Unpacking Project Management Communication - Pure

AARHUS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Unpacking Project Management Communication

A relational approach to strategy

Line Berggreen Ramsing

Phd Dissertation

Department of Business Communication at Aarhus University

Research Centre for Corporate Communication

Supervisor: Constance E. Kampf

March 2013

Chapter 1: Introduction & rationale

2

I made a big decision a little while ago.

I don’t remember what it was, which prob’ly goes to show

That many times a simple choice can prove to be essential

Even though it often might appear inconsequential

I must have been distracted when I left my home

Left or right I’m sure I went (I wonder which it was!)

Anyway, I never veered: I walked in that direction

Utterly absorbed, it seems, in quiet introspection

For no reason I can think of, I’ve wondered far astray

And that is how I got to where I find myself today.

- Bill Watterson


3

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the people who have accompanied, guided, inspired, and encour-

aged me through the maze of dissertation procedures.

I would like to recognize the generous effort, time, and assistance that I received from

Birte Asmuß, my supervisor during the first years of this journey. Thank you for your

open-mindedness, invaluable direction, and willingness to explore my initial ideas.

In particular, I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to my supervisor,

during the last year of this journey, Constance E. Kampf. Thank you for being who you

are. Thank you for your patience with my writing habits, for motivating and influencing

my thinking about the academic profession and for helping me mature. Thank you for

being a fantastic mentor, for believing in me, for your dedication, your honest critique,

and for catching me whenever I fell. Your help and support are unmatched.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Linda S. Henderson with whom I worked dur-

ing my stay at the University of San Francisco in 2011. Thank you for your support and

encouragement and for sharing this journey with me – we have only just begun.

I would like to thank my fabulous colleagues and friends at departments within Aarhus

University and beyond. You all know who you are. Thank you for your support and en-

couragement. Thank you for believing in me all the way at all times.

Furthermore, I would like to thank all my students who have inspired me through the

years. Thank you for listening to me and for giving me so much in return. In particular, I

would like to thank Maiken Viola Christensen for helping and teaching me the practicali-

ties of the NVivo software. Thank you for your patience with me.

I would also like to thank all project managers, project directors, line managers and oth-

er practitioners who sacrificed their time and participated in this research. Several of

you went out of your way to give me access to organizational activities and interviews

that I would not have received without your help. In particular, I would like to thank

Mogens Greve, whose assistance in getting me connected to new and interesting people

is invaluable.

My gratitude and thanks goes to several other individuals, dear friends and family, who

have accompanied me, believed in me, supported me, challenged me, and energized me


4

during this journey and helped me accomplish what I set out to do in 2007. In particular,

my gratitude goes to Christine Levring, Lene Birk Nielsen, Sharon Wilkins, Christian

Waldstrøm, Carsten Bergenholtz, Jens Møller Andersen and all my friends in Siim City

Singers. An extra thank you to Sharon for your fantastic help in proofreading this brief

document! I would also like to express a special thanks to Lene Gammelgaard. You have

been a light of guidance in reaching my goal, one step at a time, ten steps, and then up

for air. Self-responsibility, willingness to fight, believing in your dream, and my own ad-

dition: Faith.

A sincere and innermost thank you to my husband Ulrik Ramsing, to my dear parents,

my brothers Jesper Berggreen and Dixon Chimuka Sikabota, and my sister Stine Bergø

Pedersen for your never-wavering encouragement, and for believing in me from way be-

fore I began this project. Thank you for being there for me.

Finally, and most important of all, my daughter Frida and my son Tobias, my greatest in-

spiration. Thank you for being around me, thank you for interrupting me with life, and

with your endless love and care, and for keeping me a whole person. We did this to-

gether.

Thank you, all of you, for always confirming my innermost belief about what is im-

portant in life – family, friends, relations and your attitude!

“Everything will be their best if you relax” – Rodney Yee

Line Berggreen Ramsing

Aarhus University

March 2013

The woman on the front cover is a painting by Birgit Berggreen - www.tegn.dk


5

Content

1. Introduction & Rationale ............................................................. 10

1.1. Main Research Question and objectives ....................................................... 12

1.2. Purpose of the study .................................................................................... 12

1.3. Contributions............................................................................................... 12

1.4. Plan of Study ............................................................................................... 13

1.5. Theory of science ......................................................................................... 15

1.5.1. The social constructionist paradigm .................................................................... 15

1.5.2. The epistemological intersection of Grounded Theory, Phenomenology, and Perspectivism ................................................................................................ 17

1.5.3. Positioning this study on project management communication ........................ 20

2. Literature review and extended theoretical framing .................... 22

2.1. Approaches to communication in project management textbooks ............... 24

2.1.1. Project management textbooks that do not dedicate space to the subject of communication ................................................................................... 24

2.1.2. Project management textbooks ranging from brief paragraphs to sections and chapters on communication – communication approached as information, documentation, data, processes, and tools ............................... 27

2.1.3. Project management textbooks integrating communication beyond the perspective of tools and technical topics - Communication approached as dialogue, behavior, skills, and personal competence ..................................... 31

2.1.4. Project management textbooks with implicit communication subjects not labeled ‘Communication’ .............................................................................. 44

2.1.5. Summary .............................................................................................................. 48

2.2. Approaches to communication in project management from various research fields ............................................................................................. 49

2.2.1. Communication in articles from the field of project management .................... 49

2.2.2. Crossing over to the fields of organizational communication and corporate communication from a project management perspective ................ 57

2.2.3. Summary .............................................................................................................. 60


6

2.2.4. Concluding remarks on the review on textbook and research literature ........... 61

2.2.5. Summary of the approaches to communication in project management textbooks from various research fields ............................................................... 64

2.3. Expanding the understanding from periphery areas of research ................... 66

2.3.1. Organizational Communication & Communication Networks ............................ 68

2.3.2. Strategic communication & Strategy of practice ................................................ 73

2.3.3. Stakeholder management – understanding relations ......................................... 84

2.3.4. Social theory & Social network theory ................................................................ 97

2.3.5. Leadership and management – functions and expectations ............................ 103

2.3.6. Theory of authority – Power, influence, and persuasion; Perspective on the manager with no formal power .................................................................. 113

2.3.7. Key terminology from the expanded theoretical framework as vocabulary to guide the analyses ...................................................................... 119

2.4. Literature review summary ........................................................................ 124

3. Methodology ............................................................................. 126

3.1. Applying Yin’s case-study model as the main framework ............................ 128

3.1.1. Using multiple-case studies to understand the context of project management - Justification of case research approach .................................... 129

3.1.2. Step 1: Define & Design ..................................................................................... 129

3.1.3. Step 2: Prepare, Collect, Analyze, Collect .......................................................... 134

3.1.4. Step 3: Analysis from 4 perspectives: Themes, Perception, Context, & Relations ............................................................................................................ 155

3.2. Strategies of analysis .................................................................................. 157

3.2.1. Vocabulary from the literature review as reference in analyzing the four research questions ............................................................................................. 157

3.2.2. Thematic analysis – answering the first research question .............................. 157

3.2.3. Perception analysis – answering the second research question ....................... 158

3.2.4. Context analysis – answering the third research question ............................... 159

3.2.5. Relational analysis – answering the fourth research question ......................... 163

3.3. Summary ................................................................................................... 165


7

4. Thematic analysis ...................................................................... 169

4.1. Prominent themes of communicative action and considerations in project managers’ accounts of communication practices ............................ 169

4.1.1. Thematic network: ‘Project manager’ - Individual characteristics of a project manager ................................................................................................ 169

4.1.2. Thematic network: ‘Context’ - Expectations and responsibilities framing the context ......................................................................................................... 186

4.1.3. Thematic Network: ‘Communication'................................................................ 198

4.2. Summary ................................................................................................... 211

5. Perception analysis .................................................................... 213

5.1. Project managers’ understanding of the role of communication in project management ................................................................................. 213

5.1.1. Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 213

5.1.2. Organizing theme: Characteristics of communication ...................................... 214

5.1.3. Organizing theme: Tool & Technical topic based communication .................... 217

5.1.4. Organizing theme: Characteristics of the project manager .............................. 219

5.1.5. Organizing theme: Relations ............................................................................. 227

5.1.6. Organizing theme: Context ................................................................................ 229

5.1.7. Main categories compared to main groups ...................................................... 232

5.1.8. The perception of communication reflecting models of communication in project management ..................................................................................... 249

5.1.9. Reflection on findings ........................................................................................ 251

5.1.10. Comparing and contrasting findings from the analysis of the perception of communication to findings from the thematic network ‘Communication’ ............................................................................................... 252

5.2. Summary ................................................................................................... 255

6. Context analysis ........................................................................ 257

6.1. The context framing project managers’ communication practices .............. 257

6.1.1. Findings .............................................................................................................. 257

6.1.2. Company A1 - primarily internal focus .............................................................. 258


8

6.1.3. Company A2 - primarily internal focus .............................................................. 259

6.1.4. Company B - distinct internal focus ................................................................... 260

6.1.5. Company C - distinct internal focus ................................................................... 261

6.1.6. Company D - distinct internal focus and framing .............................................. 262

6.1.7. Project contextual frames shaping communication .......................................... 263

6.1.8. Stakeholders who don’t fit ................................................................................ 267

6.2. Summary ................................................................................................... 268

7. Relational analysis ..................................................................... 272

7.1. Project managers’ use of communication strategies ................................... 272

7.1.1. Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 272

7.1.2. Positioning project management communication in the field of organizational communication .......................................................................... 273

7.1.3. The networking project manager ...................................................................... 277

7.1.4. Project management stakeholders.................................................................... 288

7.1.5. Prerequisites for project progress ..................................................................... 297

7.2. Summary ................................................................................................... 314

8. Conclusion and implications ...................................................... 317

8.1. Findings ..................................................................................................... 317

8.1.1. RQ 1: What are the prominent themes of communicative action and considerations in project managers’ accounts for communication practices? ........................................................................................................... 317

8.1.2. RQ 2: How do project managers’ understand the role of communication in project management? ................................................................................... 318

8.1.3. RQ 3: What is the context framing project managers’ communication practice? ............................................................................................................ 320

8.1.4. RQ 4: In what ways do project managers’ explain or reveal their use of communication strategies? ............................................................................... 321

8.2. Discussion and implications ........................................................................ 323

8.2.1. Implications for project management practices ............................................... 323

8.2.2. Implications for project management textbooks .............................................. 327


9

8.2.3. Implications for the field of organizational communication ............................. 328

8.3. Limitations of study and future directions .................................................. 332

9. References ................................................................................. 333

10. Summary in English ................................................................... 347

11. Resumé på dansk ....................................................................... 351

12. List of figures ............................................................................. 354

13. List of tables .............................................................................. 358

14. Appendix: list of empirical materials ......................................... 360


10

1. Introduction & Rationale

“Proper communication is vital to the success of a project.” This statement by Kerzner

(2009, 233) illustrates the attitude towards communication in contemporary project

management. Other examples supporting this attitude are: “communication is the cor-

nerstone of effective project management” by Pritchard (2004, 1), and “project man-

agement is communication” by Lindegaard (2005, 261). Communication is highly

acknowledged, but the use of the term ‘communication’ appears with no guidelines on

how to unpack the concept. Communication appears most often as ‘Communications

management’, and is predominant where communication is approached as an object, a

tool, a procedure that is to be managed. Lester (2007, 289) defines communication as

“the very life blood of project management” and he deliberately distinguishes between

information and communication. He perceives information as data and distinguishes be-

tween Information management and management communication.

