This document discusses how governance influences decision making on projects and in project-based organizations. It reviews 36 articles on governance of project management published between 2014-present in three project management journals. The articles are analyzed based on how they discuss six psychological constructs that influence decision making: organizational culture, choice architecture, working in groups/teams, naturalistic decision making, identity, and social representation. The goal is to understand how governance may influence these constructs and thereby decision making, though a direct causal link is not proposed. Definitions of governance, governmentality, and levels of governance are also provided.
This document summarizes a research article that examines the relationship between managerial control, resource commitment, top management support, and the performance of information systems projects. The study collected data from 262 respondents working on various IS projects in Pakistan. The results indicate that managerial control, consisting of behavioral control, outcome control, clan control, and self-control, plays a key role in project performance. Additionally, the study found that resource commitment moderates the relationship between clan control and outcome control with project performance, but not behavioral control or self-control. Top management support was also found to moderate the relationship between outcome control and clan control with project performance, but not the other dimensions of managerial control.
There has been a consideration of several different aspects and dimensions with respect to change. These concepts have been related for analysis with the case study of BTS. Based on this analysis and application of theory, a number of factors have been identified with respect to communication, personal transition and motivation. Further ahead, different models have been represented followed by the application of theory on the case. Based on the analysis, it has been found that there are close parallels amongst BTS and Avinor. This is with respect to the lack of different factors in both the companies and hence, recommendations have been provided in accordance with it.
This document summarizes a research paper that investigates what combinations of organizational contingencies explain different performance management system designs in project-based organizations. The researchers conducted a qualitative study of 15 project-based management consulting firms. They found that firms combine various controls into either predominantly mechanistic or organic performance management systems. Qualitative Comparative Analysis identified four configurations of organizational characteristics associated with each type of system - two configurations related to mechanistic systems and two related to organic systems. The researchers aim to better understand how multiple contingencies simultaneously influence performance management system design choices in project-based organizations.
The document discusses theories and frameworks of governance. It defines governance and explains that it has gained popularity in management and policy. Several theories of governance are outlined, including Stoker's five propositions about governance referring to institutions beyond government. Mintzberg identifies five models of governance. Peters presents four governance models, including market and participatory state models. Heady identifies three theoretical approaches to governance: organizational theory, cultural theory, and structural-functional theory. The document also discusses what a governance framework is and why good governance is important for sustainable development and organizational performance.
This systematic review analyzed 137 research papers on corporate governance in entrepreneurial firms published between 1961 and 2018. The papers were published across 60 journals, with the Journal of Business Venturing, Corporate Governance: An International Review, and Small Business Economics publishing the most. The majority of studies used quantitative methods, primarily surveys, while others used qualitative methods like case studies. The review identified trends in the theories, questions, concepts, and geographies studied to understand how the field has developed and to outline opportunities for future research.
This document discusses a proposed model investigating the effects of psychological safety and social agile practices on team performance in agile information systems development (AISD). The model suggests that social agile practices positively influence psychological safety, which in turn positively impacts transparency, communication, and productivity in AISD teams. The model is based on a literature review and evaluated through case studies of AISD teams in insurance and software companies. Results from the case studies provide preliminary support for the model and its propositions.
Professional inquiry is one of the most important aspects.pdfsdfghj21
Professional inquiry is important for research and discussion, especially given changes to education systems due to the pandemic. Proper professional inquiry helps individuals and fields pursue excellence through a culture of collaborative enquiry. Three articles are analyzed to understand professional inquiry strategies and opportunities for improvement. The first develops a dialectical approach to strategic planning by examining assumptions and suggesting innovative alternatives. The second presents dialectical inquiry as a structured qualitative research method to study organizational processes. It uses assumptions, counter-assumptions, and contradictions to abandon assumptions and emerge with new models from existing data. The third emphasizes the importance of credibility in professional inquiry sources and considering established resources over social media when researching practices and policies.
This document summarizes a research article that examines the relationship between managerial control, resource commitment, top management support, and the performance of information systems projects. The study collected data from 262 respondents working on various IS projects in Pakistan. The results indicate that managerial control, consisting of behavioral control, outcome control, clan control, and self-control, plays a key role in project performance. Additionally, the study found that resource commitment moderates the relationship between clan control and outcome control with project performance, but not behavioral control or self-control. Top management support was also found to moderate the relationship between outcome control and clan control with project performance, but not the other dimensions of managerial control.
There has been a consideration of several different aspects and dimensions with respect to change. These concepts have been related for analysis with the case study of BTS. Based on this analysis and application of theory, a number of factors have been identified with respect to communication, personal transition and motivation. Further ahead, different models have been represented followed by the application of theory on the case. Based on the analysis, it has been found that there are close parallels amongst BTS and Avinor. This is with respect to the lack of different factors in both the companies and hence, recommendations have been provided in accordance with it.
This document summarizes a research paper that investigates what combinations of organizational contingencies explain different performance management system designs in project-based organizations. The researchers conducted a qualitative study of 15 project-based management consulting firms. They found that firms combine various controls into either predominantly mechanistic or organic performance management systems. Qualitative Comparative Analysis identified four configurations of organizational characteristics associated with each type of system - two configurations related to mechanistic systems and two related to organic systems. The researchers aim to better understand how multiple contingencies simultaneously influence performance management system design choices in project-based organizations.
The document discusses theories and frameworks of governance. It defines governance and explains that it has gained popularity in management and policy. Several theories of governance are outlined, including Stoker's five propositions about governance referring to institutions beyond government. Mintzberg identifies five models of governance. Peters presents four governance models, including market and participatory state models. Heady identifies three theoretical approaches to governance: organizational theory, cultural theory, and structural-functional theory. The document also discusses what a governance framework is and why good governance is important for sustainable development and organizational performance.
This systematic review analyzed 137 research papers on corporate governance in entrepreneurial firms published between 1961 and 2018. The papers were published across 60 journals, with the Journal of Business Venturing, Corporate Governance: An International Review, and Small Business Economics publishing the most. The majority of studies used quantitative methods, primarily surveys, while others used qualitative methods like case studies. The review identified trends in the theories, questions, concepts, and geographies studied to understand how the field has developed and to outline opportunities for future research.
This document discusses a proposed model investigating the effects of psychological safety and social agile practices on team performance in agile information systems development (AISD). The model suggests that social agile practices positively influence psychological safety, which in turn positively impacts transparency, communication, and productivity in AISD teams. The model is based on a literature review and evaluated through case studies of AISD teams in insurance and software companies. Results from the case studies provide preliminary support for the model and its propositions.
Professional inquiry is one of the most important aspects.pdfsdfghj21
Professional inquiry is important for research and discussion, especially given changes to education systems due to the pandemic. Proper professional inquiry helps individuals and fields pursue excellence through a culture of collaborative enquiry. Three articles are analyzed to understand professional inquiry strategies and opportunities for improvement. The first develops a dialectical approach to strategic planning by examining assumptions and suggesting innovative alternatives. The second presents dialectical inquiry as a structured qualitative research method to study organizational processes. It uses assumptions, counter-assumptions, and contradictions to abandon assumptions and emerge with new models from existing data. The third emphasizes the importance of credibility in professional inquiry sources and considering established resources over social media when researching practices and policies.
This document discusses trends in leadership over time. It begins by looking at past models of leadership from the 20th century focused on situational and trait-based theories. More recent models in the past few decades have focused on transformational and instructional leadership. The document then examines current trends showing leadership as more distributed and collaborative. It discusses how future leadership will require adaptability, creativity, and drawing on personal values rather than following set rules. Leaders will need to motivate teams by connecting work to common goals and fostering responsibility. The conclusion discusses developing leadership over time through self-reflection and experiences that challenge one's self-concept.
This document provides a literature review on organizational change and leading change. It discusses various theories and approaches to change, including planned and emergent change. Planned change follows a linear process proposed by Kurt Lewin, while emergent change is more flexible and bottom-up. The document also examines theories of leadership as it relates to change, including leaders as change agents and the need for vision, communication, and addressing resistance to change. It proposes that both planned and emergent approaches can be used depending on the context, drawing from contingency models. Overall, the literature review examines different perspectives on organizational change and the role of leadership in change management.
This document provides an overview of theories and approaches to organizational change and leadership. It discusses:
1) Organizational change as a concept, with organizations viewed as open systems impacted by external PEST factors that can trigger internal changes.
2) Theories of organizational change including Lewin's 3-stage model of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Critics argue planned change models don't account for human factors and resistance to change.
3) The importance of leadership in change initiatives, with leaders needing knowledge of the organization and environment to help drive change and address barriers like resistance.
This document summarizes research on factors that influence the successful implementation of mergers and acquisitions. It reviews literature from economics, finance, strategic management, and behavioral perspectives. Key findings include:
1) Research shows fewer than 20% of mergers and acquisitions achieve their desired objectives due to issues like unrealistic expectations, poor planning, talent loss, and cultural clashes during integration.
2) Significant research has explored factors like organizational culture, personnel morale, and career impacts, but human and organizational dynamics remain less explored than strategic and technological dimensions.
3) A landmark study of over 50 mergers identified problems like underestimating integration challenges, destruction of core competencies, and cultural clashes triggering stress as primary causes of
A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theoryi.docxransayo
A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory
in Organizational Contexts
Denise Linda Parris • Jon Welty Peachey
Received: 20 February 2012 / Accepted: 8 April 2012 / Published online: 22 April 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract A new research area linked to ethics, virtues,
and morality is servant leadership. Scholars are currently
seeking publication outlets as critics debate whether this
new leadership theory is significantly distinct, viable, and
valuable for organizational success. The aim of this study
was to identify empirical studies that explored servant
leadership theory by engaging a sample population in order
to assess and synthesize the mechanisms, outcomes, and
impacts of servant leadership. Thus, we sought to provide
an evidence-informed answer to how does servant leader-
ship work, and how can we apply it? We conducted a sys-
tematic literature review (SLR), a methodology adopted
from the medical sciences to synthesize research in a sys-
tematic, transparent, and reproducible manner. A disci-
plined screening process resulted in a final sample
population of 39 appropriate studies. The synthesis of these
empirical studies revealed: (a) there is no consensus on the
definition of servant leadership; (b) servant leadership
theory is being investigated across a variety of contexts,
cultures, and themes; (c) researchers are using multiple
measures to explore servant leadership; and (d) servant
leadership is a viable leadership theory that helps organi-
zations and improves the well-being of followers. This
study contributes to the development of servant leadership
theory and practice. In addition, this study contributes to the
methodology for conducting SLRs in the field of manage-
ment, highlighting an effective method for mapping out
thematically, and viewing holistically, new research topics.
We conclude by offering suggestions for future research.
Keywords Leadership � Leadership theory � Servant
leadership � Systematic literature review
Introduction
Leadership is one of the most comprehensively researched
social influence processes in the behavioral sciences. This is
because the success of all economic, political, and organi-
zational systems depends on the effective and efficient
guidance of the leaders of these systems (Barrow 1977). A
critical factor to understanding the success of an organiza-
tion, then, is to study its leaders. Leadership is a skill used to
influence followers in an organization to work enthusiasti-
cally towards goals specifically identified for the common
good (Barrow 1977; Cyert 2006; Plsek and Wilson 2001).
Great leaders create a vision for an organization, articulate
the vision to the followers, build a shared vision, craft a path
to achieve the vision, and guide their organizations into new
directions (Banutu-Gomez and Banutu-Gomez 2007; Kotter
2001). According to Schneider (1987), the most important
part in build.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2012). Policy on evalua.docxturveycharlyn
This document provides an overview of key steps in designing and implementing an effective performance measurement system for public organizations. It discusses 12 steps, emphasizing both technical/rational and political/cultural perspectives on organizations. The steps include identifying organizational champions, understanding what performance measurement can and cannot do, establishing communication channels, clarifying intended uses of performance information, identifying resources, understanding organizational history, developing logic models, involving users, measuring constructs, analyzing and reporting data, and getting user feedback. The document stresses that both the technical and political aspects must be considered to build sustainable performance measurement systems that can improve efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.
This document discusses the history and evolution of management as a field of study. It describes how management emerged as a discipline during the Industrial Revolution to help coordinate the large organizations needed to enable mass production. Early contributors developed theories around scientific management and general administration. Later, human relations approaches emphasized the social aspects of organizations. Quantitative and systems approaches also influenced the development of modern management practices.
Running Head FOUR-FRAME MODEL 1FOUR-FRAME MODEL7Fou.docxcowinhelen
Running Head: FOUR-FRAME MODEL
1
FOUR-FRAME MODEL
7
Four Frame Model
Rubin Wilkins
Module 5 Assignment 2
Argosy University Los Angeles
Professor: Dale Mancini
February 15, 2017
Four-frame Model
Introduction
Bolman and Deal synthesized the foregoing leadership theory into four contemporary cognitive perspectives which they further organized into frames to assist leaders in the decision-making process in relation to each individual situation. It was their understanding that the use of such frames would assist leaders in analyzing respective events in a different manner and perspective. In essence, they provide ‘windows’ that enhance the leaders’ to have a broader understanding of the challenges being faced by the organization and solutions that are potentially available. This insightful piece therefore proceeds to help in understanding the frames.
The Four-Frame Model of leadership is a creation stemming from the meshing of various organizational theories to form a wide-encompassing one. These consolidated theories include; the trait theory, power and influence theory, situational and contingency theory, and the behavioral theory (Bateman, 2007). They have been developed over a span of many years. The multiple perspectives emanating from the various theoretical underpinnings are the ones termed as frames by the two theorists; through which an organization is viewed by the leaders and other related persons. These ‘windows’ further operate to bring an organization into focus and subsequently serve as filters which offer the leaders order and assist them in making decisions. Furthermore, the frames comprise of the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame and the symbolic frame. Each individual frame represents a perspective
accompanied by its own assumptions and attributes.
The structural frame is used in viewing the world from an orderly point of view furnished with a multiplicity of rules and procedures. The human resource frame then comes in to assume that goals are best achieved through the meeting of organization members’ needs and fully appreciating the workforce as fundamental part of the organization. The political frame appertains to the conflicts, alliances and bartering of respective parties to properly use and allocate the scares resources owned by and charged to the organization. Finally, symbolic frame relates to the issues of culture, symbols and rituals of an organization as opposed to the established rules and procedures.
