conjured up by top management. As such, she would be assigned a task force of 14 employees from each of the major departments to organize and plan the event. Her team was to present a preliminary plan and budget for the event to top management within three months. When discussing budgets, Tubbs revealed that he felt the total cost should be somewhere in the $150,000 range. He concluded the meeting by offering to help Briggs in any way he could to make the event a success.

Soon thereafter Briggs received the list of the names of the task force members, and she contacted them by either phone or e-mail to arrange today’s meeting. She had to scramble to find a meeting place. Her cubicle in Human Resources was too small to accommodate such a group, and all the meeting rooms at Kerzner were booked or being refurbished. She settled on the cafeteria because it was usually deserted in the late afternoon. Prior to the meeting she posted the agenda on a flipchart (see Figure C11.1) adjacent to the table. Given everyone’s busy schedules, the meeting was limited to just one hour.

FIGURE C11.1
Celebration Task Force

Images

THE FIRST MEETING

Briggs began the meeting by saying, “Greetings. For those who don’t know me, I’m Amber Briggs from Human Resources and I’ve been assigned to manage the 10th anniversary celebration at Kerzner. Top management wants this to be a special event—at the same time, they want it to be our event. This is why you are here. page 427Each of you represents one of the major departments, and together our job is to plan and organize the celebration.” She then reviewed the agenda and asked each member to introduce him/herself. The tall, red-haired woman to the right of Briggs broke the momentary silence by saying, “Hi, I’m Cara Miller from Plastics. I guess my boss picked me for this task force because I have a reputation for throwing great parties.”

In turn each member followed suit. Following is a sampling of their introductions:

Briggs circled the names of the two people who were absent and circulated a roster so that everyone could check to see if his or her phone number and e-mail address were correct. She then summarized her meeting with Tubbs and told the group that he expected them to make a formal presentation to top management within 10 weeks. She acknowledged that they were all busy people and that it was her job to manage the project as efficiently as possible. At the same time, she reiterated the importance of the project and that this would be a very public event: “If we screw up, everyone will know about it.”

Briggs went over the ground rules and emphasized that from now on meetings would start on time and that she expected to be notified in advance if someone was going to be absent. She summarized the first part of the project as centering on five key questions: when, where, what, who, and how much. She created a stir in the group when she responded to a question about cost by informing them that top management was willing to pay up to $150,000 for the event. Megan quipped, “This is going to be one hell of a party.”

Briggs then turned the group’s attention to identifying a common meeting time. After jousting for 15 minutes, she terminated the discussion by requesting that each member submit a schedule of free time over the next month by Friday. She would use this information and a new planning software to identify optimal times. She ended the meeting by thanking the members for coming and asking them to begin soliciting ideas from co-workers about how this event should be celebrated. She announced that she would meet individually with each of them to discuss their roles on the project. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

  1. Critique Briggs’s management of the first meeting. What, if anything, should she have done differently?

  2. What barriers is she likely to encounter in completing this project?

  3. What can she do to overcome these barriers?

  4. What should she do between now and the next meeting?

page 428

Case 11.2

Ajax Project

Tran was taking his dog, Callie, on her evening walk as the sun began to set over the coastal range. He looked forward to this time of the day. It was an opportunity to enjoy some peace and quiet. It was also a time to review events on the Ajax project and plot his next moves.

Ajax is the code name given by CEBEX to a high-tech security system project funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Tran is the project manager, and his core team consists of 30 full-time hardware and software engineers.

Tran and his family fled Cambodia when he was 4 years old. He joined the U.S. Air Force when he was 18 and used the education stipend to attend Washington State University. He joined CEBEX upon graduating with a dual degree in mechanical and electrical engineering. After working on a variety of projects for 10 years, Tran decided he wanted to enter management. He went to night school at the University of Washington to earn an MBA.

Tran became a project manager for the money. He also thought he was good at it. He enjoyed working with people and making the right things happen. This was his fifth project and up to now he was batting .500, with half of his projects being completed ahead of schedule. Tran was proud that he could now afford to send his oldest child to Stanford University.

Ajax was one of many defense projects the CEBEX Corporation had under contract with DOD. CEBEX is a huge defense company with annual sales in excess of $30 billion and more than 120,000 employees worldwide. CEBEX’s five major business areas are Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, Information & Technology Services, Integrated Systems & Solutions, and Space Systems. Ajax was one of several new projects sponsored by the Integrated Systems & Solutions Division aimed at the homeland security business. CEBEX was confident that it could leverage its technical expertise and political connections to become a major player in this growing market. Ajax is directed at designing, developing, and installing a security system at an important government installation.