The practical problem is that project problems are often caused by poor communication

(Baker 2007). When defining the project manager’s role, Kerzner (2006) emphasizes that

strong communication and personal relation skills are required, and he points out that

the challenge with communication is that historically a lot of project managers have

their background in engineering. They come from different educational backgrounds and

have limited education in management and communication. Being a project manager

requires the talent to lead and manage a unique set of coordinated activities and re-

sources in order to meet specific performance objectives within defined schedule, cost,

and performance parameters (Goczol & Scoubeau 2003; Maylor 2005). According to

Gray and Larson (2006), project management is defined as more than just a set of tools;

but a result oriented management style that places a premium on building collaborative

relationships among a diverse cast of characters, and Berkun (2008) states that it starts

by admitting that communication and relationships are critical to success.

This research document approaches project management communication from a rela-

tional approach with the focus on the project manager and his or her (communication)

behavior in the center of a vast relational network of stakeholders. This approach con-

siders the formal and informal or emergent communication networks within which the

project manager is engaged.

Monge and Contractor (2003) state that the notion of “emergent network” was a desig-

nation that originally differentiated informal, naturally occurring networks from formal,

imposed, legitimate authority networks of the organization typically reflected by the or-


11

ganizational chart. However, the formal organizational structure failed to capture many

important aspects of communication in organizations and the rationales for studying

emergent communication networks have evolved from research arguments of prefer-

ence to studying emergent structures because they contribute better to the understand-

ing of organizational behavior.

While Kerzner (2009) defines project management as the planning, organizing, directing,

and controlling of company resources for a relatively short-term objective that has been

established to complete specific goals and objectives; and Webster and Knutson (2006)

state that the discipline of project management is characterized by being a unique pro-

fession with the aim of supporting management in planning, decision-making, and con-

trol of the multitude of activities involved in large and complex (and sometimes simulta-

neous) projects, and that project management is the interface between general man-

agement, operations management, and technical management, which integrates all as-

pects of the project and causes the project to happen.

Then, the two following definitions by Cornelissen (2006) and by Van Vuuren (2006) of

corporate and organizational communication demonstrate that project management

communication qualifies as being considered not only from the perspective of project

management but from the perspective of organizational communication as well:

Cornelissen (2006) defines corporate communication as a management function that

offers a framework and vocabulary for the effective coordination of all means of com-

munication with the overall purpose of establishing and maintaining favorable reputa-

tions with stakeholder groups upon which the organization is dependent.

Van Vuuren (2006, 116) specifies his discussion to the organizational level of communi-

cation being a more operational level when stating that “… it is through communication

that information is shared to provide a fundamental understanding of the tasks that are

to be performed as well as the goals to which an organization is striving.”

This research explores project management communication from an organizational

communication perspective based on the above argument that project management

communication qualifies as an integrated part of organizational communication in terms

of strategic communication.


12

1.1. Main Research Question and objectives

The statements about communication challenges in project management and the pre-

ceding introduction motivate the following main purpose and research question:

Why project managers perceive communication to be the most important aspect of

project management and what influences their communication choices, communica-

tion actions and communicative behaviors?

In order to address this question, four research sub-questions are posed:

1. What are the prominent themes of communicative action and considerations

that emerge in project managers’ accounts of communication practices?

2. How do project managers understand the role of communication in project man-

agement?

3. What is the context situation/framing of project managers’ communication prac-

tices?

4. In what ways do project managers explain or reveal their use of communication

strategies?

1.2. Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study on project management communication is to invite a discus-

sion that contributes to strengthening and extending the understanding of the role and

function of communication in project management.

1.3. Contributions

The contribution of this study is a vocabulary, derived from the extended frame of theo-

ry, to change and expand our understanding of the role and function of internal com-

munication in respect to the project environment. This vocabulary which is grounded in

literature allows further development of theory. The practical contribution of this vo-

cabulary is the ability to teach project communication and project management com-

munication based on an extended understanding.


13

1.4. Plan of Study

The outline of the rest of this dissertation follows, giving a brief overview of each chap-

ter’s content and key points.

Chapter 1 (remaining part): Theory of science; while acknowledging the ontology of

both objectivism and constructivism, this project is positioned within the paradigm of

social constructivism and placed at the epistemological intersection of grounded theory,

phenomenology and perspectivism.

Chapter 2: Literature review presents how communication is approached within the

textbook literature on project management as well as the academic literature from re-

search with studies exploring communication in project management, fields such as pro-

ject management, information science, and corporate communication. The first section

of the review covers textbooks that do not dedicate space to the subject of communica-

tion; then textbooks with brief paragraphs to sections and chapters on communication;

followed by textbooks integrating communication beyond the perspective of tools and

technical topics; and finally textbooks with implicit communication subjects, meaning

subjects that are not discussed from a communication perspective. The second section

reviews approaches to communication in project management from various research

fields. The third section expands the understanding from the peripheral areas of re-

search: organizational communication and communication networks; strategic commu-

nication and strategy of practice; stakeholder; social theory; leadership and manage-

ment, and finally theory of authority.

Chapter 3: Methodology presents the multiple-case study design and the research stag-

es are outlined. The inquiry procedures are described with the specific mentioning of

data sources and collection procedures, and strategies of analysis are presented.

Chapter 4: Qualitative analysis and findings presents the analysis consisting of four per-

spectives. The purpose is to approach project management communication from four

perspectives to expand the understanding and the awareness of the communicative sit-

uation surrounding the project manager. The thematic analysis aims at revealing salient

themes from the full interview transcriptions. The purpose of the perception analysis is

to gain insight into how project managers understand the role of communication. The

purpose of the context analysis is to define and map stakeholders and the context fram-

ing the project management context. The purpose of the fourth and final relational anal-

ysis is to identify communicative action and behavior which create connections and

meaning in the project manager’s choice and use of communication strategies, and to


14

gain understanding of the relations that occur in the realization of and work with a pro-

ject.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and implications concludes this dissertation by summarizing the

findings, discusses the implications of the project manager’s understanding of the role

and function of communication and their revealed use of communication strategies. Fur-

thermore, the conclusion summarizes the contributions and limitations of this study.

Possible areas for future research are also identified.


15

1.5. Theory of science

The ontological and epistemological assumptions, which guide the research process of

this study, are rooted in a social constructionist framework. Berger and Luckmann (1966)

suggest that reality is socially constructed and moreover that the social construction of

reality is to be the focus of a sociology of knowledge. Moses and Knutson (2007) refer to

the qualitative tradition as a methodological orientation of constructivism where social

scientists believe that patterns of interest are not firmly rooted in nature but are a

product of our own making. Each of us sees different things, and what we see is deter-

mined by a complicated mix of social and contextual influences and/or presuppositions.

This orientation recognizes the important role of the observer and society in construct-

ing the patterns that we study. The position of naturalism is that research is conducted

in an “objective”, value-free environment, and that values have no effect on methods or

interpretation, whereas constructivists recognize that people are intelligent, reflective,

and willful, and that these characteristics matter for how we understand the world.

1.5.1. The social constructionist paradigm

Constructivists recognize that we do not merely ‘experience’ the world objectively or

directly: our experiences are channeled through the human mind – in often elusive

ways. Rather than uncovering a true account, constructivists seek to capture and under-

stand the meaning of a social action for the performing agent. If something appears

meaningful or real to an agent then it may affect his behavior and have real conse-

quences for the society around him. For the constructivist, truth lies in the eyes of the

observer, and in the constellation of power and force that supports that truth (Moses

and Knutson, 2007).

Schechter (2007) argues that researchers are constantly entrapped along the continuum

form objectivism (naturalism) to skepticism (often labeled as constructivism). Schechter

states that researchers are typically entrenched in one or the other of the two con-

trasting epistemological schools, and identifying oneself on this axis of meaning results

in an epistemological ideology, which denies all other possibilities to interpret social

phenomena.

Project management communication as a phenomenon falls in between the field of pro-

ject management influenced by the engineering approach that is the functionalistic, ob-

jective natural science approach and the fields of organizational communication and

management communication with traditions of interpretive approaches rooted in the

social constructionist paradigm. For this reason, this research is based on respect for a


16

collective perception of perspectives based on observations, theories, and patterns of

reasoning.

Deetz (2001) argues that there are three ways of conceptualizing ‘Organizational Com-

munication’. The first is looking at the development of organizational communication.

The second is looking at organizational communication as a phenomenon that exists in

organizations, which can then be subdivided. What are the variables that affect it and

what does it affect, and what theories can explain it? He states that the phenomenon

can be studied from different academic disciplines. However, it will at all times be a

study on ‘organizational communication’ and this becomes problematic. Deetz (2001,4)

states:” …the contemporary theories of organizational communication deny that a uni-

tary phenomenon exists out there. Thus, the phenomenon – organizational communica-

tion – is different for different theories. […] it is not one phenomenon with many expla-

nations; each form of explanation may conceptualize and explain a different phenome-

non”. The phenomenon ‘Organizational communication’ becomes tied in by itself,

which, according to Deetz (2001), means that theory debate is reduced to methodologi-

cal perspectivalism and when thought of as a distinct phenomenon, the conception of

organization is reduced to a site and the conception of communication becomes narrow

with social interaction conceptually reduced to empirical acts of information transfer. A

third way, is not to front load communication in itself, but to see and explore communi-

cation as a way to describe and explain organizations. Just as other disciplines, such as

psychology and sociology are used to explain organizational processes, communication

may be a way to explain and explore organizational behavior and dynamics in the vari-

ous ways it unfolds and develops. Here Deetz states that from such a perspective the

interest is not in theories of organizational communication but in producing a communi-

cation theory of organizations. This reflects the approach to project management com-

munication in exploring the perception of communication from the point of view of pro-

ject managers.

In accordance with what Deetz states above, the interest in project management com-

munication extends beyond theories and literature on project communication and pro-

ject management communication. Therefore, fields and traditions of research beyond

the field of project management are used to explain and understand the phenomenon.

Still, the position of this research stays within the social constructivist paradigm.


17

1.5.2. The epistemological intersection of Grounded Theory, Phenomenolo-

gy, and Perspectivism

While the methodological claims are discussed in chapter 3, the epistemological claims

of grounded theory, phenomenology and perspectivism and their implications for this

research are addressed in the following sections.

1.5.2.1. Defining Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a commonly used qualitative research method, developed in 1967

by Barnie Glaser and Anslem Strauss. From these two researchers the method has

spread from originally the area of caregiving to other social science disciplines such as

education, nursing, business, family studies, gerontology, social work, women’s and

gender studies, cultural studies an many other areas (Morse 2009; Suddaby 2006; Clarke

2005)

According to Suddaby (2006) and Morse (2009), Grounded theory is a practical method

for conducting research that focuses on the interpretive process by analyzing the actual

production of meanings and concepts. Glaser and Strauss (1967, in Suddaby, 2006) ar-

gue that new theory can be developed by paying careful attention to the contrast be-

tween “the daily realities (what is actually going on) of substantive areas” and the inter-

pretations of those daily realities made by those who participate in them (the “actors”).

According to Suddaby (2006) grounded theory is most suited to efforts to understand

the process by which actors construct meaning out of intersubjective experience.

Suddaby state that, unlike more traditional, positivistic research, grounded theory offers

no clean break between collecting and analyzing data. Rather, a researcher must contin-

ue to collect data until no new evidence appears. This process, called “category satura-

tion,” is, according to Suddaby, one of the primary means of verification in grounded

theory.

The analytical method “Thematic network analysis” applied in this research, employs

core features and techniques from grounded theory. The core structure from the analyt-

ic tool has significant parallels with the three basic elements of grounded theory: con-

cepts, categories and propositions (Attride-Stirling, 2001; Corbin and Strauss, 2008).