Theme among articles
Song, Kim and Kolb (2009) set out to research on the effect of learning an organization’s culture and the established linkage between interpersonal trust and the general commitment to an organization. The sample used in this study was primarily obtained from various employees working to conglomerate entities of Korea. Resultantly, it was established that learning an organization’s culture worked as a mediating factor in the explanation of associations betwe ...
Assignment Of Project Team Members To ProjectsJody Sullivan
This document summarizes a research paper that investigated how project managers influence the assignment of project team members. The researchers conducted 70 interviews across Australia, Scandinavia, and South Africa. They found that while project managers want to form their own teams, they often lack the authority to directly assign members. As a result, project managers use lateral influence strategies to help assign team members, such as creating a competent image, building coalitions, taking strategic risks, waiting for opportunities, and using facts to persuade. The study contributes to understanding how influence plays a role in assigning project resources and identifying the types of strategies used.
Managing Organizational Change Final DraftJames Smith
The document discusses organizational change and the role of industrial-organizational (I/O) psychologists in managing change. It addresses key factors needed for successful change, including buy-in from leaders, employee engagement, and aligning stakeholder values. Research trends in organizational psychology are examined, focusing on topics like workgroup emotional climate and the role of discourse in strategic change. Theoretical frameworks on change include the importance of employee engagement and values alignment. The role of I/O psychologists is to consult organizations and develop interventions targeting areas needing development, and coach leaders to institutionalize lasting changes. Recommendations include using employee empowerment strategies and aligning management and stakeholder values to drive strategic change.
This article summarizes a journal article that examines distributed leadership in higher education institutions. The authors interviewed 25 individuals from project teams to identify factors influencing distributed leadership at both the organizational and team levels. At the organizational level, they found leadership requires involvement with external stakeholders and alignment with the wider institution context. At the team level, critical internal conditions like autonomy and clear goals/responsibilities as well as processes like information sharing and coordination influence distributed leadership. The findings provide an integrated framework for understanding distributed leadership in higher education.
This document summarizes four research articles related to professional inquiry. The first article proposes a dialectical approach to strategic planning by examining underlying assumptions. The second presents dialectical inquiry as a structured qualitative research method. The third discusses how a researcher's position and reflexivity can impact qualitative research. The fourth evaluates three models of technology transfer identified through a dialectical inquiry study. Overall, the document examines different aspects of professional inquiry and emphasizes the importance of considering researcher biases and using both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
Current Trends in Public Personnel AdministrationJon A.docxalanrgibson41217
Current Trends in
Public Personnel
Administration
Jon Aarum Andersen holds two
master’s degrees from Norway as well as
a doctorate from Lund University, Sweden.
He has written 13 university-level textbooks
and has a number of international research
journal publications. He is now engaged
in lecturing and tutoring at the master’s
and doctoral levels, as well as in research
on leadership and organizational issues at
Lillehammer University College, Norway,
and Linnaeus University, Sweden.
E-mail: [email protected]
Public versus Private Managers 131
Jon Aarum Andersen
Lillehammer University College
Public versus Private Managers: How Public and Private
Managers Diff er in Leadership Behavior
Th is article aims to fi nd out whether there are behavioral
diff erences between public and private sector managers.
Two groups of public managers (managers of social
insurance agencies and public school principals)
and a group of private managers (two samples) are
investigated. Behavioral dimensions are investigated
including leadership style (task, relationship, and change
orientation), decision-making style (the functions of
sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling), and motivation
profi le (achievement, affi liation, and power motivation).
An analysis of data from 459 managers in four
organizations in Sweden reveal signifi cant diff erences in
behavior between public and private managers. However,
no signifi cant diff erences in leadership behavior are
discovered among public managers. Possible explanations
for such diff erences and similarities are explored.
Bower (1977) wrote that although we know enough about management in the public sector to know that it is diff erent from
corporate management, we do not know nearly as
much as we should. Twenty-fi ve years later, Van Wart
(2003) pointed out the lack of empirical research on
public leadership. A number of studies have been
undertaken aimed at describing and understanding
the diff erences, if any, between public and private
management.
Buchanan (1975) compared public and private man-
agers’ attitudes toward job involvement. Signifi cant
diff erences were found between business and govern-
ment managers, but the results were not as expected.
Middle managers in business
ascribed signifi cantly more
salience to formal structure
than the government group and
reported signifi cantly greater
job involvement. Th is study
did not concern the question
of managerial behavior, but
rather managers’ attitudes.
Rainey (1979) held that the
specifi cation of empirical
diff erences between categories is fundamental to the
development of sound theory.
Some scholars complain about the general scarcity
of empirical studies of public management. Rainey
(1982) found diff erences between public and private
managers regarding reward preferences, but did not
investigate diff erences in behavior. Consequently,
Rainey (1989) presented a table of di.
Running head ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1ANNOTA.docxSUBHI7
Running head: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
2
Annotated Bibliography
Shawn Harden
Southern Wesleyan University
July 19, 2017
Article 1
According to the article “Too Much of a Good Thing,” intellectual roots of organizational and management theory involves the Japanese leaders approach to quality improvement. The topic is related to organizational behavior in that it discusses quality and its compatibility with innovation. Innovation is a subtopic in human behavior in the workplace and its impact on the company. This topic makes a difference in management in that it discusses how organizations can properly manage quality improvement activities and thus achieve innovations. This article discusses strategy methods such as the waterfall methodology, which makes employees especially programmers more productive. Strategy formulation involves activities geared at creating a particular strategy such as the waterfall strategy. Strategy implementation involves using the formulated strategy to achieve results. Management can change significantly by responding to radical innovation.
Article 2
According to the second article “Rebuilding companies as communities,” the intellectual roots of organizational and management theories are based on the concept of making companies a place where employees can engage and are committed to one another. The topic is related to organizational behavior in that it discusses the idea of organizational culture and employee’s attitude towards building companies as communities. The topic contributes to management in that it suggests the kind of leadership that would best work for this kind of an organization suggesting that distributed and engaged leadership would be effective. The article suggests community-ship as a strategy of improving modern age organizations. According to this article, management can improve through leadership activities such as the creation of a work atmosphere that promotes trust.
Article 3
According to the third article, “Making management matter” the roots of organizational and management involve leadership and must struggle to be rigorous and interdisciplinary. The topic is related to organizational behavior in that it talks about leadership, which is a subtopic or organizational behavior and influencing employee’s behavior and attitude towards an achievement. The topic adds to management by arguing that a major requirement of management research need to be rooted in practical issues and finding the right balance between interdisciplinary research and drawing from diverse disciplines. A good strategy in business, especially for a leader, is to have a sense of where the company wants to achieve and working with the team to make things happen. Management can improve through the research that draws from academic disciplines to allow managers to comprehend the content of detailed issue they are handling.
Article 4
In the fourth article, “It’s ...
Relationship between transformational leadership, Innovation, Learning and Gr...Editor IJCATR
This document discusses the relationship between transformational leadership, innovation, learning and growth, and internal processes in government organizations. It first provides definitions and components of transformational leadership, including vision, inspirational communication, supportive leadership, intellectual stimulation, and personal recognition. It then discusses the relationships between these aspects of transformational leadership and innovation, learning and growth, and internal processes. The document conducts a literature review on empirical research that has studied the impact of transformational leadership on organizational performance dimensions.
Effects of internal_social_media_and_ocb____research_proposal[1]SohailTariq16
This research proposal aims to examine the impact of internal social media on employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. The student proposes to investigate whether internal social media engages employees, the effect of positive voice behavior on employee engagement, and whether internal social media affects organizational citizenship behavior. The proposal outlines the research questions, contribution, objectives, theoretical model relating internal social media to employee engagement and citizenship behavior, and provides a literature review on internal communication, social media, and their benefits and challenges.
The impact of top management support on the behavioural intention to adopt in...LenaFrau
This literature review examines the impact of top management support on behavioral intention to adopt information systems over 46 years of research. The review finds three relationships between top management support and adoption: direct linear connection, relationship mediated by other variables, and more complex relationships. Top managers can influence adoption through culture change, motivating employees, and setting the right atmosphere. Influencing factors on top managers' strategic decisions include their cognitive base and values. The review identifies gaps in researching factors influencing top managers' behaviors in supporting information system adoption.
Running head: MANAGEMENTSTYLES 1
MANAGEMENTSTYLES 2
An Analysis of Management Styles in the Criminal Justice System
Joe Student
American Intercontinental University
Abstract
The most important aspect of any organization is its leadership and management. This sentiment is no different in the criminal justice community. Operating a law enforcement agency or a correctional facility involves a highly specialized brand of leadership. This writing will discuss three separate management styles. The management styles that will be discussed will be scientific management, human relations management, and systems management styles. After discussing each style, the author will determine what style would be most affected for use in the criminal justice system. The author will do this by citing examples where this style is being utilized in various agencies throughout the country. After offering that explanation, the author will discuss the disadvantages of utilizing the other 2 management styles within that same community. The author will then offer an opinion as to whether or not all three components of the criminal justice system should use the same style of management.
Which to how do you believe would be the most effective to use in the criminal justice system?
Management is a term that can be quite difficult to define. In trying to define this term, it will become apparent to many that it is easier to identify the duties of a manager rather than defining the term itself. There are some that would describe management as planning goals and specify the purpose of a particular agency. Others may define it as an individual who organizes, finances, and performs other task in leading staff or an organization. At any length, management is largely considered to be an ongoing progress that works towards achieving organizational goals. It is a multi-layered entity in any corporation that focuses on getting task accomplish through a variety of individuals with the minimum amount of effort, cost, and waste. This is all done in order to achieve the goals of an organization. (Allen & Sawhney, 2010)
The scientific management theory that was founded by Frederick Winslow Taylor. This school of thought attempted to study the work process from a scientific standpoint. This spirit was often referred to as Taylorism. The main objective of Taylorism is to improve economic efficiency and labor productivity. The philosophy behind Taylorism focused on the premise that making a person work as hard as they could was not as efficient as getting the most out of how a person’s work was done. This gave birth to the idea of working smarter, not harder. Taylorism saw to use a systematic and scientific approach to the study of jobs. Taylorism relies on the study of time and movement needed for a job in order to improve the overall performance of the work. The scientific management style basically calls for the worker to adjust to the management and not the management t.
MGMT665, MBA CapstoneLive Chat #3 Focus on Organizatio.docxLaticiaGrissomzz
MGMT665, MBA Capstone
Live Chat #3: Focus on Organizational Behavior & HRM
Dr. Joe Cappa
CTU Library— Quick Review General TourIBISWorld
CTU Library DatabasesIBISWorld
General Management ResponsibilitiesPlanning
Organizing
Leading
ControllingManages, controls, evaluates resources (people, capital, raw materials) current and future.Organizes and manages projects.
Leads teams.
Motivates, evaluates, & coaches teams; maintains oversight of processes; assesses progress toward goals.
Planning Tools
Diagrams for Visualizing Data
Affinity
Tree
More Complex Visualizations
Interrelationship Diagram
Matrix Diagrams
https://asq.org/quality-resources/matrix-diagram
An
L-shaped matrix relates two groups of items to each other (or one group to itself).
A
T-shaped matrix relates three groups of items: groups B and C are each related to A; groups B and C are not related to each other.
A
Y-shaped matrix relates three groups of items: each group is related to the other two in a circular fashion.
A
C-shaped matrix relates three groups of items all together simultaneously, in 3D.
An
X-shaped matrix relates four groups of items: each group is related to two others in a circular fashion.
A
roof-shaped matrix relates one group of items to itself; it is usually used along with an L- or T-shaped matrix.
Prioritization Matrix
https://www.process.st/prioritization-matrix/
Model
Example
Process Design Program Chart (PDPC)
https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/
Model
Example
2nd PDPC Example
https://asq.org/quality-resources/process-decision-program-chart
Network Diagram Example
https://miro.com/blog/network-diagram/
Organizing ToolsOperations ManagementSix Sigma or DMAICOrder processing, warehouse management, & demand forecastingProject ManagementPert & Gantt chartsCalendarsEstablished goalsBudgetingSpreadsheets
Team Leadership ToolsEmployee Personalities (examples below):PeacemakerOrganizerRevolutionarySteamrollerCommunications Clear messagesMatch assignments to typeFeedbackTeam-building modelsAssessmentReasonable expectations/goalsFair evaluationGiving credit/rewardsCoachingDevelopmentProfessional developmentGoal-settingPromotions
Controlling ToolsAccounting & Finance PoliciesOperational Management Control System TechniquesActivity-based costingBalanced scorecardBenchmarkingCapital budgetingJust-in-TimeKaizen (continuous improvement)TQMProject management processesHR PoliciesProcedures
Subject Review: People, people, people
Management
Components of Management RoleManagemen.
P
A
P
E
R
S
December 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj 5
Why Do Projects Fail?
Project failure rates are certainly cause for concern, but consider that more
and more organizations are adopting a project-based model of organization,
called PBO, and it is not surprising to find that addressing failures and learning
from them has become increasingly important (Eden, Ackermann, & Williams,
2005; Gray & Larson, 2006; Hyvari, 2006; Robertson & Williams, 2006; Thiry &
Deguire, 2007).
Failures occur despite the fact that we have significantly improved the
process of planning, executing, and controlling projects. Two contributions
would include the Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (2004) and the
literature on critical success factors (CSFs) (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Fortune &
White, 2006; Hyvari, 2006; Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Sutterfield, Friday-Stroud,
& Shivers-Blackwell, 2006).
To help us understand how projects fail, it may be useful to classify the
approaches represented by the PMBOK® Guide, Capability Maturity Model
Integration (CMMI), Earned Value Management (EVM), Critical Chain
Project Management (CCPM), and CSFs as the Rational Expectation view
of project management. They assume that project leaders follow a rational
and consistent approach to project management and strive to achieve spe-
cific organizational goals (Bazerman, 1994; Beach & Connolly, 2005). It is a
view that emphasizes what “should” be done. Argyris (1999) referred to this
as the “espoused” theory of individuals and organizations.
There is, however, another view, and it focuses on the way in which indi-
viduals within an organization actually behave and make decisions.