Tran had two major concerns when he started the Ajax project. The first was the technical risks inherent in the project. In theory the design principles made sense and the project used proven technology. Still, the technology had never been applied in the field in this matter. From experience, Tran knew there was a big difference between the laboratory and the real world. He also knew that integrating the audio, optical, tactile, and laser subsystems would test the patience and ingenuity of his team.

The second concern involved his team. The team is pretty much split down the middle between hardware and electrical engineers. Not only do these engineers have different skill sets and tend to look at problems differently, but generational differences between the two groups are evident as well. The hardware engineers are almost all former military with conservative attire and beliefs. The electrical engineers are a much motlier crew; most are young, single, and at times very cocky. While the hardware engineers talk about raising teenagers and going to Palm Desert to play golf, the software engineers talk about Vapor, the latest concert at the Gorge amphitheater, and mountain biking in Peru.

page 429

To make matters worse, tension between these two groups within CEBEX festers around salary issues. Electrical engineers were at a premium, and the hardware engineers resented the new hires’ salary packages, which were comparable to what they were earning after 20 years of working for CEBEX. Still, the real money was to be made from the incentives associated with project performance. These were all contingent on meeting project milestones and the final completion date.

Before actual work started on the project, Tran arranged a two-day team-building retreat at a lodge on the Olympic peninsula for his entire team as well as key staff from the government installation. He used this time to go over the major objectives of the project and unveil the basic project plan. An internal consultant facilitated several team-building activities that made light of cross-generational issues. Tran felt a real sense of camaraderie within the team.

The good feelings generated from the retreat carried over to the beginning of the project. The entire team bought into the mission of the project and technical challenges it represented. Hardware and electrical engineers worked side by side to solve problems and build subsystems.

The project plan was built around a series of five tests, with each test being a more rigorous verification of total system performance. Passing each test represented a key milestone for the project. The team was excited about conducting the first Alpha test one week early—only to be disappointed by a series of minor technical glitches that took two weeks to resolve. The team worked extra hard to make up for the lost time. Tran was proud of the team and how hard the members had worked together.

The Alpha II test was conducted on schedule, but once again the system failed to perform. This time three weeks of debugging was needed before the team received the green light to move to the next phase of the project. By this time, team goodwill had been tested, and emotions were a bit frayed. A cloud of disappointment descended over the team as hopes of bonuses disappeared with the project falling further behind schedule. This was augmented by cynics who felt that the original schedule was unfair and the deadlines were impossible to begin with.

Tran responded by starting each day with a status meeting, where the team reviewed what they had accomplished the previous day and set new objectives for that day. He believed these meetings were helpful in establishing positive momentum and reinforcing a team identity among the engineers. He also went out of his way to spend more time with the “troops,” helping them solve problems, offering encouragement, and giving a sincere pat on the back when one was deserved.

He was cautiously optimistic when the time came to conduct the Alpha III test. It was the end of the day when the switch was turned on, but nothing happened. Within minutes the entire team heard the news. Screams could be heard down the hallway. Perhaps the most telling moment was when Tran looked down at the company’s parking lot and saw most of his project team walking by themselves to their cars.

As his dog, Callie, chased some wild bunnies, Tran pondered what he should do next.

  1. How effective has Tran been as a project manager? Explain.

  2. What problem(s) does Tran face?

  3. How would you go about solving them? Why?

page 430

Case 11.3

Franklin Equipment, Ltd.*

Franklin Equipment, Ltd. (FEL), with headquarters and main fabrication facilities in Saint John, New Brunswick, was founded 75 years ago to fabricate custom-designed, large machines for construction businesses in the Maritime Provinces. Over the years its product lines became strategically focused on creating rock-crushing equipment for dam and highway construction and for a few other markets that require the processing of aggregate. FEL now designs, fabricates, and assembles stationary and portable rock-crushing plants and services its own products and those of its competitors.

In the 1970s, FEL began to expand its market from the Maritime Provinces to the rest of Canada. FEL currently has several offices and fabrication facilities throughout the country. More recently, FEL has made a concerted effort to market its products internationally.

Last month, FEL signed a contract to design and fabricate a rock-crushing plant for a Middle East construction project, called Project Abu Dhabi. Charles Gatenby secured this contract and has been assigned as project manager. This project is viewed as a coup because FEL has wanted to open up markets in this area for a long time and has had difficulty getting prospective customers to realize that FEL is a Canadian firm and not from the United States. Somehow these customers view all North American vendors as the same and are reluctant to employ any of them because of international political considerations.