1.5.2.2. Defining Phenomenology

The epistemology of phenomenology focuses on revealing meaning rather than on argu-

ing a point or developing abstract theory. The primary position of phenomenology is

that the most basic human truths are accessible only through inner subjectivity and that


18

the person is integral to the environment (Flood 2010). According to Crotty (1998), phe-

nomenological knowledge reforms understanding and leads to more thoughtful action

through constructionism. He states that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful re-

ality as such, is contingent upon human practices being constructed in and out of inter-

action between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an

essentially social context. Phenomenological research is inductive and descriptive. The

researcher aims to understand the cognitive subjective perspective of the person who

has the experience and the effect that perspective has on the lived experience.

This research aims at exploring project managers’ cognitive subjective perspective of

why communication in projects is perceived as the most important in their lived experi-

ence by analyzing their accounts of communication practices, accounts for what their

perception is and explore how the project managers explain or in other ways reveal their

communication behaviors and choice of communication strategies.

However, this research does not take the approach that the most basic human truths

are accessible only through inner subjectivity.

1.5.2.3. Defining Perspectivism

Perspectivism claims that all perspectives take place from a particular view point; there-

fore, knowledge claims are grounded in the experience of the ‘knower’ (Tebes 2005).

This, according to Schechter (2007), is in line with what the developer and most promi-

nent advocate of perspectivism, Friedrich Nietzsche (1989, 255) who argued that “all

seeing is essentially perspectives, and so is all knowing”. Giere (2006) states that percep-

tion appears to originate from the inside. However, something “out there” provides

stimuli to which most people react similarly. To Giere, perspectives are always partial,

but at the same time they are aspects of one shared reality and are therefore not sub-

jective. This demonstrates the major difference between phenomenology and perspec-

tivism in that according to phenomenology, perspectives are accessible only through in-

ner subjectivity, whereas according to perspectivism perspectives are always partial, are

aspects of one shared reality, and are therefore not subjective.

Giere (2006) argues for the partial correctness of both objectivism and constructivism

just as Henderson and Willer (1987) argues for the importance of integrating both per-

spectives. Guire talks about an actor and a purpose in connection to perspectivism, and

to illustrate the meaning of this, he gives the example of maps (in Brante 2010, 110):

Consider a map of Lisbon, showing its network of streets. Another map will show its to-

pography, a third its subway system, a fourth Lisbon as a point in Europe. He asks


19

“Which of these is most true, or best, or has most explanatory power? – the answer is

none”, as he says, it all depends on its purpose. And a purpose, he argues, is always

something for someone. The actor reflects the project manager, the various maps reflect

the project management tools such as the stakeholder analysis, the communication

plan, the work breakdown structure, procedures and checklists, and the purpose reflects

the individual purposes of the different tools and techniques, but also the overall pur-

pose of running a successful project and reaching for the defined goal.

Reality, according to Giere (2006), is depicted in various ways: by words, statements, di-

agrams, photos, graphs, mathematical calculations, often tied together by conceptual

networks into theory. What Giere asserts is that the actor uses maps i.e. models to rep-

resent a part of the world, an aspect of reality for certain purposes. A model of reality

guides data collection by specifying what types are significant. Giere depicts the struc-

ture and the dynamics of the model, but he does not discuss exclusionary function of

models. Determining which types of theoretical reasoning and which types of data are

significant types of theory and data is irrelevant for this same issue.

Schechter (2007) argues that perspectivism assumes that there is no ontological distinc-

tion among entities in the world, because all entities – conceptual and physical alike –

derive their meaning from the relationships they maintain with other entities in their

particular context; meaning that perspectivism rejects the ontological division between

social and technical phenomena. It allows moving among perspectives on the same is-

sues. According to Henderson and Willer (1987), perspectivism acknowledges the value

of both the objective and the constructivist approach for communication inquiry and

thus, provides a framework for integrating beliefs about and optimal understanding of

the nature of a project managers’ communicative action and behavior.

1.5.2.4. Similarities and differences

According to Suddaby (2006), grounded theory is sometimes confused with phenome-

nology, as phenomenological research emphasizes the subjective experiences of actors’

“lifeworlds”. Suddaby states that methodologically, phenomenologists attempt to cap-

ture the rich, if not mundane, detail of actors’ lived experience, and they often present

their data in relatively raw form to demonstrate their authenticity and to permit a holis-

tic interpretation of the subjects’ understanding of experience. Suddaby (2006)

acknowledges that there are similarities between the phenomenology and grounded

theory researchers in relation to assumptions and techniques. However, researchers of

grounded theory are less focused on subjective experiences of individual actors and are

instead more attentive to how such subjective experiences can be abstracted into theo-


20

retical statements about causal relations between actors. Perspectivism is attentive to

the perspectives as being an experience of the individual however, it has emphasis on

that the perspective is partial as there are aspects of a shared reality. Suddaby states

that in a phenomenological study, in-depth interviews are a key means of probing indi-

viduals’ subjective experience. In grounded theory, by contrast, interviews with subjects

may start with a phenomenological interest in subjective understandings, but the prima-

ry interest is not in the stories themselves. Rather, they are a means of eliciting infor-

mation on the social situation under examination. Phenomenological studies use in-

depth interviews, grounded theory studies rarely have interviews as their sole form of

data collection, and perspectivistic studies embrace all forms of data collection to depict

an aspect of reality. Grounded theory and phenomenology embrace the ontology of so-

cial constructivism, whereas perspectivism, although positioned within the paradigm of

social constructivism, does not make the distinction between objectivism and construc-

tivism.

1.5.3. Positioning this study on project management communication

From a relational approach, this research is inductive and explorative in that the aim is

to explore the understanding of project management communication, with focus on the

project manager, in the context of project management. This means a focus on psycho-

logical relations between the project manager and stakeholders, with the notion that

the experience of reality of project management originates from the project manager.

The project manager’s experience is partial in that it is influenced by the contextual ex-

pectations of daily realities of what is actually going on in relation with all stakeholders

with which the project manager shares this reality. The attention of the research is fo-

cused on the subjective experience of what is going on and the project manager’s inter-

pretations of these realities and of how they affect the lived experience.

Figure 1 illustrates how this research, while acknowledging the ontology of both objec-

tivism and constructivism, is positioned within the paradigm of social constructivism and

placed at the epistemological intersection of grounded theory, phenomenology and per-

spectivism. The figure presents the aspects from each epistemology: grounded theory,

phenomenology, and perspectivism that apply to this research.


21

Figure 1: Aspects that apply and position of this study at the epistemological intersection of theory of science, phe-nomenology, and perspectivism (Original)

2. Literature review and extended theoretical fram-

ing

Project management communication can only partially be understood from the litera-

ture discussing communication in projects. In the existing project management textbook

literature communication has labels such as ‘information management’, ‘communica-

tions management’, and ‘project management communication’. From the academic lit-

erature, communication in projects is researched and discussed from several fields and

perspectives. Hence, in the attempt to understand the role and function of project man-

agement communication from the perspective of the project manager it is necessary to

look to peripheral areas of research. These extended peripheral areas contribute with

perspectives on areas such as management and leadership, stakeholder management,

communication networks, relational networks, theory of influence and power relations

to name a few, which all deepen the understanding of the context(s) in which the pro-

ject manager operates in an organizational setting.

This following literature review presents how communication is approached within the

textbook literature on project management as well as the academic literature from re-

search with studies exploring communication in project management, fields such as pro-

ject management, information science, and corporate communication. This insight

shows what literature is available to project managers, and is useful as a starting point in

exploring project managers’ understanding of the role of communication in projects.

The two first sections of this chapter are therefore structured in the following way:

1. The first section is a review of the approaches to communication in project man-

agement textbooks. This review covers: textbooks that do not dedicate space to

the subject of communication; textbooks with brief paragraphs to sections and

chapters on communication, where communication is approached as infor-

mation, documentation, data, techniques/processes and/or tools; textbooks in-

tegrating communication beyond the perspective of tools and technical topics in

the sense that communication is approached as dialogue, behavior, skills, indi-

vidual style and personal competence; and finally textbooks with implicit com-

munication subjects not labeled ‘Communication’.

2. The second section reviews approaches to communication in project manage-

ment from various research fields. This includes: communication in articles from

the field of project management, and from here the review crosses over to the

Chapter 2: Literature review and theoretical framing

23

fields of organizational communication and corporate communication from a

project management perspective.

However, as indicated, a more nuanced understanding of project management commu-

nication, calls for further exploration into the periphery of literature and research relat-

ing to project management. Therefore the:

3. Third section expands the understanding from periphery areas of research. These

areas include: Organizational Communication & Communication Networks; Stra-

tegic communication & Strategy of practice; Stakeholder management – under-

standing relations; Social theory –Theories of Self-interest and Collective action;

Leadership and management – functions and expectations, and; Theory of au-

thority – Power, influence, and persuasion; Perspective on the manager with no

formal power.


24

2.1. Approaches to communication in project management

textbooks

Despite the emphasis on the importance of communication in projects, many recent

project management books don’t include any mentioning of communication. I have re-

viewed what I consider to be a convenient sample of relevant textbooks in project man-

agement that are a fair representation of the current thinking in the field. The literature

about project management can be divided into three main categories:

1. Project management textbooks that do not dedicate space to the subject of

communication.

2. Project management textbooks that range from brief paragraphs to sections and

chapters on communication and where communication is approached as infor-

mation, documentation, data, techniques/processes and/or tools.

3. Project management textbooks that integrate communication as more than in-

formation, documentation, data etc. Communication is approached as dialogue,

behavior, skills, individual style and personal competence.

There is a fourth category that goes across all the above categories. This fourth category

is determined by the subjects in the literature that is not labeled as communication, yet

presents and discusses project management responsibilities such as: Stakeholder man-

agement, Human Resource and Relations management, Leadership, Decision-making,

Conflict and Change management. All are responsibilities that require competence in

social communication and behavior. I will call this category:

4. Project management textbooks with implicit communication subjects not labeled

‘Communication’.

2.1.1. Project management textbooks that do not dedicate space to the sub-

ject of communication

The absence of dedication to communication is like a machine with no grease, a car with

no gas. Absence of dedication to communication is like a frozen world, organizations,

institutions, families with no life, no heartbeat. Every required element, unit, part, skill,

information, knowledge requirement and detail is present and as close to perfect as can

be but there is no life, no breath – no communication.

Gray and Larson (2006) start by stating that “project management is more than just a set

of tools; it is a result oriented management style that places a premium on building col-

laborative relationships among a divers cast of characters”. Building collaborative rela-


25

tionships among a divers cast of characters requires interacting and communicating with

people, and it requires reflection on communication strategies by the project manager.

However, in the phrasing there is no mention of communication. Table 1 shows catego-

rization and comments on the books with no dedication to communication but where

some have topics not labeled communication such as management activities, relation-

ship building, stakeholder management, and building trust to mention a few of the prior-

itized aspects.

Table 1: Comments on content of books with no mention of communication

I will get back to this category of project management books when presenting the fourth

category.

Gray and Larson (2006) present the project management process in a Ying Yang figure

on the first page of their book “The Technical and Sociocultural Dimensions of the Pro-

ject Management Process”. Figure 2 illustrates the two dimensions of the project man-

agement process. The technical side consists of the formal, disciplined, pure logic parts

of the process. This side includes planning, scheduling and controlling the project. Every-

thing is documented and traceable. The sociocultural side includes, as they state the

much messier, often contradictory and paradoxical world of implementation. This side

encompasses the project manager building cooperative social networks among a diver-

gent set of allies with different standards, commitments, and perspectives (Gray and

Larson, 2006 p. 14).


26

Figure 2: The technical and sociocultural dimensions of the project management process by Gray and Larson, 2006

Even though Gray and Larson do not discuss aspects of communication, the figure is use-

ful in that it helps illustrate how recent literature on project management deals with and

presents communication. The technical and the sociocultural dimensions serve as a

guideline in categorizing the literature on project management according to their ap-

proach to communication. As with Gray and Larson, five other textbooks out of twenty

three, do not mention communication explicitly.