Borrowing from the work of Simon (1955) and Tversky and Kahneman (1974,
1981), it can be classified as the “behavioral” view of project management. It
emphasizes what individuals and groups “actually” do and how managers
make decisions involving values and risk preferences (Bazerman, 1994).
Argyris (1999) called this the “theory-in-practice.”
This article focuses on the behavioral view of project management and
how an understanding of systematic biases—those common to the human
decision-making process—can prove useful in diagnosing project failure. By
studying these systematic biases, we can learn how decision makers respond
to ambiguity, complexity, and uncertainty, as well as how their own particu-
lar psychological processes influence project decision making (Schwenk,
1984). From this behavioral view we can learn more about why management
approves an overly ambitious scope, why communications between teams is
limited, why a manager might ignore signs that the project is going badly, or
why a manager discourages the participation of a wider constituency in the
project management process.
The article begins with a framework for analyzing project outcomes,
introduces the systematic biases commonly associated with d.
Building Meaningful Talent Communities with AI - Heather Pysklywec - SocialHR...SocialHRCamp
Speaker: Heather Pysklywec
Digital transformation has transformed the talent acquisition landscape over the past ten years. Now, with the introduction of artificial intelligence, HR professionals are faced with a new suite of tools to choose from. The question remains, where to start, what to be aware of, and what tools will complement the talent acquisition strategy of the organization? This session will give a summary of helpful AI tools in the industry, explain how they can fit into existing systems, and encourage attendees to explore if AI tools can improve their process.
This document discusses trends in leadership over time. It begins by looking at past models of leadership from the 20th century focused on situational and trait-based theories. More recent models in the past few decades have focused on transformational and instructional leadership. The document then examines current trends showing leadership as more distributed and collaborative. It discusses how future leadership will require adaptability, creativity, and drawing on personal values rather than following set rules. Leaders will need to motivate teams by connecting work to common goals and fostering responsibility. The conclusion discusses developing leadership over time through self-reflection and experiences that challenge one's self-concept.
This document provides a literature review on organizational change and leading change. It discusses various theories and approaches to change, including planned and emergent change. Planned change follows a linear process proposed by Kurt Lewin, while emergent change is more flexible and bottom-up. The document also examines theories of leadership as it relates to change, including leaders as change agents and the need for vision, communication, and addressing resistance to change. It proposes that both planned and emergent approaches can be used depending on the context, drawing from contingency models. Overall, the literature review examines different perspectives on organizational change and the role of leadership in change management.
This document provides an overview of theories and approaches to organizational change and leadership. It discusses:
1) Organizational change as a concept, with organizations viewed as open systems impacted by external PEST factors that can trigger internal changes.
2) Theories of organizational change including Lewin's 3-stage model of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Critics argue planned change models don't account for human factors and resistance to change.
3) The importance of leadership in change initiatives, with leaders needing knowledge of the organization and environment to help drive change and address barriers like resistance.
This document summarizes research on factors that influence the successful implementation of mergers and acquisitions. It reviews literature from economics, finance, strategic management, and behavioral perspectives. Key findings include:
1) Research shows fewer than 20% of mergers and acquisitions achieve their desired objectives due to issues like unrealistic expectations, poor planning, talent loss, and cultural clashes during integration.
2) Significant research has explored factors like organizational culture, personnel morale, and career impacts, but human and organizational dynamics remain less explored than strategic and technological dimensions.
3) A landmark study of over 50 mergers identified problems like underestimating integration challenges, destruction of core competencies, and cultural clashes triggering stress as primary causes of
A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theoryi.docxransayo
A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory
in Organizational Contexts
Denise Linda Parris • Jon Welty Peachey
Received: 20 February 2012 / Accepted: 8 April 2012 / Published online: 22 April 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract A new research area linked to ethics, virtues,
and morality is servant leadership. Scholars are currently
seeking publication outlets as critics debate whether this
new leadership theory is significantly distinct, viable, and
valuable for organizational success. The aim of this study
was to identify empirical studies that explored servant
leadership theory by engaging a sample population in order
to assess and synthesize the mechanisms, outcomes, and
impacts of servant leadership. Thus, we sought to provide
an evidence-informed answer to how does servant leader-
ship work, and how can we apply it? We conducted a sys-
tematic literature review (SLR), a methodology adopted
from the medical sciences to synthesize research in a sys-
tematic, transparent, and reproducible manner. A disci-
plined screening process resulted in a final sample
population of 39 appropriate studies. The synthesis of these
empirical studies revealed: (a) there is no consensus on the
definition of servant leadership; (b) servant leadership
theory is being investigated across a variety of contexts,
cultures, and themes; (c) researchers are using multiple
measures to explore servant leadership; and (d) servant
leadership is a viable leadership theory that helps organi-
zations and improves the well-being of followers. This
study contributes to the development of servant leadership
theory and practice. In addition, this study contributes to the
methodology for conducting SLRs in the field of manage-
ment, highlighting an effective method for mapping out
thematically, and viewing holistically, new research topics.
We conclude by offering suggestions for future research.
Keywords Leadership � Leadership theory � Servant
leadership � Systematic literature review
Introduction
Leadership is one of the most comprehensively researched
social influence processes in the behavioral sciences. This is
because the success of all economic, political, and organi-
zational systems depends on the effective and efficient
guidance of the leaders of these systems (Barrow 1977). A
critical factor to understanding the success of an organiza-
tion, then, is to study its leaders. Leadership is a skill used to
influence followers in an organization to work enthusiasti-
cally towards goals specifically identified for the common
good (Barrow 1977; Cyert 2006; Plsek and Wilson 2001).
Great leaders create a vision for an organization, articulate
the vision to the followers, build a shared vision, craft a path
to achieve the vision, and guide their organizations into new
directions (Banutu-Gomez and Banutu-Gomez 2007; Kotter
2001). According to Schneider (1987), the most important
part in build.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2012). Policy on evalua.docxturveycharlyn
This document provides an overview of key steps in designing and implementing an effective performance measurement system for public organizations. It discusses 12 steps, emphasizing both technical/rational and political/cultural perspectives on organizations. The steps include identifying organizational champions, understanding what performance measurement can and cannot do, establishing communication channels, clarifying intended uses of performance information, identifying resources, understanding organizational history, developing logic models, involving users, measuring constructs, analyzing and reporting data, and getting user feedback. The document stresses that both the technical and political aspects must be considered to build sustainable performance measurement systems that can improve efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.
This document discusses the history and evolution of management as a field of study. It describes how management emerged as a discipline during the Industrial Revolution to help coordinate the large organizations needed to enable mass production. Early contributors developed theories around scientific management and general administration. Later, human relations approaches emphasized the social aspects of organizations. Quantitative and systems approaches also influenced the development of modern management practices.
Running Head FOUR-FRAME MODEL 1FOUR-FRAME MODEL7Fou.docxcowinhelen
Running Head: FOUR-FRAME MODEL
1
FOUR-FRAME MODEL
7
Four Frame Model
Rubin Wilkins
Module 5 Assignment 2
Argosy University Los Angeles
Professor: Dale Mancini
February 15, 2017
Four-frame Model
Introduction
Bolman and Deal synthesized the foregoing leadership theory into four contemporary cognitive perspectives which they further organized into frames to assist leaders in the decision-making process in relation to each individual situation. It was their understanding that the use of such frames would assist leaders in analyzing respective events in a different manner and perspective. In essence, they provide ‘windows’ that enhance the leaders’ to have a broader understanding of the challenges being faced by the organization and solutions that are potentially available. This insightful piece therefore proceeds to help in understanding the frames.
The Four-Frame Model of leadership is a creation stemming from the meshing of various organizational theories to form a wide-encompassing one. These consolidated theories include; the trait theory, power and influence theory, situational and contingency theory, and the behavioral theory (Bateman, 2007). They have been developed over a span of many years. The multiple perspectives emanating from the various theoretical underpinnings are the ones termed as frames by the two theorists; through which an organization is viewed by the leaders and other related persons. These ‘windows’ further operate to bring an organization into focus and subsequently serve as filters which offer the leaders order and assist them in making decisions. Furthermore, the frames comprise of the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame and the symbolic frame. Each individual frame represents a perspective
accompanied by its own assumptions and attributes.
The structural frame is used in viewing the world from an orderly point of view furnished with a multiplicity of rules and procedures. The human resource frame then comes in to assume that goals are best achieved through the meeting of organization members’ needs and fully appreciating the workforce as fundamental part of the organization. The political frame appertains to the conflicts, alliances and bartering of respective parties to properly use and allocate the scares resources owned by and charged to the organization. Finally, symbolic frame relates to the issues of culture, symbols and rituals of an organization as opposed to the established rules and procedures.
Theme among articles
Song, Kim and Kolb (2009) set out to research on the effect of learning an organization’s culture and the established linkage between interpersonal trust and the general commitment to an organization. The sample used in this study was primarily obtained from various employees working to conglomerate entities of Korea. Resultantly, it was established that learning an organization’s culture worked as a mediating factor in the explanation of associations betwe ...
Assignment Of Project Team Members To ProjectsJody Sullivan
This document summarizes a research paper that investigated how project managers influence the assignment of project team members. The researchers conducted 70 interviews across Australia, Scandinavia, and South Africa. They found that while project managers want to form their own teams, they often lack the authority to directly assign members. As a result, project managers use lateral influence strategies to help assign team members, such as creating a competent image, building coalitions, taking strategic risks, waiting for opportunities, and using facts to persuade. The study contributes to understanding how influence plays a role in assigning project resources and identifying the types of strategies used.
Managing Organizational Change Final DraftJames Smith
The document discusses organizational change and the role of industrial-organizational (I/O) psychologists in managing change. It addresses key factors needed for successful change, including buy-in from leaders, employee engagement, and aligning stakeholder values. Research trends in organizational psychology are examined, focusing on topics like workgroup emotional climate and the role of discourse in strategic change. Theoretical frameworks on change include the importance of employee engagement and values alignment. The role of I/O psychologists is to consult organizations and develop interventions targeting areas needing development, and coach leaders to institutionalize lasting changes. Recommendations include using employee empowerment strategies and aligning management and stakeholder values to drive strategic change.
This article summarizes a journal article that examines distributed leadership in higher education institutions. The authors interviewed 25 individuals from project teams to identify factors influencing distributed leadership at both the organizational and team levels. At the organizational level, they found leadership requires involvement with external stakeholders and alignment with the wider institution context. At the team level, critical internal conditions like autonomy and clear goals/responsibilities as well as processes like information sharing and coordination influence distributed leadership. The findings provide an integrated framework for understanding distributed leadership in higher education.
This document summarizes four research articles related to professional inquiry. The first article proposes a dialectical approach to strategic planning by examining underlying assumptions. The second presents dialectical inquiry as a structured qualitative research method. The third discusses how a researcher's position and reflexivity can impact qualitative research. The fourth evaluates three models of technology transfer identified through a dialectical inquiry study. Overall, the document examines different aspects of professional inquiry and emphasizes the importance of considering researcher biases and using both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
Current Trends in Public Personnel AdministrationJon A.docxalanrgibson41217
Current Trends in
Public Personnel
Administration
Jon Aarum Andersen holds two
master’s degrees from Norway as well as
a doctorate from Lund University, Sweden.
He has written 13 university-level textbooks
and has a number of international research
journal publications. He is now engaged
in lecturing and tutoring at the master’s
and doctoral levels, as well as in research
on leadership and organizational issues at
Lillehammer University College, Norway,
and Linnaeus University, Sweden.
E-mail: [email protected]
Public versus Private Managers 131
Jon Aarum Andersen
Lillehammer University College
Public versus Private Managers: How Public and Private
Managers Diff er in Leadership Behavior
Th is article aims to fi nd out whether there are behavioral
diff erences between public and private sector managers.
Two groups of public managers (managers of social
insurance agencies and public school principals)
and a group of private managers (two samples) are
investigated. Behavioral dimensions are investigated
including leadership style (task, relationship, and change
orientation), decision-making style (the functions of
sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling), and motivation
profi le (achievement, affi liation, and power motivation).
An analysis of data from 459 managers in four
organizations in Sweden reveal signifi cant diff erences in
behavior between public and private managers. However,
no signifi cant diff erences in leadership behavior are
discovered among public managers. Possible explanations
for such diff erences and similarities are explored.
Bower (1977) wrote that although we know enough about management in the public sector to know that it is diff erent from
corporate management, we do not know nearly as
much as we should. Twenty-fi ve years later, Van Wart
(2003) pointed out the lack of empirical research on
public leadership. A number of studies have been
undertaken aimed at describing and understanding
the diff erences, if any, between public and private
management.
Buchanan (1975) compared public and private man-
agers’ attitudes toward job involvement. Signifi cant
diff erences were found between business and govern-
ment managers, but the results were not as expected.
Middle managers in business
ascribed signifi cantly more
salience to formal structure
than the government group and
reported signifi cantly greater
job involvement. Th is study
did not concern the question
of managerial behavior, but
rather managers’ attitudes.
Rainey (1979) held that the
specifi cation of empirical
diff erences between categories is fundamental to the
development of sound theory.
Some scholars complain about the general scarcity
of empirical studies of public management. Rainey
(1982) found diff erences between public and private
managers regarding reward preferences, but did not
investigate diff erences in behavior. Consequently,
Rainey (1989) presented a table of di.
Running head ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1ANNOTA.docxSUBHI7
Running head: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
2
Annotated Bibliography
Shawn Harden
Southern Wesleyan University
July 19, 2017
Article 1
According to the article “Too Much of a Good Thing,” intellectual roots of organizational and management theory involves the Japanese leaders approach to quality improvement. The topic is related to organizational behavior in that it discusses quality and its compatibility with innovation. Innovation is a subtopic in human behavior in the workplace and its impact on the company. This topic makes a difference in management in that it discusses how organizations can properly manage quality improvement activities and thus achieve innovations. This article discusses strategy methods such as the waterfall methodology, which makes employees especially programmers more productive. Strategy formulation involves activities geared at creating a particular strategy such as the waterfall strategy. Strategy implementation involves using the formulated strategy to achieve results. Management can change significantly by responding to radical innovation.