A project of this scope typically starts with the selection of a team of managers responsible for various aspects of the design, fabrication, delivery, and installation of the product. Manager selection is important because the product design and fabrication vary with the unique needs of each customer. For example, the terrain, rock characteristics, weather conditions, and logistical concerns create special problems for all phases of plant design and operations. In addition, environmental concerns and labor conditions vary from customer to customer and from region to region.

In addition to the project manager, all projects include a design engineer; an operations manager, who oversees fabrication and on-site assembly; and a cost accountant, who oversees all project financial and cost reporting matters. Each of these people must work closely together if a well-running plant is to be delivered on time and within cost constraints. Because international contracts often require FEL to employ host nationals for plant assembly and to train them for operations, a human resource manager is also assigned to the project team. In such cases, the human resource manager needs to understand the particulars of the plant specifications and then use this knowledge to design selection procedures and assess particular training needs. The human resource manager also needs to learn the relevant labor laws of the customer’s country.

FEL assigns managers to project teams based on their expertise and their availability to work on a particular project, given their other commitments. This typically means that managers without heavy current project commitments will be assigned to new projects. For instance, a manager finishing one project will likely be assigned a page 431management position on a new project team. The project manager typically has little to say about who is assigned to his or her team.

Because he secured Project Abu Dhabi and has established positive working relationships with the Abu Dhabi customer, Gatenby was assigned to be project manager. Gatenby has successfully managed similar projects. The other managers assigned to Project Abu Dhabi are Bill Rankins, a brilliant design engineer; Rob Perry, operations manager, with responsibility for fabrication and installation; Elaine Bruder, finance and cost accounting manager; and Sam Stonebreaker, human resource manager. Each of these managers has worked with the others on numerous past projects.

A few years ago, FEL began contracting for team facilitator services from several consulting firms to help new project teams operate effectively. Last month, FEL recruited Carl Jobe from one of these consulting firms to be a full-time internal consultant. A number of managers, including Gatenby, were so impressed with Jobe’s skills that they convinced FEL top management of the need to hire a permanent internal facilitator; Jobe was the obvious choice.

Because Gatenby was instrumental in hiring Jobe at FEL, he was excited at the prospect of using Jobe to facilitate team building among Project Abu Dhabi team members. Gatenby was very proud of having secured this project and had expected to be appointed project manager. He knew that this project’s success would be instrumental in advancing his own career.

Gatenby told Jobe, “This project is really important to FEL and to me personally. I really need for you to help us develop into a team that works well together to achieve the project’s goals within budget. I’ve observed your success in developing teams on other projects, and I expect you’ll do the same for Project Abu Dhabi. I’ll take care of you if you help me make this work.”

Jobe outlined for Gatenby how he would proceed. Jobe would begin by interviewing team members individually to learn their perceptions of each other and of the promises and pitfalls of being involved in this project. Meetings of the entire team would follow these interviews using the information he collected to help establish a team identity and a shared vision.

Jobe interviewed Bruder first. She expressed skepticism about whether the project could succeed. During the interview, Bruder appeared to be distant, and Jobe could not figure out why he had not established good rapport with her. Bruder intimated that she expected a lot of cost overruns and a lot of missed production deadlines. But not knowing Jobe well, Bruder was reluctant to identify any specific barriers to the project’s success. While she would not directly say so, it was clear to Jobe that Bruder did not want to be a part of Project Abu Dhabi. Jobe left this interview confused and wondering what was going on.

Jobe’s next interview was with Perry, the operations manager. Perry has worked at FEL for 15 years, and he immediately came to the point: “This project is not going to work. I cannot understand why upper management keeps assigning me to work on projects with Rankins. We simply cannot work together, and we don’t get along. I’ve disliked him from day one. He keeps dropping the fact that he has earned all these advanced degrees from Purdue. And he keeps telling us how things are done there. I know he’s better educated than I am, and he’s really smart. But I’m smart, too, and am good at what I do. There’s no need for Rankins to make me feel like an idiot because I don’t have a degree. Jobe, I’ll be honest with you. Rankins has only been here for five years, but I hold him personally responsible for my problem with page 432alcohol, and for its resulting effect on my marriage. I got divorced last year, and it’s Rankins’s fault.”