27

2.1.2. Project management textbooks ranging from brief paragraphs to sec-

tions and chapters on communication – communication approached as

information, documentation, data, processes, and tools

In other project management textbooks communication is prioritized to various degrees

spanning from half a page to whole chapters of space dedicated to the practice of com-

munication. Table 2 and Table 3 show categorization and comments on the books with

brief paragraphs to sections and chapters on communication and with a technical ap-

proach to communication.

Table 2: Comments on content of books with a technical approach to communication (1/2)


28

Table 3: Continuation of table 2: Comments on content of books with a technical approach to communication (2/ 2)

Communication is seen and discussed as being information or data. Frigenti & Comninos

(2002), Kerzner (2009; 2011) and Wysocki (2009) discuss communication as information

that needs to be communicated through the right channels to the right people at the

right time. Communication is viewed as an object, data that is required for each team

member, and the project manager should, according to Reiss (2007), ask every team

member what kind of data i.e. information, they need from the project manager. Com-

munication is a tool, an external topic that can be planned and scheduled. It is seen as

something measurable, something that can be presented in models and bullet point lists

of how to calculate and consider the effectiveness of communication at the right time

and in a cost-effective manner. Project documents, forms, fixed procedures and project

management systems support this way of handling communication as valuable infor-

mation and measurable data (Kerzner, 2006; Propp, 1999; Pritchard, 2004). According to


29

Jonasson (2012), the biggest challenges in projects are not communication tools. What

leads to the biggest obstacles in projects are people; customers, management, staff etc.

He argues that if he could just run projects without having to deal with conflicts, com-

munication problems, poor attitudes – like opinions that don’t match his own, he be-

lieves that he would always be on time and within budget.

Kerzner (2009) states: “Effective project communications ensure that we get the right

information to the right person at the right time and in a cost-effective manner. Proper

communication is vital to the success of a project. Typical definitions of effective com-

munication include: An exchange of information, an act or instance of transmitting in-

formation, a verbal or written message, a technique for expressing ideas effectively, and

a process by which meanings are exchanged between individuals through a common sys-

tem of symbols.”

The above statement and definition of what Kerzner calls ‘effective project communica-

tion’ illustrates the technical approach. The terminology used: information, transmitting

information, message, technique and process, has more associations towards calculable

and measurable data and processes than towards dialogue, opinion, influence, discus-

sion and coffee break conversations.

Communication in project management is typically represented as a communication

plan (Binder 2007; Maylor 2005; Mepyans-Robinson 2006; PRINCE 2 2009; Pritchard

2004; Schwalbe 2007; Mikkelsen & Riis 2011). The criteria for these plans often include

what is to be communicated, to whom, by whom, over what type of medium or channel,

when, and with what expected effect (Pritchard 2004; Mikkelsen & Riis 2011). These cri-

teria demonstrate the factual features of project communication and are also an organ-

izing tool that is amenable to measurement and calculation. However, this type of plan

does not give any knowledge of the desired influence, consequences or purpose of each

communication interaction.

Communication is highly acknowledged, but not prioritized as a central subject. “Proper

communication is vital to the success of a project” This statement by Kerzner (2009, 233)

and several other examples support the argument that communication in projects is a

requirement for a project to succeed. Further examples are:

“Communication is the cornerstone of effective project management […]” (Pritchard,

2004, 1),


30

“[…] it starts by admitting communication and relationships are critical to success […]”

(Berkun, 2008, 177)

“Information together with communication are the very life blood of project manage-

ment.” (Lester, 2007, 289)

“Project management is communication”. (Lindegaard, 2005, 261)

However, the use of the term ‘communication’ appears with no guidelines on how to

unpack the concept. There is no consistency to the use of the term ‘communication’.

Communication appears most often as ‘Communications management’ and is predomi-

nant in textbooks with the technical approach to communication where communication

is approached as an object, a tool, a procedure that is to be managed. In addition to and

supporting this perspective, communication is presented as a noun in plural i.e. ‘com-

munications’. Communications are objects, techniques, plans, tasks, something that you

can have several of, hence ‘communications management’ (Frigenti & Comninos, 2002;

Boddy, 2002; Maylor, 2005; Nokes & Kelly, 2007; Mepyans-Robinson, 2006; Schwalbe,

2007; Wysocki, 2009; Kerzner, 2009 and Kousholt, 2007). Pritchard (2004) dedicates a

whole book on ‘The project management communications toolkit’.


31

2.1.3. Project management textbooks integrating communication beyond the

perspective of tools and technical topics - Communication approached

as dialogue, behavior, skills, and personal competence

Referring back to Gray and Larson’s Figure 2 of the technical and the sociocultural di-

mensions of the project management process, the authors of these project management

textbooks discuss communication from the sociocultural perspective. Communication is

discussed in relation to subjects such as relationship building, stakeholder relations, con-

flict and change management, influence and decision-making, leadership, behavior and

personal style. Table 4 shows categorization and comments on the books integrating

communication beyond the perspective of tools and technical topics.

Despite the shift in focus from the technical presentation of communication to the soci-

ocultural presentation of communication, the overall approach of these authors to

communication is still tool and process oriented. Most approaches, within this group of

textbooks, stay within the perspective of ‘Communications management’. Berkun (2008)

has dedicated a chapter to the presentation of the subject ‘Communication and rela-

tionships’. Berkun relates communication directly with the importance of building rela-

tionships, defining roles and having or encouraging a positive and constructive work atti-

tude. He presents a five step model of communication based on the process from the

message being transmitted to conversion into useful action.

So on the one hand, Berkun discusses subjects of communication that relates to the so-

ciocultural dimension of Gray and Larson’s model of communication dimensions in the

project management process, and on the other hand, he operationalizes communication

with an approach based on the technical dimension and understanding of communica-

tion.


32

Table 4: Comments on content of books integrating communication beyond the technical dimension


33

There is a shift in focus from object to person. Lester (2007, 289) defines communication

as “the very life blood of project management”. Lester deliberately distinguishes be-

tween information and communication. He perceives information as data and this is dis-

cussed as Information management. He distinguishes between information and com-

munication by stating that information should always follow the formal route. Lester

talks about management communication and says that management communication is

often most effective when carried out informally, as in walkabouts where the project

manager gets opportunities to meet people in a relaxed atmosphere where the chance

is given to discuss problems, obtain information, elicit opinions and build trusting rela-

tionships. With this approach, the focus shifts from being object oriented to focusing on

the manager and what he or she communicates.

2.1.3.1. Communication barriers, errors and breakdowns leading to project

failure

Communication is defined as being the life blood of project management and at the

same time, communication is labeled as being the main cause for project failure.

“Communication breakdowns are continuously cited as one of the key reasons that pro-

jects fail […]” (Pritchard, 2004, 1), “At the heart of many of the top ten reasons why pro-

jects fail is poor communication […]” (Wysocki, 2009, 39), “Probably more errors occur

in a project due to bad communications than any other cause” (Lester, 2007,293).

Communication is discussed by pointing out communication errors made in projects

(Lindegaard 2005; Lester 2007) by presenting a long list of barriers which can cause

communication breakdowns. Lester’s list is a mix of aspects from both the technical di-

mension and from the sociocultural dimension, presented by Gray and Larson (2006).

The included reasons in the list show a clear understanding that communication is more

than data, more than tools and more than preparing a communication plan. Despite this

apparent emphasis on the role of communication as a personal and interpersonal as-

pect, only two and a half pages are dedicated to the subject.

Pritchard (2004,1) points out that due to the consequences of poor communication “[…]

communication needs to be addressed as a critical activity and skill for project manag-

ers”. According to Pritchard, the goal of communication is to clarify information to the

level of depth required by the receiver by minimizing barriers that might inhibit under-

standing. This means, as he states, a broad understanding of audience, interest, and en-

vironment. The contradiction in what Pritchard argues is pointing out the necessity for

putting the project manager’s communication skills on the agenda on the one hand, and

on the other, still referring to communication as information that just needs to be better


34

clarified. Pritchard stays within the zone of ‘Communications management’ with no in-

tegration of the personal and social perspective of competence in ‘Management com-

munication’, which I will argue is the key to minimizing the presence of poor communi-

cation in projects and enhancing the understanding of the role of communication in pro-

ject management.

2.1.3.2. Stakeholders, relations and influencing others

Communication is about stakeholder management and the management of expectations

and perception (Maylor, 2005; Mooz et al, 2003; Tuman, 2006; Schwalbe, 2007). Accord-

ing to Schwable, managing stakeholders involves managing communications to satisfy

the needs and expectations of project stakeholders and to resolve issues. This means,

presented by Schwable (2007), determining the information needs of the stakeholders,

and making this information available to project stakeholders in a timely manner. By us-

ing the terminology managing communications, information needs of stakeholders, and

making information available the approach reflects that communication is manageable

and something transmitted to the stakeholder according to their needs – a one way

communication perception supporting the technical dimension of the project manage-

ment process.

Mooz et al. (2003,1) takes communication in relations to stakeholders to the sociocul-

tural dimension of Gray and Larson’s model. They start out by stating “[p]roject success

depends directly on achieving stakeholder understanding by communicating effectively”.

This statement may not seem very different in approach from the above by Schwable

(2007,407) “… making information available to project stakeholders in a timely manner”

or “… managing communications to satisfy the needs and expectations of project stake-

holders ….” However, the direction of interest differs in the two approaches. Schwable’s

overall approach indicates that communication is an ‘information service’ to the stake-

holders with the aim of satisfying their needs. Whereas, Mooz et al’s approach is that of

communicating with stakeholders in order to achieve understanding from them con-

cerning the project. The consequence being that the project manager is able to com-

municate even more effectively with them. It becomes a win-win two way situation.

Mooz et al (2003) cite Booher (1994) “Communication is the soul of management: analy-

sis and solid decisions translated into clear messages that influence people to act and

feel good about their performance”. According to Mooz et al, communication is about

influencing people to want to buy in to the project and about influencing people to want

to perform. Communication is more than an object, a technique or a tool. Communica-

tion is influence. The project manager’s ability and competence to make a wide array of


35

stakeholders work together. Mooz et al points out that it is also a question of encom-

passing all stakeholders and their individual influence on project communication. In rela-

tion to this they bring in the aspects of personal behavior and communication styles.

Berkun (2008) contributes to this discussion by saying “[p]roject managers are only as

good as their relationships with people on the team”, and to this one may add ‘the rela-

tionships to stakeholders in general’. Berkun continues by saying “No matter how bril-

liant the project manager is, his value is determined by how well he can apply his bril-

liance to the project through other people … It’s about seeing the project manager’s role

as amplifying the value of others in any way possible.” Communication, personal behav-

ior and the ability to build relations is what Berkun argues is the way to do this. “The an-

swer is relationships: depending on the person you are dealing with and what expecta-

tions have been set, your approach must be different”.

Expectations appears both in the literature from the technical and from the sociocultural

dimension. Clear communication about expectations leaves no room for bad assump-

tions that lead to misunderstanding and conflict (Berkun, 2008). According to Berkun,

projects depend on relationships and defining roles. With clearly defined roles, the pro-

ject manager can, through dialogue and discussion with team members and stakehold-

ers, determine areas of responsibilities and recognize what expectations you have of

each other. And as, Berkun states, defined roles, responsibilities and expectations must

be written down and thereby form a documented agreement.