Article 2
According to the second article “Rebuilding companies as communities,” the intellectual roots of organizational and management theories are based on the concept of making companies a place where employees can engage and are committed to one another. The topic is related to organizational behavior in that it discusses the idea of organizational culture and employee’s attitude towards building companies as communities. The topic contributes to management in that it suggests the kind of leadership that would best work for this kind of an organization suggesting that distributed and engaged leadership would be effective. The article suggests community-ship as a strategy of improving modern age organizations. According to this article, management can improve through leadership activities such as the creation of a work atmosphere that promotes trust.
Article 3
According to the third article, “Making management matter” the roots of organizational and management involve leadership and must struggle to be rigorous and interdisciplinary. The topic is related to organizational behavior in that it talks about leadership, which is a subtopic or organizational behavior and influencing employee’s behavior and attitude towards an achievement. The topic adds to management by arguing that a major requirement of management research need to be rooted in practical issues and finding the right balance between interdisciplinary research and drawing from diverse disciplines. A good strategy in business, especially for a leader, is to have a sense of where the company wants to achieve and working with the team to make things happen. Management can improve through the research that draws from academic disciplines to allow managers to comprehend the content of detailed issue they are handling.
Article 4
In the fourth article, “It’s ...
Relationship between transformational leadership, Innovation, Learning and Gr...Editor IJCATR
This document discusses the relationship between transformational leadership, innovation, learning and growth, and internal processes in government organizations. It first provides definitions and components of transformational leadership, including vision, inspirational communication, supportive leadership, intellectual stimulation, and personal recognition. It then discusses the relationships between these aspects of transformational leadership and innovation, learning and growth, and internal processes. The document conducts a literature review on empirical research that has studied the impact of transformational leadership on organizational performance dimensions.
Effects of internal_social_media_and_ocb____research_proposal[1]SohailTariq16
This research proposal aims to examine the impact of internal social media on employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. The student proposes to investigate whether internal social media engages employees, the effect of positive voice behavior on employee engagement, and whether internal social media affects organizational citizenship behavior. The proposal outlines the research questions, contribution, objectives, theoretical model relating internal social media to employee engagement and citizenship behavior, and provides a literature review on internal communication, social media, and their benefits and challenges.
The impact of top management support on the behavioural intention to adopt in...LenaFrau
This literature review examines the impact of top management support on behavioral intention to adopt information systems over 46 years of research. The review finds three relationships between top management support and adoption: direct linear connection, relationship mediated by other variables, and more complex relationships. Top managers can influence adoption through culture change, motivating employees, and setting the right atmosphere. Influencing factors on top managers' strategic decisions include their cognitive base and values. The review identifies gaps in researching factors influencing top managers' behaviors in supporting information system adoption.
Running head: MANAGEMENTSTYLES 1
MANAGEMENTSTYLES 2
An Analysis of Management Styles in the Criminal Justice System
Joe Student
American Intercontinental University
Abstract
The most important aspect of any organization is its leadership and management. This sentiment is no different in the criminal justice community. Operating a law enforcement agency or a correctional facility involves a highly specialized brand of leadership. This writing will discuss three separate management styles. The management styles that will be discussed will be scientific management, human relations management, and systems management styles. After discussing each style, the author will determine what style would be most affected for use in the criminal justice system. The author will do this by citing examples where this style is being utilized in various agencies throughout the country. After offering that explanation, the author will discuss the disadvantages of utilizing the other 2 management styles within that same community. The author will then offer an opinion as to whether or not all three components of the criminal justice system should use the same style of management.
Which to how do you believe would be the most effective to use in the criminal justice system?
Management is a term that can be quite difficult to define. In trying to define this term, it will become apparent to many that it is easier to identify the duties of a manager rather than defining the term itself. There are some that would describe management as planning goals and specify the purpose of a particular agency. Others may define it as an individual who organizes, finances, and performs other task in leading staff or an organization. At any length, management is largely considered to be an ongoing progress that works towards achieving organizational goals. It is a multi-layered entity in any corporation that focuses on getting task accomplish through a variety of individuals with the minimum amount of effort, cost, and waste. This is all done in order to achieve the goals of an organization. (Allen & Sawhney, 2010)
The scientific management theory that was founded by Frederick Winslow Taylor. This school of thought attempted to study the work process from a scientific standpoint. This spirit was often referred to as Taylorism. The main objective of Taylorism is to improve economic efficiency and labor productivity. The philosophy behind Taylorism focused on the premise that making a person work as hard as they could was not as efficient as getting the most out of how a person’s work was done. This gave birth to the idea of working smarter, not harder. Taylorism saw to use a systematic and scientific approach to the study of jobs. Taylorism relies on the study of time and movement needed for a job in order to improve the overall performance of the work. The scientific management style basically calls for the worker to adjust to the management and not the management t.
MGMT665, MBA CapstoneLive Chat #3 Focus on Organizatio.docxLaticiaGrissomzz
MGMT665, MBA Capstone
Live Chat #3: Focus on Organizational Behavior & HRM
Dr. Joe Cappa
CTU Library— Quick Review General TourIBISWorld
CTU Library DatabasesIBISWorld
General Management ResponsibilitiesPlanning
Organizing
Leading
ControllingManages, controls, evaluates resources (people, capital, raw materials) current and future.Organizes and manages projects.
Leads teams.
Motivates, evaluates, & coaches teams; maintains oversight of processes; assesses progress toward goals.
Planning Tools
Diagrams for Visualizing Data
Affinity
Tree
More Complex Visualizations
Interrelationship Diagram
Matrix Diagrams
https://asq.org/quality-resources/matrix-diagram
An
L-shaped matrix relates two groups of items to each other (or one group to itself).
A
T-shaped matrix relates three groups of items: groups B and C are each related to A; groups B and C are not related to each other.
A
Y-shaped matrix relates three groups of items: each group is related to the other two in a circular fashion.
A
C-shaped matrix relates three groups of items all together simultaneously, in 3D.
An
X-shaped matrix relates four groups of items: each group is related to two others in a circular fashion.
A
roof-shaped matrix relates one group of items to itself; it is usually used along with an L- or T-shaped matrix.
Prioritization Matrix
https://www.process.st/prioritization-matrix/
Model
Example
Process Design Program Chart (PDPC)
https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/
Model
Example
2nd PDPC Example
https://asq.org/quality-resources/process-decision-program-chart
Network Diagram Example
https://miro.com/blog/network-diagram/
Organizing ToolsOperations ManagementSix Sigma or DMAICOrder processing, warehouse management, & demand forecastingProject ManagementPert & Gantt chartsCalendarsEstablished goalsBudgetingSpreadsheets
Team Leadership ToolsEmployee Personalities (examples below):PeacemakerOrganizerRevolutionarySteamrollerCommunications Clear messagesMatch assignments to typeFeedbackTeam-building modelsAssessmentReasonable expectations/goalsFair evaluationGiving credit/rewardsCoachingDevelopmentProfessional developmentGoal-settingPromotions
Controlling ToolsAccounting & Finance PoliciesOperational Management Control System TechniquesActivity-based costingBalanced scorecardBenchmarkingCapital budgetingJust-in-TimeKaizen (continuous improvement)TQMProject management processesHR PoliciesProcedures
Subject Review: People, people, people
Management
Components of Management RoleManagemen.
P
A
P
E
R
S
December 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj 5
Why Do Projects Fail?
Project failure rates are certainly cause for concern, but consider that more
and more organizations are adopting a project-based model of organization,
called PBO, and it is not surprising to find that addressing failures and learning
from them has become increasingly important (Eden, Ackermann, & Williams,
2005; Gray & Larson, 2006; Hyvari, 2006; Robertson & Williams, 2006; Thiry &
Deguire, 2007).
Failures occur despite the fact that we have significantly improved the
process of planning, executing, and controlling projects. Two contributions
would include the Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (2004) and the
literature on critical success factors (CSFs) (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Fortune &
White, 2006; Hyvari, 2006; Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Sutterfield, Friday-Stroud,
& Shivers-Blackwell, 2006).
To help us understand how projects fail, it may be useful to classify the
approaches represented by the PMBOK® Guide, Capability Maturity Model
Integration (CMMI), Earned Value Management (EVM), Critical Chain
Project Management (CCPM), and CSFs as the Rational Expectation view
of project management. They assume that project leaders follow a rational
and consistent approach to project management and strive to achieve spe-
cific organizational goals (Bazerman, 1994; Beach & Connolly, 2005). It is a
view that emphasizes what “should” be done. Argyris (1999) referred to this
as the “espoused” theory of individuals and organizations.
There is, however, another view, and it focuses on the way in which indi-
viduals within an organization actually behave and make decisions.
Borrowing from the work of Simon (1955) and Tversky and Kahneman (1974,
1981), it can be classified as the “behavioral” view of project management. It
emphasizes what individuals and groups “actually” do and how managers
make decisions involving values and risk preferences (Bazerman, 1994).
Argyris (1999) called this the “theory-in-practice.”
This article focuses on the behavioral view of project management and
how an understanding of systematic biases—those common to the human
decision-making process—can prove useful in diagnosing project failure. By
studying these systematic biases, we can learn how decision makers respond
to ambiguity, complexity, and uncertainty, as well as how their own particu-
lar psychological processes influence project decision making (Schwenk,
1984). From this behavioral view we can learn more about why management
approves an overly ambitious scope, why communications between teams is
limited, why a manager might ignore signs that the project is going badly, or
why a manager discourages the participation of a wider constituency in the
project management process.
The article begins with a framework for analyzing project outcomes,
introduces the systematic biases commonly associated with d.
Building Meaningful Talent Communities with AI - Heather Pysklywec - SocialHR...SocialHRCamp
Speaker: Heather Pysklywec
Digital transformation has transformed the talent acquisition landscape over the past ten years. Now, with the introduction of artificial intelligence, HR professionals are faced with a new suite of tools to choose from. The question remains, where to start, what to be aware of, and what tools will complement the talent acquisition strategy of the organization? This session will give a summary of helpful AI tools in the industry, explain how they can fit into existing systems, and encourage attendees to explore if AI tools can improve their process.
Becoming Relentlessly Human-Centred in an AI World - Erin Patchell - SocialHR...SocialHRCamp
Speaker: Erin Patchell
Imagine a world where the needs, experiences, and well-being of people— employees and customers — are the focus of integrating technology into our businesses. As HR professionals, what tools exist to leverage AI and technology as a force for both people and profit? How do we influence a culture that takes a human-centred lens?
Your Guide To Finding The Perfect Part-Time JobSnapJob
Part-time workers account for a significant part of the workforce, including individuals of all ages. A lot of industries hire part-time workers in different capacities, including temporary or seasonal openings, ranging from managerial to entry-level positions. However, many people still doubt taking on these roles and wonder how a temporary part-time job can help them achieve their long-term goals.
Accelerating AI Integration with Collaborative Learning - Kinga Petrovai - So...SocialHRCamp
Speaker: Kinga Petrovai
You have the new AI tools, but how can you help your team use them to their full potential? As technology is changing daily, it’s hard to learn and keep up with the latest developments. Help your team amplify their learning with a new collaborative learning approach called the Learning Hive.
This session outlines the Learning Hive approach that sets up collaborations that foster great learning without the need for L&D to produce content. The Learning Hive enables effective knowledge sharing where employees learn from each other and apply this learning to their work, all while building stronger community bonds. This approach amplifies the impact of other learning resources and fosters a culture of continuous learning within the organization.
AI Considerations in HR Governance - Shahzad Khan - SocialHRCamp Ottawa 2024SocialHRCamp
Speaker: Shahzad Khan
This session on "AI Considerations in Human Resources Governance" explores the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into HR practices, examining its history, current applications, and the governance issues it raises. A framework to view Government in modern organizations is provided, along with the transformation and key considerations associated with each element of this framework, drawing lessons from other AI projects to illustrate these aspects. We then dive into AI's use in resume screening, talent acquisition, employee retention, and predictive analytics for workforce management. Highlighting modern governance challenges, it addresses AI's impact on the gig economy as well as DEI. We then conclude with future trends in AI for HR, offering strategic recommendations for incorporating AI in HR governance.
How to Leverage AI to Boost Employee Wellness - Lydia Di Francesco - SocialHR...SocialHRCamp
Speaker: Lydia Di Francesco
In this workshop, participants will delve into the realm of AI and its profound potential to revolutionize employee wellness initiatives. From stress management to fostering work-life harmony, AI offers a myriad of innovative tools and strategies that can significantly enhance the wellbeing of employees in any organization. Attendees will learn how to effectively leverage AI technologies to cultivate a healthier, happier, and more productive workforce. Whether it's utilizing AI-powered chatbots for mental health support, implementing data analytics to identify internal, systemic risk factors, or deploying personalized wellness apps, this workshop will equip participants with actionable insights and best practices to harness the power of AI for boosting employee wellness. Join us and discover how AI can be a strategic partner towards a culture of wellbeing and resilience in the workplace.
Start Smart: Learning the Ropes of AI for HR - Celine Maasland - SocialHRCamp...SocialHRCamp
Speaker: Celine Maasland
In this session, we’ll demystify the process of integrating artificial intelligence into everyday HR tasks. This presentation will guide HR professionals through the initial steps of identifying AI opportunities, choosing the right tools, and effectively implementing technology to streamline operations. Additionally, we’ll delve into the specialized skill of prompt engineering, demonstrating how to craft precise prompts to enhance interactions between AI systems and employees. Whether you’re new to AI or looking to refine some of your existing strategies, this session will equip you with the knowledge and tools to harness AI’s potential in transforming HR functions.
Watch this expert-led webinar to learn effective tactics that high-volume hiring teams can use right now to attract top talent into their pipeline faster.
2. Project Management Journal 00(0)
2
RQ1: How do governmentality and governance of project man-
agement influence decision making on projects and in project-
based organizations?
We review the definitions of four levels of governance of proj-
ect management: governmentality, board-
level governance of
projects, the governance of projects, and project governance. We
also consider types of organizations involved in the management
of projects. We then review what has been said about how the
governmentality and governance of project management are
associated with improved performance on projects. We review
what the articles on the governance of project management have
said about the effect on decision making in organizations. We fin-
ish with conclusions and suggestions for further work.