Jobe next talked with Rankins, who said, “I don’t care what you do. Perry and I simply can’t work closely together for the nine months it will take to get it done. One of us will kill the other. Ever since I arrived at FEL, Perry has hated my guts and does everything he can to sabotage my designs. We usually worry about customers creating change orders; here it’s the fabrication and operations manager who is responsible for them. Perry second-guesses everything I do and makes design changes on his own, and these are always bad decisions. He is out of control. I swear he stays awake at nights, thinking up ways to ruin my designs. I don’t have this problem with any other manager.”

Jobe left these interviews thoroughly discouraged and could not imagine what would come up in his interview with Stonebreaker. But Stonebreaker was quite positive: “I enjoy these international projects where I get to travel abroad and learn about different cultures. I can’t wait to get started on this.”

Jobe asked Stonebreaker about the ability of various team members to work together. Stonebreaker replied, “No problem! We’ve all worked together before and have had no problems. Sure, there have been ruffled feathers and hurt feelings between Rankins and Perry. Rankins can be arrogant and Perry stubborn, but it’s never been anything that we couldn’t work around. Besides, both of them are good at what they do—both professionals. They’ll keep their heads on straight.”

Jobe was even more bewildered. Gatenby says this project’s success rides on Jobe’s facilitation skills. The finance manager appears to want off this project team. The design engineer and operations manager admit they detest each other and cannot work together. And the human resource manager, having worked on projects with Perry and Rankins before, expects a rosy working relationship and anticipates no problems.

Jobe had a second meeting with Gatenby. Before discussing the design of the team-building sessions, he asked questions to learn what Gatenby thought about the ability of team members to work together. Gatenby admitted that there has been very bad blood between Perry and Rankins but added, “That’s why we hired you. It’s your job to make sure that the history between those two doesn’t interfere with Project Abu Dhabi’s success. It’s your job to get them to work well together. Get it done.”

Their dialogue toward the end of this meeting progressed as follows:

Jobe: “Why do you expect Rankins and Perry to work well together, given their history? What incentives do they have to do so?”
Gatenby: “As you should know, FEL requires formal goal setting between project managers and functional managers at the beginning of each project. I’ve already done this with Bruder, Stonebreaker, Perry, and Rankins. Perry and Rankins have explicit goals stating they must work well together and cooperate with each other.”
Jobe: “What happens if they do not meet these goals?”
Gatenby: “I’ve already discussed this with top management. If it appears to me after two months that things are not working out between Perry and Rankins, FEL will fire Rankins.”
Jobe: “Does Perry know this?”
Gatenby: “Yes.”

page 433

  1. Evaluate the criteria FEL uses to assign managers to project teams. What efficiencies do these criteria create? What are the resulting problems?

  2. Why is it even more important that project team members work well together on international projects such as Project Abu Dhabi?

  3. Discuss the dilemma that Jobe now faces.

  4. What should Jobe recommend to Gatenby?

*Courtesy of John A. Drexler, Jr., Oregon State University.

 

 

 

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

1 See: Schein, E. H., Process Consultation, 2nd ed. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1988), pp. 42–43; Likert, R., New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 162–77.

2 See, for example: Homans, G. C., Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1961); Sherif, M., Group Conflict and Cooperation: Their Social Psychology (Chicago: Aldine, 1967); Seta, J. J., P. B. Paulus, and J. Schkade, “Effects of Group Size and Proximity under Cooperative and Competitive Conditions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 98, no. 2 (1976), pp. 47–53; Zander, A., Making Groups Effective (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).

3 See: Katzenbach, J. R., and D. K. Smith, The Wisdom of Teams (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1993); Bolman, L. G., and T. E. Deal, “What Makes Teams Work,” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 2 (1992), pp. 34–45; Katz, R., “How a Team at Digital Equipment Designed the ‘Alpha’ Chips,” in R. Katz (ed.), The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation (New York: Oxford Press, 1997), pp. 137–48.

4 This anecdote was provided by Dr. Frances Hartman, University of Calgary, Alberta.

5 Quoted in Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline (New York: Doubleday, 1990), p. 209.

6 Berkun, S., The Art of Project Management (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2005), p. 79.

7 Kidder, T., The Soul of a New Machine (New York: Avon Books, 1981), pp. 221–22.

8 Ritti, R. R., and S. L. Levy, The Ropes to Skip and Ropes to Know: Studies in Organizational Theory and Behavior (New York: Wiley, 2009), pp. 93–94.

9 This discussion is based on the classic work of Maier, N. R. F.: Problem-Solving Discussion and Conferences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963) and Problem Solving and Creativity in Individuals and Groups (Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1970).

10 “3M Meeting Network,” www.3M.com/meetings. Accessed 6/6/2002.