Bridging the technical dimension and the sociocultural dimension is seen several places

in the textbooks on project management that dedicates priority to the aspect of com-

munication in project management. An example of this is where Boddy (2002) acknowl-

edges the recommendation of communication in the prescriptive literature, which

would be what I refer to as the technical dimension by Gray and Larson (2006). He sa-

lutes them by saying that “Project managers need effective channels of communication

to influence others. They need to be able to gather ideas in forming and transmitting the

project goals, in securing resources, and in gathering information for monitoring and

learning.” In this he mentions the technical dimensions of the communication process:

effective channels of communication, transmitting the project goal, securing resources,

and gathering information. However, he continues by saying “[t]o get things done with

the cooperation of groups or functions over whom they have little or no formal authori-

ty they need to engage in an intense communication process”. Here Boddy draws atten-

tion to three things that make up part of the sociocultural dimension of the project

management process. First, he acknowledges that the project manager needs the right


36

tools, such as effective channels, the right information etc., but to get things done the

project manager needs to go beyond this if he or she is to, as Berkun puts it, amplify the

value of groups and functions to the project; stakeholders over whom he has little or no

formal authority. Second, motivating stakeholders to action without formal authority

requires, as Boddy calls it, engagement in an intense communication process, which is

the third thing. Boddy acknowledges both the technical and the sociocultural dimension.

The project manager can use both to his advantage.

Shifting focus from projects to people

Berkun’s statement “… amplify the value of groups and functions to the project” and

Boddy’s statement “… motivating stakeholders to action without formal authority re-

quire engagement in an intense communication process,” create a fundamental framing

of the communication approach to project management by Kampf (2013) that puts peo-

ple at the center of project management. She defines project management as “solutions

that people agree upon in order to solve problems they recognize as urgent, timely and

important”. Her approach is de-centering the project and focusing on an open system of

interaction between people, problems, communication practices, knowledge communi-

cation and the organizational and cultural context(s) in which the project is situated.

Kampf asserts that “[a] focus on people is key to understanding the communication ap-

proach […]”. This communication approach shifts the focus to people by moving focus

from “a project” and “objectives” to the project participants and stakeholders using

communication and knowledge communication processes to produce enough

knowledge about the project in order to solve it.

According to Kampf (2013) the triple constraint acknowledges people as a subset of re-

sources, but not at the center of the project, whereas in the people-centered approach,

people are understood as the “engine” driving the process. People who communicate in

order to solve problems and these people are not just those involved in the project

team. Kampf includes all stakeholders, also people providing input during the project

planning process i.e. at the start of the project cycle. In a communication approach to

project management, Kampf acknowledges people as underlying each part of the triple

constraint. Figure 3 demonstrates the shift of focus from a traditional project model

with the project at the center to a people–centered focus with the project manager at

the center. Figure 3 also demonstrate how: instead of focusing on the Scope of the pro-

ject the focus is on Clients & Stakeholders, who play a major role in determining project

scope; instead of focusing on Resources the focus is on Project Team & Sub-contractors


37

who are the human resources in the project and will be working with all the other re-

sources in the project, and instead of focusing on Time available for the project, focus is

shifted to Communication, Knowledge, & Motivation Processes which, according to

Kampf, all the people in the project use in order to complete the project in a timely

manner. She argues that this shift in focus offers the project manager and the people

working in the projects an additional perspective on the project i.e. the focus on people

and communication, knowledge and motivation processes which they use to complete

the project.

Figure 3: Triple constraint in a project-centered perspective to a focus on the people underlying each part of the triple constraint, based on Kampf 2012

The functions of the project manager (by Kampf called the ‘project leader’) at the center

of the project are coordinating communication, knowledge and motivation processes

between people involved in and affected by the project (Kampf, 2013).

2.1.3.3. Behavior, communication style & attitude

As with stakeholders who bring their own vocabulary, behaviors, communication styles,

attitudes and hidden agenda to the project environment, so does the project manager.

Mooz et al (2003) discuss communication from the perspective of how the project man-

ager should be aware of his or her own communication style, preferences and personal

style. “Leaders often need to adapt their own style rather than ‘shape up’ the other per-

son”. The point of departure here with communication is that, to benefit from the pro-

cess of exploring own preferences and stretching own range of styles, the project man-

ager has to be self-aware. Mooz et al. draw the attention to the result of this self-


38

awareness as being a much-improved insight and awareness, not only of the project

manager’s own styles, but of others’ behavior patterns as well and the acquired means

to recognize behavior patterns and then anticipate interactions so as to adapt by ex-

tending own personal behavior boundaries.

“Personal communication is affected by the attitude towards you as a project manager.”

Mooz et al base this argument on a survey of 20,000 managers regarding their attitude

(Mooz et al, 2003, 8). They found that inappropriate attitude or bias regarding project

subject matters or a specific technique, once understood, can usually be dealt with ra-

tionally. However, as they continue, an attitude towards the project manager or towards

another in the communications loop is a much more significant barrier. Mooz et al calls

‘attitude’ the ‘slippery slopes of communicating’ and talks about constructive challenge

versus destructive confrontation. They argue that the slippery slopes of communication

require trust and cooperation. Mooz et al (2003, 24-25) discuss communication from the

perspective of ‘Language’; language abuses (acronyms and jargon), communication dis-

tortion (the noise factor), and reading between the lines. They bring in the discussion

about language in relation to project vocabulary, and here another example is shown of

the interdependent bridging between the technical and the sociocultural dimensions, as

they state “[t]he project vocabulary doesn’t fully exist until it is documented”; hence the

need for documentation. “Failures not only result from bad hardware engineering, soft-

ware engineering, systems engineering, or project management, they can also result

from differing interpretations of engineering, communications, or management terms

and associated cultures.” (Stoewer in Mooz et al, 2003). Mooz et al includes this citation

from Stoewer to emphasize that many terms can only be fully understood in their rela-

tionship with others and in the context of a specific project, project model, or project

cycle.

Schwable (2007) contributes to the discussion of trust, cooperation and positive atti-

tudes in that she puts focus on conflict and stakeholder expectations and on how to

make communication accordingly in her priorities relating to project communication.

2.1.3.4. Communication models within this category of textbooks

Models of communication are presented from very basic to rather complex models of

communication. To present this spectrum, I will start by citing what Kousholt (2007,248)

implies about the purpose of the project communication plan. On communication plan-

ning Kousholt says: “[i]n the previous section – on personnel management – we carried

out a detailed stakeholder analysis. The purpose of the project’s communication plan is

simply to plan communication with stakeholders: when we should communicate, how,


39

and who will do the communicating. Furthermore, we must decide how and when the

quality of the communication can be measured. The work of planning communication is

summarized in the communication plan …” I will use the statement simply to plan com-

munication with stakeholders as the point of departure for looking at the communica-

tion models used in the project management textbooks, because how simple can it be?

Kousholt himself does not make use of any communication model, but Schwable (2007)

emphasizes that every project must have a communication management plan – a docu-

ment that guides project communications. According to Schwable the goal of project

communications management is to ensure timely and appropriate generation, collec-

tion, dissemination, storage, and disposition of project information. She points to four

main processes in project communications management: 1) communication planning, 2)

information distribution, 3) performance reporting, and 4) managing stakeholders.

Schwable illustrates these processes in a model that summarizes the processes and out-

puts, showing when they occur in a typical project:

Figure 4: Schwable's model of Project Communications Managment summary, 2007, p. 408

Figure 4 shows Schwable’s model illustrating the processes and what the technical out-

put is of every process, and it has an indication of where in the project phase the pro-

cesses occur


40

However, it is not much more than an overview. It does not provide input for considera-

tion or guidance on how to approach the processes, nor does it provide reasoning on

why the processes are important and what the purpose of the indicated outcome is.

Mooz et al (2003) contributes to the discussion on communication in projects by pre-

senting several general models of communication that, as they say, are helpful in under-

standing the communication process itself and the theoretical background. The next sec-

tion presents some of the models to show what leads to their version of a project man-

agement communication model.

Mooz et al starts by referring to models dating back to the 1940s saying that these mod-

els are referred to as transmission models since they approach communications as a

problem of information transfer based on some variation of four fundamental elements:

Sender > Message > Channel > Receiver. The most popular being the ‘Shannon-Weaver

model’ by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, with Weaver applying Shannon’s con-

cept of ‘information transmission loss’ over telephone wires to interpersonal communi-

cation and Norbert Wiener adding the feedback loop .

This early model corresponds well with the approach of the technical dimension to the

project management process i.e. information being transmitted from A to B. Frigenti et

al (2002) describes communication as “Information that needs to be communicated

through the right channel to the right people at the right time” and Kerzner (2009) de-

fines communication as “… the right information, sent to the right person at the right

time in a cost-effective manner.” Shortly after the Shannon-Weaver model, sociologist

Harold Lasswell introduced another transmission model, where the idea of impact or ef-

fect was added. The critique against the transmission models is that they are more fo-

cused on message-making as a process than focusing on what the message actually

means and how it creates meaning. With Osgood and Schramm’s circular model (1996)

and David Berlo’s SMCR model: Source-Message-Channel-Receiver (1960) communica-

tion models shift from being technical oriented transmission models by integrating the

aspects of meaning, interpretation, encoding and decoding the message. This shift

matches the two dimensions of the project management process described by Gray and

Larson (2006).

Berlo (1960) introduces and defines five verbal communication skills: speaking and writ-

ing (encoding skills), listening and reading (decoding skills), and thought or reasoning

(both encoding and decoding skills). Berlo’s SMCR model integrates aspects such as

communication skills, knowledge, social systems, culture and attitudes that for all partic-


41

ipants influence project communication. Furthermore, the ‘message’ calls for considera-

tion of elements, content, treatment, structure and code. The ‘channel’ is no longer just

about e-mail, newsletter, meetings or a phone call, but includes all five senses in the

choice of communication channel.

As opposed to both Osgood & Schramm and Berlo’s models, Lasswell’s transmission

model from the late 40s includes the aspect of impact. Looking to Berkun’s model of

communication from 2008, illustrated in Figure 5, the impact of the communication is

again present as a fifth step where the fifth step is about the anticipated action resulting

from the communication process. However, the sociocultural dimensions are again left

out.

Figure 5: Berkun's model of communication, 2008

Based on this examination of communication models Mooze et al present a model re-

flecting an approach where influence, attitude, behavior and communication style are

emphasized in the project manager’s communication competence in the overall project

management process.

Figure 6: The project management communication model by Mooz et al (2003, p. 2)


42

Figure 6 illustrates: first the four elements; participants, techniques, environment and

language that, according to Mooz et al, are requirements for successful communica-

tions; second, around these elements, the model illustrates what they call enablers and

barriers. These include behavior, attitude, influence that either support or counteract

the project management communication process. Mooz et al emphasizes the language

in the communication process. The element of language is explained as a critical ele-

ment because specialized teams, functional teams of a single discipline or power group

e.g. engineering, marketing and finance referred to as virtual barriers in that they devel-

op their own intellectual isolation which breeds project management dialects and jar-

gon. This isolation is also knows as silos or stovepipes. Mooz et al argue for the relevance

of being aware of organizational isolation not only as a consequence of physical isola-

tion, but also intellectual isolation. The model is a good example of the integration and

the interdependency of Gray and Larson’s two dimensions – The technical dimension

and the sociocultural dimension.

The attention to models in the literature on project management will be revisited later

on in the review.

In the following section this review will draw the attention to themes and aspects in the

textbooks on project management that is only labeled by few, if at all, to be aspects of

communication. An example of these themes is the model of the two dimensions of the

project management process by Gray and Larson (2006). The themes in the technical

and the sociocultural dimension are not, as already mentioned when introducing the

model, labeled to be communication themes. However, to get a deeper insight into what

communication in projects is and what it means to distinguish between project commu-

nications management and project management communication then themes beyond

what is labeled ‘communication’ in textbooks need to be further explored.

2.1.3.5. Implicit communication subjects within this category of textbooks

The role of communication in projects stretches beyond communication tools and pro-

cesses. Communication even stretches beyond communication skills and competence.