Definitions
Governance and Its Levels
Müller (2017) and Müller et al. (2014a, 2015, 2016a, 2017)
quote Turner (2014) to say that there are three levels of gover-
nance within organizations doing projects:
• The board of directors
• The context of projects, encompassing portfolios, programs,
and project networks
• Projects
The first level they call the board-
level governance of projects.
Müller says fundamental decisions on the organization’s use of
projects are made here, including to what extent the organization
uses projects to undertake business processes. Some authors call
this the governance of project management. The Association for
Project Management (APM) (2004) was one of the first profes-
sional organizations to publish a guideline. APM’s guide relates
only to the responsibility the board of directors has for gover-
nance of projects the organization is doing, and they call it the
governance of project management. Too and Weaver (2014) say
governance only takes place at this level; they also call it the gov-
ernance of project management. In this article, we use the gover-
nance of project management to refer to governance at the board
level, but also to encompass all the levels. Müller (2017, 2019)
calls the second level the governance of projects and the third
level project governance. In the early days of writing on project
governance, the terms were used rather loosely and interchange-
ably (Ahola et al., 2014). However, Müller (2017, 2019) has cre-
ated a clear terminology and that will be used in this article.
Müller (2017, 2019) also introduces the concept of govern-
mentality. Müller (2017, 2019), citing Foucault, 1971) says
governance is about governing things, whereas governmental-
ity is about governing people. Following Dean (2010), he
defines governmentality as:
the mentalities, rationalities, and ways of interaction chosen by
those in governance roles to implement, maintain and change
the governance structure
The concept of governmentality was first introduced by
Roland Barthes in 1957 (Barthes, 2013) and expanded by
Foucault (1971). As the definition suggests, it relates to the
rationalities and people side of governance. Müller (2017) sug-
gests that governmentality sits alongside governance, govern-
ingpeopleandthings.ButDean(2010)suggestsgovernmentality
is the overarching mechanism, from which governance follows.
Thus, in this article, we identify four levels: governmentality of
project management, board-
level governance of projects, the
governance of projects, and project governance. For simplicity,
we call the four together the governance of project manage-
ment. In the Swiss cheese model, Reason (1990) proposes that
for a failure to occur, a faulty decision needs to pass through
several levels in an organization: policy, strategy, tactics, and
operations. But for a good decision to occur, it also needs to
pass through the four levels of governance, as shown in
Figure 1.
Too and Weaver (2014) argue that for an organization to get
value from its projects, the management of projects should be
strongly linked to board-
level governance. They argue that
there should be no flexibility. On the other hand, Müller et al.
(2016b) say that the governance of the temporary organization
should allow flexibility to cope with risk and the uniqueness of
the project. Lappi et al. (2018) say flexibility is important for
agile projects and aids the connection of the projects to corpo-
rate strategy. Riis et al. (2019) show how organizations get
value from multiple small projects by establishing and matur-
ing links between the levels. Value creation occurs through
integration.
Perspectives
Müller et al. (2016b) identify that research on governance
either deals with the design of governance or the consequences
of governance. We propose to split design into the antecedents
of governance and the practices of governance. Of the 36 arti-
cles identified, four deal with the antecedents of governance, 29
with the practices of governance, and 16 with the consequences
of governance. In addition, three deal with the nature of gover-
nance or governance research. Several articles suggest how
better practices can lead to better outcomes. Only three articles
(Müller et al., 2014b, 2016b; Sergeeva, 2019) deal directly with
how governance influences decision making. However, as we
shall see, many articles describe elements that influence deci-
sion making. Similarly, Müller (2017) identifies three streams
of governance: governance based on controls to direct organi-
zations and define responsibilities, governance based on pro-
cesses to define how people should work, and governance
based on relationships to define how stakeholders should work
together. He says these three streams can lead to different gov-
ernance approaches.
These three streams lead to a spectrum of the mechanisms of
governance, from governance based on control to governance
based on trust (Müller, 2017; Müller et al., 2014b, 2016a, 2017;
Steen et al., 2018; Toivonen & Toivonen, 2014). People also
3. Turner 3
refer to contractual governance and relational governance,
respectively (Haq et al., 2019; Sergeeva, 2019; Steen et al.,
2018; Tsaturyan & Müller, 2015). Control is related to the
agency theory school of governance (Müller, 2017), and
assumes the parties to the project are homo economicus. They
are rational and self-
serving and try to optimize the outcomes
of the project for themselves. That means a contractor or proj-
ect manager (as agent) will do what is best for themselves, and
will only do what is best for the client or project sponsor (the
principal) if their objectives happen to be aligned. Control is
needed to push the contractor or project manager into line.
Trust is related to the stewardship theory school of governance,
(Müller, 2017). Stewardship theory assumes people behave in a
collective, trustworthy manner to obtain the objectives of the
organization. People benefit from stewardship behavior because
it engenders a sense of psychological ownership rather than
material ownership. It is a post-modernist rather than a modern-
ist approach.
Müller and Lecoeuvre (2014) defined four paradigms of
project governance based on whether the parent organization
follows the shareholder or stakeholder school of governance
(Müller, 2017), and whether the organization controls by
requiring people to follow defined processes or achieve desired
objectives. Joslin and Müller (2016) related these paradigms to
project success. They showed the stakeholder school of
governance was more often correlated with success than the
shareholder school. Projects were equally likely to be success-
ful regardless of whether control was by process or
objectives.
Following the OECD (Millstein et al., 1998), Müller (2017)
identifies four principles:
1. Transparency: relates to the trust investors and other
stakeholders have in the organization, which relies on
information being timely and accurate. People need to
do what they say. The principal needs to trust the deci-
sions and action of the agent. If relational governance is
assumed to operate, then people need to act in a way
that is consistent with that.
2. Accountability: is concerned with the clarity of roles,
rights, and responsibilities of the major participants. We
will return to this in our discussion of identity.
3. Responsibility: is about maintaining professional stan-
dards and adhering to the law of the society of which the
project is a part.
4. Fairness: is about ensuring equal and fair treatment of
all the stakeholders, both internal and external. It also
relates to the maintenance of ethical standards
(Derakhshan et al., 2019b; Müller et al., 2014b, 2016b).
Figure 1. The Swiss cheese model of decision making (after Reason, 1990).
4. Project Management Journal 00(0)
4
Dean (2010) approached governance from a governmental-
ity perspective. He suggested governmentality influences how
governance takes place and how different forms of governance
emerge. He suggested four dimensions of governance:
1. Visibility: relates to transparency above.
2. Techne: is how governance is performed. It is the means,
mechanisms, procedures, instruments, tactics, tech-
niques, technologies, and vocabularies used. We will
relate this later to organizational culture, to mental mod-
els under decision making in groups and teams, and to
situational awareness under naturalistic decision mak-
ing.
3. Episteme: is the knowledge required to perform gover-
nance. It relates to thoughts, to knowledge, expertise,
strategies, calculation, and rationalities. We will revisit
it when we discuss organizational culture and social
representation.
4. Identity: is about the roles and responsibilities of indi-
viduals and how they relate to the collective. It is how
people conduct themselves, their duties, and their rights.
We will return to this when we discuss identity, but we
are already seeing that the way governance relates to
identity is through defining people’s roles, rights, re-
sponsibilities, and accountabilities. We will also return
to this topic later, in the section on decision making in
groups and social representation.
These four elements are content independent, and so Müller
et al. (2019) added a fifth dimension to address the content of
governance:
5. Precept: identifies the content addressed in governmen-
tality, and addresses the actual decisions made or guide-
lines given by the governing entity to the unit being
governed.
Dean (2010) suggests governmentality attempts to steer
individuals toward preferred outcomes. But there can be a gap
between intended and achieved outcomes. Dean refers to the
former as utopia. Improved project performance is the desired
utopia.
Projectification
Turner and Müller (2017) suggest there are three organizations
involved in the management and governance of projects: the
investor, which is investing in the output of the project; the con-
tractor, which provides services to the investor to undertake the
work of the projects; and the project. The contractor is an orga-
nization that uses project management as one of its business
processes. The investor may or may not be an organization that
uses project management as one of its business processes. Its
main business may be routine, but it is undertaking the project
as an investment.
Miterev et al. (2017a, 2017b) and Turner and Miterev (2019)
identify several types of organization that use project
management as a business process, to a different extent. With
project-
based organizations, almost all their work for custom-
ers is tailored or bespoke, and so project management is the
business process they use, perforce. (Tailored work is a stan-
dard design, which is modified for the customer, whereas
bespoke work is a novel design.). Project-
oriented organiza-
tions make the strategic decision to use project management as
their standard business process. Usually, project-
based organi-
zations are project oriented, but not always. Turner and Miterev
(2019) interviewed a company that identified that it had three
types of operation, which they labeled running, change, and
projects. Projects involved bespoke designs, and they used
project management as the business process to manage that
work. Change could be tailored or bespoke, and they might use
project management as the business process to manage that
work, or they might manage it as routine work. Some running
might be tailored designs, but other work would be routine. It
would all be managed through the routine organization. Turner
and Miterev (2019) interviewed another organization where
most of their work was running or change. They chose to man-
age it all through the routine organization. Although they were
project based, they chose not to be project oriented. Turner and
Miterev (2019) identify a third type of organization, where a
project-
based back office does work for a routine front office.
They call that the project-
led organization.
Müller et al. (2019) also identify three types of organiza-
tions using projects and project management: the project-
based
organization, the project-
oriented organization (as above), and
the process-
oriented organization. A process-
oriented organiza-
tion is one using projects, but which appears to its customers as
a manufacturing organization using repetitive processes. It will
primarily be doing running and change for its customers.
Governance and Project Performance
As the premise for this work, we have suggested that good gov-
ernmentality and governance are associated with improved
project performance, and the link may be via improved deci-
sion making. We review what has been written about the link
between governance and project performance. Joslin and
Müller (2016) have shown that certain governance structures
are associated with success. They have shown that if the parent
organization is stakeholder focused, projects are more likely to
be successful. They have shown that stewardship approaches
are associated with success and opine that may be because
stewards have high levels of commitment and identification
with the organization. We will return to the relationship between
identity and decision making later. They also show that gover-
nance may moderate the use of methodologies. Methodologies
may provide groups and teams with mental models, which we
shall also return to later.
Müller et al. (2016a, 2017) have shown how different forms
of governance, governmentality, and projectification are asso-
ciated with success. Following Dean (2010) and Foucault
(1971), they identified three types of governmentality:
5. Turner 5
authoritarian, liberal, and neo-
liberal. They also identified
another dimension of governmentality they called precept, as
above. There were three measures: organizational values, pro-
cess compliance, and project well-
being. They identified three
dimensions of governance: sovereignty, the use of trust or con-
trol as a governance mechanism, and the level of institutions
used as part of the governance structure. They showed high
levels of authoritarian and neo-
liberal governmentality are
associated with project success and organizational success. In
organizations using liberal governmentality, there was no
impact. They showed that project well-
being was associated
with project success, but organizational values were associated
with organizational success. Medium levels of sovereignty
were associated with project success, but high levels of sover-
eignty were associated with organizational success. High levels
of trust were associated with project success, confirming the
findings of Joslin and Müller (2016) that stewardship is associ-
ated with project success, but both trust and control could
deliver organizational success. High levels of projectification
were associated with both project and organizational success.
Haq et al. (2019) say it is hard to explain how good gover-
nance leads to improved project performance but show that
both contractual (control) and relational (trust) governance are
associated with success. They showed that risk was a moderat-
ing variable, with higher risk leading to worse performance.
Biesenthal and Wilden (2014) also say governance is associ-
ated with success, and suggest control is important.
Sirisomboonsuk et al. (2018) show that both project
governance and IT governance lead to improved project perfor-
mance. Project governance they measured using theAssociation
for Project Management (APM) (2004) four principles. With IT
governance, strategy setting, value management, and perfor-
mance measurement had an impact. Musawir et al. (2017) also
found that strategy setting and value management improved
project performance.
Thus, many authors have shown that the governance of proj-
ect management is associated with better project performance,
but they are unable to suggest the mechanism (Haq et al., 2019;
Joslin & Müller, 2016). In this article, we propose that since
good decision making leads to increased project performance
(Turner, 2014), good governmentality and/or governance may
be associated with better decision making, which in turn leads
to better project performance. In the remainder of this article,
we consider what authors writing about the governance of proj-
ect management have said about how governance is related to
six organizational psychological constructs, which, in turn,
influence decision making, shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 represents the original proposal, that governmen-
tality and governance are independent variables that influence
decision making via the six psychological constructs. Looking
for that link is the main focus of this article. However, we do
sometimes find that the psychological construct is the indepen-
dent variable that influences governance and decision making,
particularly in the case of culture, identity, and social represen-
tation. In that case, good governance will be associated with
good project performance, but that is because both are
Figure 2. Research model.
6. Project Management Journal 00(0)
6
separately dependent on a third variable. Some of the authors
above suggested governance as a moderating variable, but we
found no evidence of that in this study, mainly because we were
just looking for the link between governance and the six con-
structs. The premise of this article is that governance and deci-
sion making are associated, and that good decision making
leads to good project performance; however, in this article, we
do not look at the link between decision making and
performance.
Organizational Culture
The largest number of articles, about half, comment on how
governance influences organizational culture. Governance and
culture can influence one another. MacCormick (2019) sug-
gests that proto-
culture influences governance as it is first
established; then governance influences formal culture, but
also, informal culture influences governance. In this article, we
will be more concerned with how governance influences formal
culture.
Weber and Hsee (2000) suggest that culture will influence
decision making in organizations, and so governance will have
an impact on decision making via culture. They suggest culture
influences behavioral norms, judgment norms, perception of
risk, and risk choices.
According to the model of Schein and Schein (2017), there
are three levels of organizational culture:
1. Artifacts:
• visible and feelable structures and processes
• observed behavior
2. Espoused beliefs and values
• ideals, goals, values, aspirations
• ideologies
• rationalizations
3. Basic understandings and assumptions
• unconscious, taken-
for-
granted beliefs and values,
which influence behavior, perception, thought, and
feeling
Governance and governmentality can influence or are influ-
enced by all three of these levels. We have already seen, and
will see further when we discuss groups and teams, that gover-
nance can define the methodologies (processes to be used),
(Joslin & Müller, 2016), and governance can control by behav-
iors or processes (Müller & Lecoeuvre, 2014), and so can
define desired processes or behaviors. Governance sets goals
and values (Musawir et al., 2017), and the definition of govern-
mentality (Müller, 2017) says it defines ideologies and rational-
izations. But it is also possible that basic understandings and
assumptions about those things can influence governance and
governmentality. Schein and Schein (2017) agree with
MacCormick (2019) by saying that leaders influence the cul-
ture of the organization through the governance they adopt.
They also suggest how culture can influence decision making
through behavioral interactions, language, group norms, ways
of thinking and mental models, and shared meaning.
Espoused values include the four principles suggested by
the OECD described above: transparency, accountability,
responsibility, and fairness (Müller, 2017). Biesenthal and
Wilden (2014) showed that high visibility aids transfer of
knowledge and practices between departments. Tsaturyan and
Müller (2015) suggest governance involves four dimensions:
structure, relations, process, and values/goals, which influence
modes of decision making, models of communication, and the
understanding of common goals. Müller et al. (2014b, 2016b)
suggest governance includes the organization’s value system,
procedures, processes, policies, roles, responsibilities, and
authorities, which regulate governance mechanisms such as
trust and control. They say the human dimension means gover-
nance cannot be too rigid. Governance provides a framework
that shapes but does not proscribe actions of project managers.
The level of trust between project managers and the governance
structure influences behaviors, and the ethical leadership of
senior management influences the culture of organization.
Sergeeva (2019) showed that the best form of governance to
encourage innovation is a strong framework with maximum
flexibility. This supports the findings of Turner and Müller
(2004) who showed that successful projects are associated with
medium levels of flexibility. Successful projects have sufficient
flexibility to deal with risk but have some guidance for the gov-
ernance structure as to what processes should be followed.
Medium levels of structure give guidance as to knowledge and
rules. Reason et al. (1998) showed that lack of guidance about
knowledge and rules can lead to unintentional errors.
A choice that is repeatedly addressed is between contractual
versus relational governance, control versus trust, agency the-
ory versus stewardship theory. This is related to whether the
governmentality is authoritarian, liberal, or neo-
liberal, (Müller
et al., 2016a, 2017). Authoritarian governmentality is associ-
ated with governance by control and neo-
liberal with gover-
nance by trust. Haq et al. (2019) investigated the difference
between contractual and relational governance. Contractual
governance deals with normal performance, incentives and
risk, how the parties communicate, issues dealt with, and the
contract adapted if need be. Relational governance covers
information sharing, flexibility, and solidarity. They show both
contractual governance and relational governance are associ-
ated with reduced opportunism. Steen et al. (2018) say rela-
tional governance is best for project networks, but it can create
tension between the temporary and permanent organization.
Zwikael and Smyrk (2015) say trust works better in a turbulent
environment, whereas control works better in a stable environ-
ment. In a turbulent environment more flexibility is needed to
cope with risk, (Sergeeva, 2019; Turner & Müller, 2004). Risk
moderates the impact of trust and control on performance. Risk
has greater influence of the relationship between control and
performance in a low-
risk environment, and trust and perfor-
mance in a high-
risk environment. This is consistent with the
findings of Guo et al. (2014). Müller et al. (2016b) show there
7. Turner 7
is greater trust in organizations with a stakeholder orientation
than shareholder orientation, so trust as a governance mecha-
nism will work better in that environment. Clegg (2019) and
Clegg et al. (2002) describe how neo-
liberal governmentality
was used to create an alliance in the Sydney Olympics based on
self-
responsibility and self-
organizing, freedom to choose,
identity, lived experience, and engagement with stakeholders.
Müller et al. (2014a, 2015) identify organizational enablers
of governance and governmentality. These include cultural
issues, such as:
• the development of individuals who are mindful of the
organization, self-
responsible, and self-
organizing to a
degree that matches the goals of the corporation;
• organizational design factors, such as autonomy, decen-
tralization, and flatness of organization structures; and
• a culture of open discussions, ideologies that are clearly
communicated, and a general emphasis on the tempo-
rality of the undertakings and its success measures.
Thus, we have seen governance and governmentality inter-
act with culture in organizations doing projects by influencing
the top two levels of Schein and Schein’s (2017) model.
Governance influences artifacts through visibility, structures,
processes, and defined behaviors. It influences espoused beliefs
and values by setting ideals, goals, values, and aspirations.
Governmentality influences ideologies and rationalities.
Governance and governmentality also influence behavioral
interactions, group norms, ways of thinking and mental mod-
els, and shared meaning. There was no mention in the articles
reviewed of governance setting language or vocabulary.
Sergeeva (2019) describes how governance can create narra-
tives. Returning to Weber and Hsee (2000), governance can set
behavioral and judgment norms and have an impact on the
influence of risk and risk management.
Choice Architecture
Governance should create an environment in which people
make decisions in the best interest of the organization. In a con-
tractual environment governed by agency theory, that is done
by control. In a relational environment governed by steward-
ship theory, that is achieved by people behaving in a collective,
trustworthy manner. Thaler et al. (2013) suggest decisions are
not taken in a vacuum, but in an environment where features,
noticed and unnoticed, can influence the decision. Decision
making can be improved by following four approaches (Dolan
et al., 2010):
• Easy: reducing choice overload, while ensuring all
options are properly considered.
• Attractive: ensuring decisions are properly structured
with positive and negative factors considered. Avoid
defaults and biases that may lead to the selection of
defaults. The use of devil’s advocates and dialectal
enquiry can ensure alternatives are considered.
• Social: ensuring decisions properly involve all stakeholders.
• Timely: making decisions in the best long-
term interest
of the organization and not short-
term utility. Managing
biases can help here as well.
Müller (2009) first introduced the idea of four governance
paradigms, based on whether the organization follows the
shareholder or stakeholder school of governance, and whether
the organization controls by requiring people to follow pro-
cesses or achieve goals. Müller et al. (2014b, 2016b) show this
can influence the choices made. Based on this work, Turner and
Müller (2017) suggest that motivation is a significant cause of
this influence.
1. Project managers are most likely to feel empowered in
an organization with outcome control and stakeholder
orientation and least empowered in one with process
control and shareholder orientation. Project managers in
the latter are more likely to follow rules, whereas proj-
ect managers in the former are more likely to seek inno-
vative solutions to problems. However, project managers
in the former are also more likely to suffer ethical issues
about whether to optimize the project for themselves or
the organization. If they follow stewardship theory,
which is more likely to apply in this context, they will
be motivated to optimize the outcomes for the
organization.
2. If faced with a difficult decision, project managers in the
former environment are least likely to seek help, but if
they do, they seek it from the project board, for whom
they produce the results. Project managers in the latter en-
vironment are more likely to seek help, and will seek it
from their supervisor, who represents the shareholders.
3. Project managers in organizations controlled by results
are more likely to make decisions that maximize the
outputs and overstate what they have achieved, whereas
project managers in organizations controlled by process
are more likely to make decisions that conform with the
process and overstate what has been done.
4. In organizations with a shareholder orientation, project
managers will view their sponsor, who represents the
shareholders, as their key stakeholder and will optimize
decisions for the sponsor, but in organizations with a
stakeholder orientation, project managers will view the
end users, for whom they are producing the results, as
the key stakeholder, and will optimize decisions for
them.
Building on this last point, Derakhshan et al. (2019b)
emphasize the social element of decision making, suggesting
that governance should take a stronger focus on the needs of
stakeholders, especially external stakeholders who are often
ignored. They say governance should focus on the creation of
8. Project Management Journal 00(0)
8
value and give due regard to ethics, accountability, and trans-
parency as suggested by the OECD (Müller, 2017), when tak-
ing decisions that affect stakeholders. They also suggest internal
and external stakeholders can be influential decision makers,
and it is important to build a trusting and transparent relation-
ship with them to optimize decisions made.
Müller et al. (2016a) show how governmentality can influence
the environment, and through that, the nature of decisions made.
They introduced the dimension of governmentality, which they
called precept, with three values: project well-
being, value, and
process. They describe a consulting organization where one of the
core values was individual well-
being, and an individual’s sense
of well-
being would influence whether they accepted an assign-
ment or not. They describe another organization with a process
orientation where people realized that if the organization were to
grow, departments needed to collaborate and adopt similar pro-
cesses. Their third example is a pharmaceutical company with a
project well-
being orientation. Success of the project drives deci-
sion making, and that requires the inclusion of stakeholders in the
decision process.
McGrath and Whitty (2015) identify five elements of gover-
nance: structure, positions, rules, decision making, and reporting.
All five influence decisions architecture because they provide:
• Structure through how people interrelate;
• Positions through the definitions of roles and responsi-
bilities, which we will return to in discussing identity;
• Rules through the definitions of policies and procedures,
which we will return to in discussing groups and teams;
• Decisions through the delegation and approval
processes; and
• Reporting through the involvement of stakeholders.
As we have seen, a small number of articles address how
governance can influence the environment within which deci-
sions are made. Several of the articles address the social ele-
ments of decision making, describing how to encourage
departments to work together and how to involve stakeholders.
However, none addresses how to make decision making easier,
how to avoid biases, or how to ensure decisions are taken in a
timely manner.
Naturalistic Decision Making
Related to choice architecture is naturalistic decision making.
Naturalistic decision making is the study of real people making
real decisions in real contexts and is defined as (Lipshitz et al.,
2001, p. 332):
an attempt to understand how people make decisions in real-
world contexts that are meaningful and familiar to them
Decisions are taken by people in a given environment, and
so to understand how and why decisions are taken, we need to
understand how people interact with their environment.
Decision making involves interaction between individuals,
stakeholders, teams, and organizational goals and norms,
against a backdrop of uncertainty, ambiguity, missing data and
changing conditions, and so we expect governance to influence
these interactions. There are four characteristics of natural
decision making:
1. Process orientation: rather than predicting what option
will be implemented, naturalistic decision making tries
to understand the cognitive processes decision makers
follow. Governance often defines processes so could in-
fluence decision-
making processes.
2. Situation-action matching: in the process, decision
makers match options to the situation rather than make
choices.
3. Context bound informal modeling: decision making is
based on experiential knowledge rather than formal
models. This means project managers will not rigidly
follow the methodology but adapt it based on their
knowledge, emphasizing episteme over techne.
4. Empirical-based prescription: decisions should be
based on descriptive models derived from expert knowl-
edge, rather than formal models based on theory. We
will return to mental models later, but mental models
should be pragmatic rather than idealistic.
Naturalistic decision making is allied to situational aware-
ness. Situational awareness is defined as (Endsley, 1995, p. 36):
the perception of the elements in the environment within a vol-
ume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning,
and the projection of their status in the near future.
Endsley is primarily talking about dynamic situations where
immediate decisions are required. However, it can also apply to
decisions taken over a longer time frame. Reader and O’Connor
(2014) describe lack of situational awareness contributing to
the Deepwater Horizon fiasco. They suggest that a lack of situ-
ational awareness arose from poor risk perception, and the use
of information to make risk choices. Above, we saw that Weber
and Hsee (2000) suggest that these are part of how culture
influences decision making. Also, the problems arose from a
weak process, and not matching the situation to options. There
was also in Deepwater Horizon weak governance, resulting in:
• Poor interorganizational communication with contrac-
tors led to problems not being properly identified and
dealt with;
• Weak leadership with potential problems not being iden-
tified and investigated; and
• Regulation and safety procedures not being properly
followed.
None of the articles on governance discusses how the gover-
nance of project management can support naturalistic decision
9. Turner 9
making or raise situational awareness. Havermans et al. (2015),
in an article about narratives and not governance, discuss the
use of narratives in project management. They suggest that
expressing problems as narratives is a dynamic process that can
frame problems in a new light, aid interaction, and shape the
actions of those involved. So, they suggest that framing prob-
lems as narratives can aid naturalistic decision making.
DeFillippi and Sydow (2016) do suggest that a tension exists
between using standard procedures and tailored procedures.
Naturalistic decision making would suggest that procedures
should be tailored to the needs of the situation based on expert
judgment. Turner (2014), based on the work of Payne and
Turner (1999), argues for this. But the pressure to use standard
procedures is high. Müller et al. (2015) also suggest that the
methodologies should be flexible.
Groups and Teams
In organizations, people work and make decisions in groups
and teams. There are three key ways that decision making in
groups and teams can be improved: by improving group and
team working, by supporting the development of schemas and
mental models, and by reducing the occurrence of team biases.
Improving Team and Group Working
In order to better understand the performance of groups and
teams in high-
risk industries, team performance frameworks
have been developed (Reader et al., 2009). These include
inputs, processes, and outputs. Inputs can include the task of
the team, norms, attitudes, and member characteristics. The
processes include communication, coordination, leadership,
and decision making. The outputs are satisfaction, creativity,
and well-
being. Team communication includes the transfer of
information, ideas, and opinions among team members.
Coordination aims to achieve the synchronous and coordinated
effort of team members. Leadership involves setting goals, set-
ting expectations, and coordinating activities. Decision making
requires the integration of information and opinions to reach a
decision.
Müller et al. (2015) identify enablers of governance, includ-
ing discursive abilities, which include the setting of goals
across the organization, the creation of communication mecha-
nisms, raising awareness of work processes, and the creation of
a culture of open discussions; ideologies that are clearly com-
municated. Lappi et al. (2018) suggest how governance can
support the inputs and processes of the team performance
framework. Müller et al. (2015) invoke institutional theory to
suggest how governance can support the inputs and processes
of the team-
working framework. Sergeeva (2019) says that
governance should try to ensure that decisions are taken by the
right group of people, and that they carefully consider the
appropriate information. She suggests that governance can
empower people to take decisions, giving them appropriate
authority and representation.
Mental Models
Mental models are shared representations, which facilitate
team working in complex, dynamic, and uncertain environ-
ments. Mental models can be defined as (Rouse & Morris,
1985):
mechanisms whereby humans are able to generate descriptions
of systems purpose and form, explanation of systems function-
ing and observed system states and predictions of future states.