Communication is more than communication as an object and more than communica-

tion as personal preference and personal behavior. Communication is more than com-

municating in the right manner at a calculated time, using the right channel to the right

team member or other important stakeholder. Communication in projects stretches be-

yond the project itself and is a combination of several elements at play over a period of

time – normally the duration of the project cycle, as will be seen in the following.


43

To illustrate this extended understanding of communication, this section starts by again

referring to the way Mooz et al (2003) approach communication in project manage-

ment. Still within the scope of their discussion of communication they take the aspect

further than their initial model of project management communication by including as-

pects such as project management disciplines, project cycle and project leadership as-

pects. They argue that communication cannot be seen as isolated from: perpetual ele-

ments such as a common language, teamwork, and organizational commitment; sequen-

tial elements such as a plan or project cycle i.e.: the project’s overall strategic and tacti-

cal management approach that is performed in periods and phases containing business,

budget, and technical; and the situational elements such as leadership and management

responsibilities, rules and techniques that are situationally applied in all phases of the

project cycle.

By differentiating the elements in this way, Mooz et al place communication as perpetu-

al, it is always there as is teamwork and organizational commitment. To illustrate the

relationship between the sequential and the situational elements a fourth element is

brought in to unite the situational properties of the project. The fourth element is ‘Pro-

ject Leadership’.

According to Mooz et al, the project cycle and project leadership combined is what con-

stitutes the project management process. This process is supported by the ever-present

piers of communication and teamwork mounted on a solid foundation of organizational

commitment.

Mooz et al presents communication in the project management process as an ever-

present pier. However, I will argue that the understanding of the role of communication

is limited to this pier and does not go beyond the ‘Perpetual elements’. Mooz et al suc-

ceeds in demonstrating that communication in projects is at all times influenced by the

situation of the project. They demonstrate the elements included in this complex com-

position, but the reader is still left with no indications of what this communication

means other than following procedures as prescribed and checking ‘To do’ lists.

The literature review has now covered the three main categories of project manage-

ment textbooks:

1. Project management textbooks that do not dedicate space to the subject of

communication


44

2. Project management textbooks that have brief paragraphs to sections and chap-

ters on communication and where communication is approached as information,

documentation, data, techniques/processes and/or tools.

3. Project management textbooks that integrate communication as more than in-

formation, documentation, data etc. Communication is approached as dialogue,

behavior, skills, individual style and personal competence.

The following section returns to the fourth category that goes across all the above cate-

gories. To recap, the fourth category is determined by the subjects in the literature that

are not labeled as communication, but that presents and discusses project management

responsibilities such as: stakeholder management, human resource and relations man-

agement, leadership, decision-making, conflict and change management. All are respon-

sibilities that require competence in social communication and behavior.

2.1.4. Project management textbooks with implicit communication subjects

not labeled ‘Communication’

The project management textbooks, even those which do not dedicate any attention to

communication, discuss topics of project management that are in no way labeled as

communication related. However, they are all about communicating; topics, where

communication and communicating is a necessity for the process in question. Table 5

shows the discussed topics as they appear as headings and subheadings in the textbooks

and in which category of textbook they occur.


45

Table 5: Discussed topics not labeled 'Communication'

Category

Source

Stakeholder managment

Social network building

Peoples managment & Human Ressource management

Managment and Leadership in project environments

Leadership skills

Soft skills

Leadership based on trust

Trust building

Trust in yourself & in others

Managing beyond the team

Managing across departments

Managing Up

Influencing others

Influence as a managment skill

Interpersonal influence

Method of influence

Influence - a source of power

Different kinds of power

Negotiation

Teamwork

Managing personalities in teams

Motivation

Coaching

Working with georgraphically remote people and groups

Collaborative project managment

Employee - manager problems

Change management

Conflict management & resolution

Problem-solving

Annoying people

What to do when things go wrong

Decision-making

Running effective meetings

Managing expectation

Specifications

Review, Explore, Learn

Organizational culture

Ethics

Emotional components

Human behavior

No dedication to

communication

Gardiner (2005)

Winch (2007)

XX

XX

X

Technical approach to

communication

Maylor (2005)

Nokes and Kelly (2007)

Binder (2007)

Kerzner (2009,2011)

Gray and Larson (2006)

Tuman (200)

Wysocki (2009)

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Communication beyond tools

& technical topics

Boddy (2002)

Lester (2007)

Mooz et al (2003)

Schwalbe (2007)

Berkun (2008)

Lindegaard (2005)

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X


46

Figure 7 illustrates an alternative overview of how the topics are placed. This illustration

shows that the topic ‘stakeholder management’ is shared by all three categories. All cat-

egories talk about some perspective of leadership, only the topic of ‘leadership skills’

appear as topics detached from communication in the tool and technical topic-based

textbooks and those who have no dedication to communication.

Figure 7: Discussed topics not labeled 'Communication' by textbook category (Berggreen Ramsing 2013)

The topics: stakeholders, teamwork, trust building, problem-solving, influencing others,

conflict management and resolution, leadership skills, motivation, emotional compo-

nents, managing expectations, and management in the topic ‘management and leader-

ship in project environments’ have been highlighted to illustrate that these topics can

act as superior topics with other topics as sub-topics. Figure 7 demonstrates that all

three categories of project management textbooks include topics that, by them, are not

labeled ‘Communication’ but that are all 100% dependent on communicative action and

behavior. Figure 7 also illustrates that even though the category that has no dedication


47

to communication has fewer topics, these topics, stakeholder management, leadership

skills, managing personalities in teams and managing expectations, requires as much

communication as all the other topics in the other two categories. What is more inter-

esting to look at than looking at the topics by category, is to look at the topics across

category and by themes. By looking at the topics by themes it becomes more explicit

why these topics are related to communication.

1. Stakeholder management: a theme dealing with stakeholders and relations

2. Management in projects: dealing with the operational skills of managing a pro-

ject

3. Leadership in projects: dealing with leadership skills

4. Trust building: trusting oneself as a leader, building leadership on trust and trust-

ing others

5. Influencing others: closely related to stakeholder management

6. Teamwork: dealing with teams, collaboration, groups, people

7. Motivation: creating the conditions for team members and stakeholders in gen-

eral to want to reach set goals

8. Conflict management & resolution and Problem-solving: dealing with challeng-

ing situations that arise in projects for any reason; including small scale issues

management i.e. problem-solving or full blown conflicts

9. Emotional components: aspects in projects that are influenced by personal emo-

tions and opinion

10. Managing expectations: embraces aspects of getting to clear expectations by

clear cut agreements which constitutes a solid foundation for decision-making

The topics are not restricted to only one theme. Several of the topics can be placed in

more than one group e.g. ‘Influence as a management skill’. This topic is both about

‘management’ and about ‘influence’; ‘Management & Leadership in project environ-

ments’ distinguishes between what is management and what is leadership; ‘Annoying

people’ is about ‘people’, it is about ‘emotions’ and it is about problematic situations

(whether it is an actual conflict or “just” a problem depends on the situation).

There is an explicit similarity when comparing these groupings to the topics and themes

about communication presented in the project management textbooks with a commu-

nication perspective that goes beyond the approach of tool and technical topics. The

groupings also reflect the elements of project leadership, organizational commitment

and teamwork in the model of communication in the project management process by

Mooz et al (2003), (Figure 6).


48

2.1.5. Summary

The spectrum of approaches to communication in project management textbooks vary

from not delegating any attention specifically to communication at one end of a contin-

uum to a full acknowledgement of placing people and communication at the center of

the understanding of project processes at the opposite end of the continuum. In be-

tween, the approaches stretch from viewing communication objectively as data and in-

formation to acknowledging the influence of behavior, personal style, and environmen-

tal, cultural and organizational structures. This spectrum of approaches is reflected in

models of communication that have been mentioned and is used in project manage-

ment textbooks starting from the earliest models with three elements to a project

communication model placing people at the center of project management with the fo-

cus on people and communication in solving problems that constitute the project. Final-

ly, the review demonstrates that all three categories of project management textbooks

include topics that are not labeled ‘Communication’ but are all 100% dependent on

communicative action and behavior.

Before proceeding with any discussion on what this means, a review of the work from

academic scholars will contribute to the discussion.


49

2.2. Approaches to communication in project management

from various research fields

Communicational aspects of project management are studied and discussed from differ-

ent frames of reference, different fields and with different goals in mind. Articles are

found in journals from the communities of project management, information science

and corporate communication. In project management textbooks that integrate the sub-

ject of communication, the overall common denominator is the frame of project man-

agement. From the academic field of project management the frame of reference is still

project management (Müller and Turner 2005; Henderson 2004,2008); from the field of

information science the focus is how the communication competence of information re-

source project managers in organizations can benefit the organization itself in making

sense of their information storage (Gillard and Johanson 2004, 2005) and from the field

of corporate communication the focus is on how to establish a link between corporate

communication and strategy in the field of projects in relation to industrial project mar-

keting (Goczol and Scoubeau 2003).

2.2.1. Communication in articles from the field of project management

Communication in project management is deliberately sought to be understood through

theoretical underpinnings of communication competence in fields such as project man-

agement, interpersonal and organizational communication. In a literature review by

Henderson from 2004, competence communication behavior, in the field of communica-

tion, Wiemann (1977) and O’Hair et al. (1997) define communication competence as the

ability of an interactant to choose among available communication behaviors in order to

successfully accomplish their own interpersonal goals during and encounter; Spitzberg

and Cupach (1984) and Morreale et al. (2001) indicate that competent communication

occurs when individuals are motivated to communicate and are capable of expressing

knowledge, skills, and sensitivity about the particular and changeable context within

which interpersonal communication occurs; Argyris (1965) along with Wienmann, and

Bochner and Kelly (1974) view this competence as a composite of interpersonal skills

such as self-disclosure, openness and trust, and empathy.

From the underpinnings of interpersonal and organizational communication, the project

manager’s communication competence is defined as “maintaining the ability to accom-

plish own interpersonal goals while being other-oriented and demonstrating: empathy,

affiliation, support, and relaxation” (Wiemann, 1977). According to Henderson (2008),

organizational communication research argues that competency in communicating is


50

tied to the communicator’s goals. Project management and organizational communica-

tion researchers identify the importance of focusing on the behavior of communicators

i.e. project manager’s communication behaviors. Jablin and Sias (2001) contribute to this

discussion by stating that “behavioral studies seek to identify the specific communica-

tion behaviors […] that organizations associate with competence […] the focus of inves-

tigation [being] individual’s perception of competent communication behaviors”.

Looking to the theoretical underpinnings from the field of project management, Hender-

son’s literature review from both 2004 and 2008 support the findings in this study in

that communication and communication competence in project management is

acknowledged and, according to Henderson (2004, 470), “[…] researchers have identi-

fied/or described the criticality of communication in project feedback mechanisms and

channels, the listing and persuading behaviors of project leaders, the communication of

project goals by project leaders, and the monitoring and feedback of project data”.

Henderson argues that little integration with existing communication theory is seen.

Communication processes as feedback and getting agreements receive more attention

than communication competence such as influencing others, being a good listener,

demonstrating sensitivity to team member needs of the moment, being easy to talk to,

conveying the ability to being understandable to diverse experts and the ability to deal

with others effectively (Henderson, 2004, 2008). The lack of integration of existing

communication theory entails a gap of limited knowledge about underlying behavioral

dynamics of competent communication. According to Henderson (2008) an observation

by Leybourne (2006) confirms the challenge of this gap by arguing that the historical bias

towards tools and techniques in the project management literature has often precluded

interdisciplinary application that could expand and refine our theoretical concepts and

interrelationships.