Situation awareness (see above) is where we predict the
future state from our observations of its current state, whereas
mental models are where we predict the future state from our
schemata about how it should evolve. Shared and accurate
mental models can help teams develop a shared knowledge on
strategy, better understand their goals, have shared expectation
on how team members will function and work together, and
develop a shared situational awareness of the task.
Many authors suggest governance should include methodol-
ogies for how work is done (see, e.g., Joslin & Müller, 2016;
Müller et al., 2014b). Other authors, following a more control-
oriented version of governance talk in terms of rules (see, e.g.,
McGrath & Whitty, 2015). Müller et al. (2016a) suggest gov-
ernmentality will frame mental models. If you return to the
definition of governmentality, it is the rationalities of gover-
nance that define mental models for the organization, and peo-
ple and groups in the organization. Müller et al. (2015) suggest
mental models are enablers of governance. They suggest gov-
ernance should include a company-
wide methodology, but it
should be flexible to meet the needs of the task. This is reminis-
cent of naturalistic decision making—the mental models should
be pragmatic, not idealistic—and suggests the techne of gover-
nance should be influenced by the episteme.
Group Biases
People working in groups can suffer group biases (Jones &
Roelofsma, 2000):
1. False consensus: People tend to see their choices as the
most common, and other choices as deviant or inappro-
priate, and so assume there is greater consensus in the
group than there is. Governance can perhaps ameliorate
this by setting strategy, goals, and methodology clearly.
Also making alternatives clear can be beneficial.
2. Group think: Group think occurs in cohesive groups
where the desire for agreement overrides the need for
proper assessment of options. Peer pressure results in
reduced mental efficiency and reality testing. Unfortu-
nately, strongly shared mental models just discussed can
encourage group think. Again, governance should en-
courage the proper consideration of alternatives and the
use of devil’s advocacy and dialectal enquiry.
10. Project Management Journal 00(0)
10
3. Group polarization: Group polarization is where the
majority opinion in a group becomes more strongly held
than it would be any members of the group individually.
Haslam (2004) shows that, unfortunately, this can be re-
inforced if there is a strong group identity. (We will look
at identity in the next section.) A corollary of group po-
larization is risk shift, where the group becomes more
risk seeking than any of the members of the group
would be on their own. Again, governance can amelio-
rate this by giving strong guidance on strategy, goals,
and methodology, but governance can make it worse by
trying to build a strong project identity.
4. Group escalation of commitment: Group escalation of
commitment refers to the tendency of groups or individ-
uals to continue to support a clearly failing course of
action. (“Our boys shall not have died in vain.”) This is
related to sunk-
cost bias in individuals (Kahnemann,
2012), but Whyte (1993) shows that groups can escalate
more than individuals, perhaps illustrating a polariza-
tion effect. Governance can ameliorate group escalation
by ensuring project governance is strongly linked to the
governance of projects and then to board-
level gover-
nance, to ensure that the need and viability of projects
are constantly checked against organizational strategy
by independent people.
None of the articles on governance surveyed made any
direct suggestions about how the governance of project man-
agement can reduce group biases within project teams. Some
stressed the importance of ensuring a strong link between proj-
ect governance, the governance of projects, and board-
level
governance (see, e.g., Lappi et al., 2018; Müller et al., 2014a,
2016a, 2017; Too & Weaver, 2014). Müller et al. (2014a)
describe abilities as enablers for project governance, some of
which will influence the way people work in groups, including
communication mechanisms that may help to reduce biases,
awareness of organizational goals and needs, and open discus-
sion. Sergeeva (2019) suggests governance should ensure peo-
ple use appropriate information to take their decisions.
Identity
Identity is our sense of belonging to a group that leads to spe-
cific cognitive and behavioral responses. Identity enables peo-
ple to categorize themselves as a group member (Haslam,
2004), and comparison with other groups leads to positive dif-
ferentiation between the in-
group and out-
group (Haslam,
2004). Identity includes at one level, the social categories peo-
ple belong to, but at another level, their roles and relationships
with others. Identification is the process though which an iden-
tity is adopted. There are three components: a cognitive one,
where somebody recognizes they may be a member of a group;
an evaluative one, where they decide this is a group they want
to belong to; and an emotional one, where they like the choice
(Tajfel, 1982). Identification matters because it enhances an
individual’s self-
esteem as a member of an organization or
group. Identification can improve communication and improve
group performance because it can improve many of the inputs
and processes of team performance mentioned above, includ-
ing norms, values, team characteristics, communication, lead-
ership and followership, and coordination.
The main issue with respect to identity discussed in the articles
on governance reviewed is in defining people’s roles, responsibil-
ities, and authorities on projects—that is, defining their roles and
relationships with others (see, e.g., DeFillippi & Sydow, 2016;
Lappi et al., 2018; McGrath & Whitty, 2015; Müller et al., 2014b;
Steen et al., 2018). This is associated with the OECD’s principle
of accountability, Müller (2017). DeFillippi and Sydow (2016)
say tensions can exist between individual identity and team iden-
tity. There can also be tensions if people from different organiza-
tions are working on the same projects. They suggest that the
clear definition of roles can reduce these tensions. They also sug-
gest that there can be tensions if somebody has different roles on
different projects. Turner (2014) gives an example where some-
body is a supervisor on one project, a team member on a second,
but their supervisor on the second is a team member on the first,
creating tensions and confused identity. Derakhshan et al. (2019b)
consider the importance of defining rights, roles, responsibilities,
and relationships to engage both internal and external stakehold-
ers. Derakhshan et al. (2019a) use attribution theory to show that
if this is not done well, it can leave external stakeholders with a
negative assessment of the project.
Müller et al. (2014a, 2015) show that identity is an important
organizational enabler for governmentality. In the first study, they
consider people’s sense of self-
responsibility and self-
awareness,
and their willingness to take on responsibility for results, associ-
ated tasks, projects, and other efforts for the benefit of the organi-
zation.Inthesecond,theyinvokeinstitutionaltheorytoinvestigate
regulative, normative, and cultural-
cognitive elements to investi-
gate stability and meaning of social life in organizations.
Institutions comprise actors (including both individuals and orga-
nizations) that become real through the social behavior of the
actors. Informal norms, values, standards, and formal and infor-
mal roles make up the normative elements of governmentality.
Shared conceptions about the nature of social reality make up
cultural-
cognitive elements, and create frameworks of meaning,
shared beliefs, symbols, identities, and mental models.
Organizational enablers for governmentality provide for the
development of individuals that are mindful of the organization,
self-
responsible, and self-
organizing to a degree that matches the
goals of the organization. For companies with a strong project
culture, a strong project identity enables governmentality.
Toivonen and Toivonen (2014) give a case study where senior
management radically change the governance structure from trust
based on stewardship theory to control, based on agency theory.
The project was not performing well, but there was a sense that
the project team were betraying the organization. The project
team were not identifying with the organization. The changed
governance structure changed the team’s relationship with the
organization, whether or not it changed the team’s identity. The
11. Turner 11
changed governance structure changes the team’s cognitive
assessment; it may or may not change their evaluation and emo-
tional response.
We saw above that Sergeeva (2019) investigates how gover-
nance can try to make sure decisions are made by the right group
of people with the right information. But she does suggest that
people should identify with the team and the decision they have to
make.
Social Representation
Moscovici (1973) defines social representation as:
A system of values, ideas and practices with a twofold function:
first to establish an order which will enable individuals to orien-
tate themselves in their material and social world and to master
it; and secondly to enable communication to take place among
the members of a community by providing them with a code for
social exchange and a code for naming and classifying unambig-
uously the various aspects of their world and their individual and
group history.
He is primarily writing about individuals in society, but this
definition can also apply to individuals in organizations. People
need to orientate themselves within the organization and master
the context. We have just considered this under identity. People
also need to be able to communicate. They need a common lan-
guage and clear classifications to be able to communicate unam-
biguously (Crawford et al., 2005) and they need channels of
communication. The rationalities of governmentality drive social
representation within the organization, as do the techne, episteme,
and identity of governance. Many of our beliefs have social ori-
gins (Moscovici, 2000), and so people’s knowledge of the project
will be heavily influenced by their identity within the organization
and project. Organization and organizational culture can shape
and change knowledge. Often, people’s understanding of issues is
not shaped by the knowledge they have, but by their identity,
social position, and group dynamics. Social representation will
include social-
cognitive facilitators to make the unfamiliar famil-
iar, including:
1. Anchoring—discursive abilities: classifying and nam-
ing the new using familiar systems of meaning and inte-
grating of new knowledge, values, and objects into
existing frameworks, using metaphors as ways of famil-
iarizing people.
2. Objectification—process facilitators: the transforma-
tion of abstract representations into routines, stories,
institutions, and concrete objects gives a concrete reali-
ty to ideas, values, mental models, using the institutions
of governance.
As we have repeatedly seen above, Müller et al. (2014a,
2015) have investigated the enablers of governmentality and
governance. In the first article, they quote Stoker, 1998, p. 155):
Governance is concerned with creating the conditions for or-
dered rule and collective action, which is accomplished through
a framework for ethical decision making and managerial ac-
tions based on transparency, accountability, and defined roles.
They suggest that governance builds social exchange and
governmentality social cohesion. Müller (2017), following
Barthes (2013) and Foucault (1971), says governmentality
defines the relationship between governors and the governed,
and that it presents governors as the origins of social relations.
In the second article, Müller et al. use institutional theory,
which addresses the ways in which social structures, including
normative and behavioral systems, are established, become sta-
ble, and undergo change. In both articles, they reach the con-
clusion that organizational enablers for governmentality seek
the development of individuals who are mindful of the organi-
zation, self-
responsible and self-
aware, and are mindful in
accepting decision making and in making decisions in the best
interest of the organization.
Sergeeva (2019) suggests that senior managers construct the
meaning of governance through narratives. We saw before that
Havermans et al. (2015) suggest that narratives can strongly
influence people’s perceptions. Biesenthal and Wilden (2014)
show relational governance can strongly influence community,
behavioral, and social themes through active participation.
Pemsel et al. (2014) investigate knowledge governance in
project-
based organizations, so how actually to bring knowl-
edge to people. They construct a four step process:
1. Setting the goals—macro antecedents: including project
and organizational culture, instructional units, dynamic
learning boundaries, and job characteristics;
2. Providing the means—micro conditions: including be-
liefs, attitudes, values, and knowledge expectations;
3. Controlling progress—micro behaviors: including
knowledge behavior, communication patterns, and
shared decisions; and
4. Achieving knowledge-
based goals—macro constructs:
including dynamic capabilities, competencies, and
communities of practice.
Many of the issues were inputs and processes in the team
performance framework we met when considering group deci-
sions. They are also artifacts and espoused values and beliefs in
Schein and Schein’s (2017) three levels of culture, taking us
back to where we started.
Conclusion
Several articles on the governance of project management sug-
gest that good governance is associated with improved project
performance, but the mechanism that creates that link remains
underexplored. In this article, we propose that it may be because
governance is associated with decision making, and to investi-
gate what evidence there may be for that, we have reviewed
12. Project Management Journal 00(0)
12
research on governance published in the three major journals of
project management: International Journal of Project
Management, Project Management Journal®
, and International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business. Every article with
the word governance in the title was identified. There were 36
articles, 26 from IJPM, eight from PMJ, and two from IJMPB.
Müller et al. (2016a, 2017) showed the governance and govern-
mentality systems adopted can influence project success. Why
is this? Our research question is:
RQ1: How do governmentality and governance of project man-
agement influence decision making on projects and in project-
based organizations?
Only three articles directly addressed the impact of gover-
nance on decision making: Müller et al. (2014b, 2016b) and
Sergeeva (2019). Müller et al. (2014b, 2016b) were investigat-
ing how the governance structure influences decisions relating
to ethical issues and showed that the governance paradigm as
defined by Müller and Lecoeuvre (2014) influences the way
project managers respond to ethical issues. Rather unsurpris-
ingly, they game the system. In organizations following a
shareholder school of governance, they take decisions benefi-
cial to shareholders; in organizations following a stakeholder
school of governance, they take decisions beneficial to a wider
set of stakeholders; if they are controlled by behaviors, they
show that they are following the desired processes; and if they
are controlled by results, they try to show they are achieving
the desired results. Trust is greatest in organizations following
a stakeholder school. Sergeeva (2019) said that in her inter-
views, governance was often associated with improved deci-
sion making; corporate governance is about delegating
authority to groups to take decisions, whereas operational gov-
ernance is about delegating authority to individuals; and deci-
sions and the reasons for them should be recorded, so they can
be reviewed later. This is one of the principles suggested by the
Association for Project Management (APM) (2004). Sergeeva
showed that organizations with a balanced, flexible approach to
governance can achieve better innovation.
Müller et al. (2014a, 2015) investigated enablers of gover-
nance. They looked at process facilitators and discursive abili-
ties. Discursive abilities included aligning strategy with
objectives, creating communication mechanisms, creating
awareness, and creating a culture for one discussion, all of
which will facilitate decision making. In the second article,
they invoke institutional theory to investigate how organization
can create social behavior to guide people to take decisions in
the best interest of the organization.
As we have said, most of the research does not directly
address how governance influences decision making. But we
identified six areas of organizational behavior that influence
decision making and investigated what the research says about
how governance influences those six areas. The six areas are:
• Organizational culture
• Decision architecture
• Naturalistic decision making
• Decision making in groups
• Identity
• Social representation
Weber and Hsee (2000) suggest culture influences decision
making through behavioral norms, judgment norms, risk percep-
tion, and risk choices. Schein and Schein (2017) suggest culture
influences decision making through behavioral interactions, lan-
guage, group norms, ways of thinking and mental models, and
shared meaning. Schein and Schein (2017) also suggest that there
are three levels of culture: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values,
and basic assumptions and understandings. The reviewed articles
showed that governance can influence artifacts and espoused
beliefs and values (see, e.g., Biesenthal & Wilden, 2014). Basic
assumptions and understanding tend to influence governance and
governmentality. The reviewed research has shown how gover-
nance can influence behavioral norms (see, e.g., Clegg, 2019),
ways of thinking, mental models and shared values (see, e.g.,
Müller et al., 2016a), and risk perception and responses (see, e.g.,
Zwikael & Smyrk, 2015).