2.2.1.1. Communication as a competence to positively influence team produc-

tivity

The understanding of communication as being tool and technical topic-based is chal-

lenged if one approaches communication as core processes of encoding (active sending

of messages) and decoding (a kind of active listening) (Henderson 2004). In these pro-

cesses communication has the role and function of influence and has direct impact on

performance in a project team.

The discussion of the project manager’s competence in communication is held up

against two things. First and foremost that Barnard as early as in 1938 strongly asserts


51

that communication is the primary task of any executive, and communication with em-

ployees regarding their concerns, problems, ideas, and suggestions about the organiza-

tion is the critical skill of managing. Barnard states that the exhaustive theory of organi-

zations, communication would occupy a central place, because the structure, extensive-

ness, and scope of organizations are almost entirely determined by communication

techniques (Barnard, 1938). Barnard’s statement applies to project managers in organi-

zations of the 21st century as they often become quasi-executives with high responsibil-

ity and accountability, but minimum authority. Henderson (2004) adds to this by arguing

that effective responses to these growing challenges require project managers who are

competent communicators.

Results from two surveys by Henderson (2004, 2008) show that project managers’ com-

munication competence can significantly influence the sense of shared satisfaction, and

the team’s productivity through the project manager’s competence in decoding and en-

coding. The explorative studies analyzed the association of a project manager’s decoding

and encoding, with team members’ satisfaction and productivity, demonstrating a signif-

icant communication-performance relationship.

The results advance the understanding of what competent communication entails for

project managers who are challenged to produce successful project outcomes. With the

focus on the project manager and the project team Henderson discusses the behavioral

aspects of the project managers’ communication competencies, by shedding light upon

the value of communication at the behavioral level.

2.2.1.2. The level of collaboration and trust reveals the quality of communica-

tion

From another perspective in the literature, the degree of communication and the will-

ingness to communicate is approached as a measurement of the quality of the relation

and the level of trust between project owner and project manager. Müller and Turner

(2005) assert that the type of project contract that is chosen for a given project has an

impact on the quality of communication between the project owner and the project

manager. The contract can be either high or low in operational structure that is re-

quirements of reporting, written documentation, rules and fixed procedures. Their sur-

vey study shows how the quality of communication is affected, showing a decrease in

collaboration and trust, when the project owner demands a high level of structure and

thereby entrusts a low level of flexibility and decision power to the project owner. In

contrast the study shows an increase in collaboration and quality of communication

when the project owner due to trust allows a low level of structure and delegates a high


52

level of decision authority to the project manager. The terminology used in relation to

the communication between the project owner centers around aspects such as: trust,

collaboration, tension, uncertainty, knowledge of the project, delegation of decision-

making authority, and how these aspects have an impact on communication. The focus

is on what the needs are for communication from the perspective of the project owner

on the one side and the project manager on the other side.

From this perspective, the role and function of communication is no longer understood

as a tool or a technique, but as a phenomenon that is perceived as having an important

role in the balance between the key individuals in a project setting. Referring back to

Kampf et al (2013), the project is de-centralized and the focus is on the people and the

interactions and communication processes in a project context.

2.2.1.3. Project management communication as procedures within organiza-

tional structures and socio-technical systems

A skillful project manager is seen as a communicator who is cognizant of environmental

influence, recognizes each element of influence as an enhancer or an inhibitor, and

makes proactive decisions that shape the environmental impact rather than decisions

that are merely reactive (Gillard and Johansen, 2004). This perspective draws attention

to project management communication from a systems approach from the field of in-

formation science. Communication is presented as a skill that can be developed over

time through education and practice. Communication is discussed by Gillard and Johan-

sen as both a personal skill that depends on a combination of personal style and devel-

oped abilities and as information with attached meaning. They argue that communica-

tion is the result of knowledge management processes that stem from technology used

to organize data into information, information then becomes communication when in-

terpreted by a person. Gillard and Johansen (2004) argue that project managers will de-

velop their communication skills as they increase their understanding of communication

as being interactive and manageable.

Communication is discussed on the one hand as a competence and on the other as a

process. Figure 8 illustrates how data, when organized by technology, becomes infor-

mation that is processed by the interpretation and attachment of meaning by a person

(here: project manager) who possess communication competence and an understanding

of communication in combination with environmental impact. This individual interpreta-

tion and attachment of meaning results in acquired knowledge which is expressed ex-

plicitly through communication (Communication seen as a manageable object).


53

Figure 8: From data to communication, based on Gillard and Johansen (2004)

The communicator is the project manager and the perspective on the presentation of

the communication situation is from a systems approach. The project manager’s posi-

tion in the organization is relevant as it is recognized that the project manager interacts

with different people inside and outside the project team. This entails, according to

Gillard and Johanson (2004, 2005) two things: the first is the unique interpersonal com-

munication challenges that the project manager is faced with. The project manager has

to collaborate with both permanent team members and temporary attached members.

The latter group answers to both their department supervisor as well as to the project

manager. The project manager therefore, has a dual leadership role. From the perspec-

tive of a systems approach, Gillard and Johansen, state that communication challenges

are affected by:

Organizational structure’s lines of authority and communication as in communi-

cating with stakeholders from all levels of the organization, using the range of

communication channels available and communicating across organizational

lines and functional areas vertically, horizontally, and diagonally

Socio-technical systems of influence in organizations such as all groups, teams,

units, departments, organizations in which the project manager engages that

have the potential to influence the project, make up a system in themselves –

creating systems and sub-systems of a social and technical character.

The second thing that increases the understanding of the project manager as a compe-

tent communicator are the ways this communication skill may help the organization

make sense of their interpretation of their environment. Gillard and Johansen (2005) ar-

gue that the project manager with communication competence is able to avoid com-

munication barriers due to his or her knowledge of the organization and its people and

business goals, caused by interpersonal interaction which cross all levels, and finally due

to awareness of how language and words are used. They assert that communication


54

skills often make the project manager the core of developing social exchange within or-

ganizations.

From the systems perspective, communication is likewise seen as closed and open

communication systems. The significance in regards to communication in project man-

agement is that the project manager is required to balance the organizational struc-

ture’s lines of authority and communication with the interpersonal and interdepart-

mental, cross-level challenges of communication with environmental impact and sub-

system influence. Gillard and Johansen (2004) discuss how a project manager works

within a closed communication system when he or she makes decisions without seeking

or getting input from team members. A closed communication system has no provision

to interface with the environment. An example is when goals are set, direction(s) given,

tasks assigned and work evaluated with no input from others except from the project

manager. In this case the communication model will look like the early models of com-

munication with: input/sender -> process/message -> output/receiver. I will disagree

here and argue that a project manager is at no time alone in managing a project. The

project manager is assigned to a project and makes decisions at least in collaboration

with e.g. the project owner, and the project sponsor (this may be the same person). Fur-

thermore, a closed communication system provides one-way communication input,

where input and issues from e.g. senior-level management is pushed down through the

organization.

An open communication system interfaces with its environment. Here communication is

understood in the sense of open-loop and closed-loop systems. Gillard and Johansen de-

fine an open communication system as either a system that accepts environmental input

and influence with no feedback loops or control mechanisms – an ‘open-loop system’, or

an open system that both has the accept of environmental input and influence but also

incorporates feedback loops and control mechanisms – a ‘closed-loop system’. The skill-

ful project manager understands how to adjust communication needs and requirements

in designing messages. This is the balance of conscientiously deciding in which situations

environmental influence must be considered but not necessarily ‘involved’, and in which

situations a control and feedback loop features must be included. The control mecha-

nisms and feedback loops enable suggestions for changes to specifications of what is in

question and call for evaluation from the project manager.

Figure 9 illustrates the internal communication design process that is influenced by the

outer external environment and sub-system open-loop communication system but has

the control and feedback mechanisms of the inner closed-loop communication system.


55

Figure 9: Communication model with open-loop and closed-loop systems based on Gillard and Johansen (2004)

This systems approach way of presenting communication in project management and of

presenting the role of the project manager in relation to communication design, demon-

strates that despite the vast integration of both personal (interpersonal communication

competencies) and operational elements (designing the right messages, transmitting in-

formation etc.) that have influence on the communication procedures, communication

is perceived as operational and manageable elements. Gillard and Johansen (2004) ar-

gue that project managers can develop communication skills as they increase their un-

derstanding that communication is interactive and manageable. Communication is an

object, communication is viewed as something exchanged between individuals, groups

and system, and something designed according to situational requirements. It is never-

theless rooted from the perspective of the project manager and not from the effective

tool and technical topic-based perspective of the project itself, not ignoring that the first

links into the latter. Gillard and Johansen (2004,26-27) state that a communicator “who

is cognizant of environmental influence, recognizes each element of influence as an en-

hancer or an inhibitor, and makes proactive decisions that shape the environmental im-

pact rather than decisions that are merely reactive”. The last part of this statement indi-

cates and calls for an understanding of the role of communication as more than an op-

erational process of designing the right messages, transmitting the appropriate infor-

mation to the right people at the right time. A project manager who makes proactive de-


56

cisions that shape the environmental impact rather than decisions that are merely reac-

tive is an individual who is aware of the benefits of being proactive rather than reactive.

Gillard and Johansen do not continue the discussion on how an individual, a project

manager, is able to shape the context of the environment or the context of a situation

by communicative influence.

The discussion of proactive decision-making to shape environmental impact is not un-

derpinned by communication theory. However, in the next section project communica-

tion is approached from the fields of project management and marketing.

2.2.1.4. Communication from the perspective of project marketing

In relation to the life-cycle of a project is where another emerging perspective on project

communication is found. Benefiting from the different phases of a project the aspect of

project marketing has caught the interest of researchers within the field of project man-

agement. Project marketing focuses on relation building and relation maintenance dur-

ing the pre- and post-project period, where companies are interested in creating condi-

tions for future projects (Goczol & Scoubeau 2003; Lecoeuvre-Soudain & Deshayes

2006). When dealing with marketing it is unavoidable not also to deal with principles

from marketing communication (Lecoeuvre-Soudain & Deshayes 2006) - creating an in-

tersection between the field of project management and external organizational com-

munication. Project marketing illustrates how external project communication is inte-

grated strategically in project management (Lecoeuvre-Soudain & Deshayes 2006;

Goczol & Scoubeau 2003). Lecoeuvre-Soudain and Deshayes (2006) state that specialists

agree that projects need marketing actions. They argue (2006,103): “[i]t is above all be-

cause it is a question of “selling” something intangible when negotiating a project”. Cova

and Salle (2007) present how the subfield of industrial marketing was abandoned on one

hand to the economists, who put forward models to fix the optimal price in reply to the

bid for tender, and on the other hand to specialists in negotiations, notably in interna-

tional negotiations. This can explain why the marketing approach in project selling firms

is essentially centered on the technical dimensions of the offer and on determining the

price. Still, Cova and Salle, focus on project marketing, the marketing of solutions to cus-

tomers; hence, externally oriented marketing communication from the perspective of

industrial marketing industries.


57

2.2.2. Crossing over to the fields of organizational communication and cor-

porate communication from a project management perspective

Project communication both in terms of communications management and project

management communication has very little attention in research from organizational

and corporate communication fields. To enhance the gap of common issues in the inter-

est of an organization and its business goals, the definition, role and function of project

management will in the following be positioned in an organizational context.