Through choice architecture, organizations create an environ-
ment where they try to influence the way decisions are made, and
the nature of the decisions taken. As discussed above, Müller
et al. (2014b, 2016b) show that the governance paradigm can
strongly influence the decisions made. Müller et al. (2016a) also
show how governmentality can influence the environment, and
through that, the nature of decisions made, depending on whether
governmentality emphasizes project well-
being, value, or
process.
The research says little about naturalistic decision making
and situational awareness. To find discussion on related issues
in the project management literature, we turned to Havermans
et al. (2015), who discussed how narratives can influence natu-
ralistic decision making.
In investigating how governance can improve decision mak-
ing in groups, we looked at three issues. Lappi et al. (2018) show
how governance can improve the inputs and processes of a team-
working framework (Reader et al., 2009). Similarly, Müller et al.
(2015) invoke institutional theory to show that governance can
improve team working. Sergeeva (2019) suggests governance
can empower teams to better take decisions. Governance defines
the management processes (Joslin & Müller, 2016; McGrath &
Whitty, 2015), and thereby influences the mental models of
groups. Similarly, Müller et al. (2016a) suggest that governmen-
tality will frame mental models, and Müller et al. (2015) suggest
enablers of governance. None of the studies gives guidance as to
how governance can ameliorate group biases. Several suggested
how governance can increase team identity, and so, perhaps
worsen group think, group polarization, and escalation of com-
mitment. Sergeeva (2019) suggests how governance can try to
ensure people have the right information to make decisions, and
several articles emphasize the linking of projects to organiza-
tional strategy (see, e.g., Too & Weaver, 2014), which can reduce
13. Turner 13
the chance of escalation of commitment by ensuring project
teams are aware of how the project is linked to organizational
strategy.
Identity is important, so people feel they belong to the project
and to the parent organization. Toivonen and Toivonen (2014)
give an example where the project team did not identify with the
parent organization. They were making decisions not consistent
with the needs of the parent organization, requiring senior man-
agement to change the governance structure. Most authors sug-
gest that defining roles and responsibilities is a significant element
of the governance of project management (see, e.g., Lappi et al.,
2018). Müller et al. (2014a, 2015) show that identity is an import-
ant organizational enabler for governmentality.
Social responsibility is primarily about knowledge manage-
ment, ensuring people have the knowledge and understanding to
do the work for which they are responsible. Pemsel et al. (2014)
investigate knowledge governance in project-
based organiza-
tions. Many of the issues they consider are inputs and processes
for the group-
working framework (Reader et al., 2009) and are
related to organizational culture. Müller et al. (2014a, 2015) sug-
gest that governance builds social exchange and governmentality
builds social cohesion. Sergeeva (2019) studied the role of narra-
tives in constructing meaning, as did Havermans et al. (2015),
although they weren’t studying governance.
Most of the research does not directly address how governance
impacts decision making. But we have seen that governance and
governmentality can impact the six areas of organizational behav-
ior that influence decision making. Thus, we can conclude, in
some circumstances, that governmentality and governance are
independent variables, which can influence the six psychological
constructs and so influence decision making on projects. In those
circumstances, good governance could lead to good decision
making, and therefore, improved project performance, as initially
proposed. However, we also saw instances where the six psycho-
logical constructs can influence governance. For instance,
MacCormick (2019) suggests informal culture can influence gov-
ernance. We also saw instances where Müller et al. (2014a, 2015)
show that some of the six psychological constructs are enablers of
governmentality and governance. In those circumstances, the
psychological construct may be an independent variable that
influences governance and decision making, and therefore,
although good governance and good project performance are
associated, the psychological construct is the independent vari-
able that creates the association.
The next steps of this research will be to further investigate
the link between project governance, decision making, and
project performance through case studies and interviews. Case
studies will be conducted to show the link between decision
making and project performance, and investigate the role of the
six psychological constructs and governance in improving
decision making and hence improving project performance.
The interviews will be conducted with project managers to
explore what influences their decision making. The interviews
will be conducted under the framework of cognitive task anal-
ysis and the critical decision method (Crandall et al., 2006).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., & Kujala, J. (2014). What is project
governance and what are its origins? International Journal of
Project Management, 32(8), 1321–1332.
Association for Project Management (APM). (2004). Directing
change: A guide to governance of project management. Associa-
tion for Project Management.
Barthes, R. (2013). Mythologies. Hill & Wang.
Biesenthal, C., & Wilden, R. (2014). Multi-
level project governance:
Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 32(8), 1291–1308.
Clegg, S. (2019). Governmentality. Project Management Journal,
50(3), 266–270.
Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., Rura-
Polley, T., & Marosszeky, M. (2002).
Governmentality matters: Designing an alliance culture of inter-
organizational collaboration for managing projects. Organization
Studies, 23(3), 317–337.
Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A
practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Crawford, L. H., Hobbs, J. B., & Turner, J. R. (2005). Project catego-
rization systems: Aligning capability with strategy for better
results. Project Management Institute.
Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society.
Sage.
DeFillippi, R., & Sydow, J. (2016). Project networks: Governance
choices and paradoxical tensions. Project Management Journal,
47(5), 6–17.
Derakhshan, R., Mancini, M., & Turner, J. R. (2019a). Community’s
evaluation of organizational legitimacy: Formation and reconsid-
eration. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1),
73–86.
Derakhshan, R., Turner, R., & Mancini, M. (2019b). Project govern-
ance and stakeholders: A literature review. International Journal
of Project Management, 37(1), 98–116.
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Visev, I. (2010).
The MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy.
The Institute for Government and The Cabinet Office.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in
dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32–64.
Foucault, M. (1971). Governmentality. In G. Burchel, C. Gordon, &
P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 87–104). Chicago Uni-
versity Press.
Guo, F., Chang-
Richards, Y., Wilkinson, S., & Li, T. C. (2014). Effects
of project governance structures on the management of risks in
14. Project Management Journal 00(0)
14
major infrastructure projects: A comparative analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 815–826.
Haq, S. U., Gu, D., Liang, C., & Abdullah, I. (2019). Project govern-
ance mechanisms and the performance of software development
projects: Moderating role of requirements risk. International
Journal of Project Management, 37(4), 533–548.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity
approach. Sage.
Havermans, L. A., Keegan, A., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). Choosing
your words carefully: Leaders’ narratives of complex emergent
problem resolution. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 33(5), 973–984.
Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. (2000). The potential for social con-
textual and group biases in team decision-
making: Biases, condi-
tions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics, 43(8),
1129–1152.
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). The relationship between project gov-
ernance and project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 34(4), 613–626.
Kahnemann, D. (2012). Thinking fast and slow. Penguin.
Lappi, T., Karvonen, T., Lwakatare, L. E., Aaltonen, K., & Kuvaja, P.
(2018). Toward an improved understanding of agile project gov-
ernance: A systematic literature review. Project Management
Journal, 49(6), 39–63.
Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock
of naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 14(5), 331–352.
MacCormick, J. S. (2019). Governing organisational culture. paper
prepared as part of the director tools series.Australian Institute of
Company Directors.
McGrath, S. K., & Whitty, S. J. (2015). Redefining governance: From
confusion to certainty and clarity. International Journal of Man-
aging Projects in Business, 8(4), 755–787.
Millstein, I. M., Albert, M., Cadbury, A., Feddersen, D., & Tateisi, N.
(1998). Improving competitiveness and access to capital in global
markets. OECD Publications.
Miterev, M., Mancini, M., & Turner, R. (2017). Towards a design for
the project-
based organization. International Journal of Project
Management, 35(3), 479–491.
Miterev, M., Turner, J. R., & Mancini, M. (2017). The organization
design perspective on the project-
based organization: A structured
review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
10(3), 527–549.
Moscovici, S. (1973). Introduction. In C. Herzlich (Ed.), Health and
illness: A social psychological analysis. Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (2000). The history and actuality of social representa-
tions. In S. Moscovici & G. Duveen (Eds.), Social representa-
tions: Explorations in social psychology. Polity Press.
Müller, R. (2009). Project governance. Gower.
Müller, R. (ed). (2017). Governance and governmentality for projects:
Enablers, practices and consequences. Routledge.
Müller, R. (2019). Governance, governmentality and project perfor-
mance: The role of sovereignty. International Journal of Informa-
tion Systems and Project Management, 7(2), 5–17.
Müller, R., Drouin, N., & Sankaran, S. (2019). Organizational project
management: Theory and implementation. Edward Elgar.
Müller, R., & Lecoeuvre, L. (2014). Operationalizing governance cat-
egories of projects. International Journal of Project Management,
32(8), 1346–1357.
Müller, R., Pemsel, S., & Shao, J. (2014a). Organizational enablers for
governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1309–1320.
Müller, R., Pemsel, S., & Shao, J. (2015). Organizational enablers for
project governance and governmentality in project-
based organi-
zations. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4),
839–851.
Müller, R., Turner, J. R., Andersen, E. S., Shao, J., & Kvalnes, Ø.,
Shao, J., & Kvalnes, O. (2016b). Governance and ethics in tempo-
rary organizations: The mediating role of corporate governance.
Project Management Journal, 47(6), 7–23.
Müller, R., Turner, R., Andersen, E. S., Shao, J., & Kvalnes, Ø., &
Kvalnes, O. (2014b). Ethics, trust, and governance in temporary
organizations. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 39–54.
Müller, R., Zhai, L., & Wang, A. (2017). Governance and governmen-
tality in projects: Profiles and relationships with success. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 378–392.
Müller, R., Zhai, L., Wang, A., & Shao, J. (2016a). A framework for
governance of projects: Governmentality, governance structure
and projectification. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 34(6), 957–969.
Musawir, Aul., Serra, C. E. M., Zwikael, O., & Ali, I. (2017). Project
governance, benefit management, and project success: Towards a
framework for supporting organizational strategy implementa-
tion. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8),
1658–1672.
Payne, J. H., & Turner, J. R. (1999). Company-
wide project manage-
ment: The planning and control of programmes of projects of dif-
ferent type. International Journal of Project Management, 17(1),
55–59.
Pemsel, S., Wiewiora, A., Müller, R., Aubry, M., & Brown, K. (2014).
A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-
based
organizations. International Journal of Project Management,
32(8), 1411–1422.
Reader, T. W. (2019). [Private communication].
Reader, T. W., Flin, R., Mearns, K., & Cuthbertson, B. H. (2009).
Developing a team performance framework for the intensive care
unit. Critical Care Medicine, 37(5), 1787–1793.
Reader, T. W., & O’Connor, P. (2014). The Deepwater Horizon explo-
sion: Non-
technical skills, safety culture, and system complexity.
Journal of Risk Research, 17(3), 405–424.
Reason, J. (1990). The contribution of latent human failures to the
breakdown of complex systems. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences,
327(1241), 475–484.
Reason, J., Parker, D., & Lawton, R. (1998). Organizational controls
and safety: The varieties of rule-
related behaviour. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(4), 289–304.
Riis, E., Hellström, M. M., & Wikström, K. (2019). Governance of
projects: Generating value by linking projects with their
15. Turner 15
permanent organisation. International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 37(5), 652–667.
Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1985). On looking into the black box:
Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Georgia
Institute of Technology.
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leader-
ship. Wiley.
Sergeeva, N. (2019). Towards more flexible approach to governance to
allow innovation: The case of UK infrastructure. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(1), 1–19.
Sirisomboonsuk, P., Gu, V. C., Cao, R. Q., & Burns, J. R. (2018). Rela-
tionships between project governance and information technol-
ogy governance and their impact on project performance.
International Journal of Project Management, 36(2), 287–300.
Steen, J., DeFillippi, R., Sydow, J., Pryke, S., & Michelfelder, I.
(2018). Projects and networks: Understanding resource flows and
governance of temporary organizations with quantitative and
qualitative research methods. Project Management Journal,
49(2), 3–17.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. Interna-
tional Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual
Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.
Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architec-
ture. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public pol-
icy (pp. 428–439). Princeton University Press.
Toivonen, A., & Toivonen, P. U. (2014). The transformative effect of
top management governance choices on project team identity and
relationship with the organization—An agency and stewardship
approach. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8),
1358–1370.
Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project manage-
ment: A conceptual framework for project governance. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1382–1394.
Tsaturyan, T., & Müller, R. (2015). Integration and governance of
multiple project management offices (PMOs) at large organiza-
tions. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5),
1098–1110.
Turner, J. R. (2014). The handbook of project-
based management: Lead-
ing strategic change in organizations (4th ed.). McGraw-
Hill.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2004). Communication and co-
operation
on projects between the project owner as principal and the project
manager as agent. European Management Journal, 22(3),
327–336.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2017). The governance of organizational
project management. In S. Sankaran, R. Müller, & N. Drouin
(Eds.), Organizational project management: Achieving strategies
through projects (pp. 75–91). Cambridge University Press.
Turner, R., & Miterev, M. (2019). The organizational design of the
project-based organization. Project Management Journal, 50(4),
487–498.
Weber, E., & Hsee, C. (2000). Culture and individual judgment and
decision making. Applied Psychology, 49(1), 32–61.
Whyte, G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group
decision making: A prospect theory approach. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 430–455.
Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2015). Project governance: Balancing con-
trol and trust in dealing with risk. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(4), 852–862.
Author Biography
Rodney Turner is now retired. He is a visiting professor at
Leeds University, and Professor and High-
End Foreign Expert
at Shanghai University. He recently completed a masters in
psychology at the London School of Economics. Most recently,
he was Professor of Project Management at SKEMA Business
School, in Lille France, and SAIPEM Professor of Project
Management at the Politecnico di Milano. Rodney is the author
or editor of 18 books, including The Handbook of Project-
Based Management, and the Gower Handbook of Project
Management. He was editor of the International Journal of
Project Management for 25 years until 2017. His current
research interests cover the relationship between governance
and decision making and communication on projects, stake-
holders and customer experience, and the relationship between
megaprojects and post-modernism. Rodney is Honorary Fellow
andformerchairmanoftheAssociationforProjectManagement,
and Honorary Fellow and former president and chairman of the
International Project Management Association. In 2004, he
received a lifetime research achievement award from the
ProjectManagementInstitute,andin2012fromtheInternational
Project Management Association. He can be contacted at
rod-
neyturner@europrojex.co.uk