2.2.2.1. Positioning the function of project management in an organizational

context

Kerzner (2009) defines project management as the planning, organizing, directing, and

controlling of company resources for a relatively short-term objective that has been es-

tablished to complete specific goals and objectives. Webster and Knutson (2006), talk

about project management as a discipline and refer to Webster’s dictionary’s definition

of the word ‘discipline’. The first definition is: ‘rules used to maintain control’ and the

second definition is: ‘a branch of learning supported by mental, moral, or physical train-

ing. They combine the two definitions in defining project management as: a unique

branch of learning (Webster’s definition 2) that deals with planning, monitoring, and

controlling of one-time endeavors (Webster’s definition 1). The discipline of project man-

agement is characterized by being a unique profession with the aim of supporting man-

agement in planning, decision-making, and control of the multitude of activities involved

in large and complex (and sometimes simultaneous) projects. Project management is

managing change and is thereby different from operations and technical management,

which are characterized as managing the steady state, focusing on maintaining opera-

tion in a production, or technology and practice in a technical field with questions of pol-

icy on strength of materials, safety factors, checking procedures etc. But when execu-

tives want to improve efficiency and set up new operations, with the use of projects, to

implement organizational strategy, project management, then, is the interface between

general management, operations management, and technical management, which inte-

grates all aspects of the project and causes the project to happen (Webster and Knutson,

2006).

Project management is designed to make better use of existing resources by getting

work to flow horizontally as well as vertically within the company (Kerzner 2009).

Kerzner argues that this approach of project management does not destroy the vertical,

bureaucratic flow of work but simply requires that the line organization talks to one an-

other horizontally so work will be accomplished more smoothly throughout the organi-


58

zation. Kerzner continues by stating that the vertical flow is the responsibility of the line

manager and the horizontal flow of work is the responsibility of the project manager,

and their primary effort is to communicate and coordinate activities horizontally be-

tween the line organizations.

In the continued literature review, literature from both the field of organizational com-

munication and corporate communication is considered. The review has the priority of

investigating whether project communication, communication in projects and/or project

management communication is to be found and to what degree it is discussed over dif-

ferentiating between organizational and corporate communication.

2.2.2.2. Project communication represented as ‘project marketing’ in the

field of corporate communication and absent in that of organizational

communication

When defining corporate communication, project management is not presented as con-

tributing to the corporate voice and is not mentioned as one of the fundamental tasks

that are to be performed in striving for organizational goals. Defined by Cornelissen

(2006) corporate communication is a management function that offers a framework and

vocabulary for the effective coordination of all means of communications with the over-

all purpose of establishing and maintaining favorable reputations with stakeholder

groups upon which the organization is dependent. In recent literature on corporate

communication Christensen et al (2008) describes corporate communication as the body

of communication that represents the voice of the corporation by including and inte-

grating its many different dimensions into one unifying expression. Project communica-

tion or project management communication is not mentioned as being part of this cor-

porate body of communication. Despite the prominent role of communication in pro-

jects, this category of project communication is not mentioned in the literature on inter-

nal organizational communication.

Van Vuuren (2006, 116) specifies his discussion to the organizational level of communi-

cation being a more operational level when stating that “…it is through communication

that information is shared to provide a fundamental understanding of the tasks that are

to be performed as well as the goals to which an organization is striving”. However, this

is from a daily organizational communication perspective, not from a project communi-

cation point of view.


59

Project marketing as the only common denominator for project communic a-

tion

Project communication is, however, dealt with from an external corporate communica-

tion perspective by Goczol and Scoubeau (2003). Their aim is to link external corporate

communication and strategy to the field of projects by discussing the communication

concerning project marketing and consider the steps in developing a particular project

strategy in relation to external stakeholders. Goczol and Scoubeau (2003) relate to van

Riel’s (1992) three dimensions of corporate communication:

Marketing communication

Organizational communication

Management communication

The argument is that all three forms of corporate communication are present in the field

of projects. Organizational and management communication in particular are key factors

in industrial success. Goczol and Scoubeau (2003) and Cova and Salle (2006) assert that

the ultimate goal in project marketing is the creation of a positive and durable basis for

relationships with the various stakeholders on which the company depends. The focus of

the communication is externally oriented that is communication to external stakehold-

ers.

Comparing the approaches from project management and organizational and corporate

communication, brings on an interesting perspective on the contradiction between the

high degree of project communication’s acknowledged importance in the field of project

management in relation to the low degree of which it has been researched (Goczol &

Scoubeau 2003; Globerson & Zwinkael 2002). Likewise, as in the literature on project

management, despite the apparent need to focus on communication as a whole in pro-

jects, project communication only has very limited place in the literature on external

corporate communication and no place in the literature on internal organizational com-

munication (Cornellisen, 2006; van Riel, 1994 and Argenti, 2003).

The discussed project communication relates only to the external stakeholders in the

short and long term, creating an imbalance because it leaves out the core communica-

tion of project management that is the internal communication. Creating positive and

durable relationships with stakeholders with whom the company depends includes cre-

ating healthy project management relationships internally in the organization as well.


60

The internal perspective of project communication is emphasized by Goczol and

Scoubeau (2003) as they stress the obvious of applying already existing communication

principles from corporate communication to the field of projects. As mentioned, project

marketing has a certain amount of attention within the field of project management

that is enabling the integration of marketing actions contributing to project progress and

achievement (Lecoeuvre-Soudain & Deshayes 2006). Thus, it seems that the use of mar-

keting communication principles in project management at this point has two different

vantage points with no apparent acknowledged common ground. However, both ap-

proaches to project marketing reveal the benefits of combining expertise from strategic

project and communication planning.

2.2.3. Summary

In academic research, central themes of communication in projects are discussed from

different perspectives, different fields and with different objectives in mind. Organiza-

tional structures and socio-technical systems imply how the project manager is influ-

enced by both organizational structures’ lines of authority and communication policies,

as well as sub-systems of social and technical/professional kind.

Collaboration and trust emphasize the degree and type of communication needed be-

tween the project owner and the project manager in order for the project to progress

effectively and in a healthy collaborative manner. Research results with focus on the

project manager show how competence in encoding and decoding messages has a posi-

tive influence on project team satisfaction and productivity.

Finally, within the fields of project management and corporate communication project

marketing is discussed. The focus of the communication is externally oriented towards

external stakeholders. Nevertheless, it is highly relevant to the internal perspective of

project communication due to the obvious possibility of applying already existing com-

munication principles from corporate communication to the field of projects.


61

2.2.4. Concluding remarks on the review on textbook and research literature

The overall literature review shows that communication in projects from some perspec-

tives is perceived objectively as data and information; communication as tools and top-

ics; and viewing communication as the process of transmitting information from A to B.

Other perspectives acknowledge the influence of behavior, personal style, and environ-

mental, cultural and organizational structures on the process of communication and the

act of designing messages. Yet another perspective is that of a full acknowledgement of

placing people and communication at the center of the project with the project manager

as the coordinator of communication, knowledge and motivation processes between

people involved in and affected by the project.

However, this neither seems to be a question of the age of the research, because even

though the technical dimension dominates the early research, this approach to and the

understanding of communication in project management is just as dominant in recent

literature. Nor does the approach to communication appear to be significantly tied to a

specific research field as it is to be found in the whole spectrum of the field reviewed.

There is no literature that rejects the technical dimension. On the contrary, many explic-

itly stress the need for the presence of both dimensions. And finally, no one argues,

from the scholars examined, that the sociocultural dimension can stand alone in the pro-

ject management process.

What does appear to make a difference in the approaches to communication is the fo-

cus on the communicator(s), to whom is communicated, and the direction of communi-

cation that is internally or externally oriented communication. This focus crosses both

technical and sociocultural dimensions as well as field of research.

The early basic model of communication focuses on a no-name sender and a no-name

receiver. The object in question is the transmission of information in the most effective

way to improve the project management process and outcome. The system approach

has a focus on the project manager and on all the elements that can influence the design

of messages in a communication act. The focus of the people-centered model is ‘the

people’ and the communication processes which they use to complete the project. ‘The

people’ include the project manager, who is the coordinator of all these processes

among all stakeholders in the project context. An additional focus is that on the project

manager with communication competence in encoding and decoding messages to and

from the project team within the project. Finally, there is the trust and collaboration be-

tween the project owner and the project manager, as well as project marketing, where

the focus is externally oriented from the project responsible e.g. the internal organiza-


62

tion, the project manager, towards external stakeholders such as the client, project

sponsor/ owner (can be both internal and external), and/or potential clients.

For a better overview, Figure 10 illustrates the different foci on who the communica-

tor(s) is(are), with who is communicated, and the direction of communication:

1. Transmission of information (A to B)

2. Focus on project manager and his or her competence in designing appropriate

messages – communication in general. This is illustrated by circling the project

manager in the green triangle symbolizing the project with its team members,

both internal and external (outsourced). The duplicated green “project triangles”

behind the first illustrates the project manager in projects in general and not one

specific project.

3. Focus on the people in a project and communication processes. This is illustrated

by a simplified version of internal organizational stakeholders in relation to the

project as well as external stakeholders. The vertical line symbolizes the internal

and the external communication of an organization. The project itself may be en-

tirely internal, but may also be positioned both inwards oriented in the organiza-

tion and externally oriented towards e.g. clients, suppliers and other external

stakeholders.

4. Focus on the project manager’s communication competence with the project

team within the project. Again the project itself may be inwards oriented in the

organization and externally oriented towards external stakeholders.

5. Focus on internal project manager or project responsible communicating with

external stakeholders. This is illustrated in that the management of an organiza-

tion and the project manager has communication externally oriented towards ex-

ternal stakeholders. However, the project sponsor and/or owner may be internal

or external – placing the label on the “internal/external” line.


63

Figure 10: The focus on the communicator(s), to whom is communicated, and the direction of communication


64

2.2.5. Summary of the approaches to communication in project management

textbooks from various research fields

There is a distinct evolvement in the understanding of the role of communication in pro-

ject management moving towards a strong emphasis on management communication

and the project manager’s competencies and as can be seen from this review where this

expanded understanding is approached from different foci. I acknowledge the focus of

the project manager at the center of the attention. The central themes that to some ex-

tent apparently lie beyond the acknowledged aspects of communication from both text-

books on project management and from academic articles suggest exploring peripheral

areas of theory to expand and deepen the understanding of the project manager’s per-

ception of communication.

Management communication, leadership, interpersonal communication processes and

competence, human communication and motivation, are central fields of research re-

ferred to in articles discussing project communication and project managers’ communi-

cation competence e.g. research by Spitzberg, Morreale and Cupach (1984; 2001).

Turner and Müller (2005), Brill et al (2006), and Yang et al (2011) have done studies

showing how project managers’ competencies, characteristics, and leadership styles

have a positive influence on project success. Brill et all (2006,130) state “… research in

project management competencies suggests that project management standards are

insufficient in portraying a comprehensive view. … competencies such as leadership,

problem solving, context knowledge, people expertise, and communication skills are

critical to project management competence and, therefore must be more adequately

addressed in project management bodies of knowledge, standards, certifications, and

educational programs.” In this quote the listing of requirements gives an indication of

the fields of research to look into: leadership, problem-solving, people expertise, project

management competencies etc. Turner and Müller (2005) contribute to the project

management leadership and competence discussion. They found that the literature

largely ignores the project manager and his or her leadership style and competencies.

Turner and Müller refer to Barnard (1938) who suggested the functions of the leader,

saying that an executive has both managerial and emotional functions. They likewise re-

fer to Aristotle’s view of pathos, ethos and logos, according to which a leader must build

relationships, advocate a moral vision and persuade by logic to manage action.

Turner and Müller’s point to two aspects: first, the distinction between managerial and

emotional functions reflecting to the present distinction of the technical and the socio-

cultural dimension of communication in project management communication, and sec-


65

ond, the role of the project manager’s competencies in relation to success factors. They

state that the literature on project success factors, surprisingly, is very quiet about the

role of the project manager and his or her competencies. Hence, strengthening an en-

couraged turn in the understanding of the role and function of communication in project

management from a tool and technical topic based, as well as process oriented percep-

tion to a broadened understanding encompassing personal competence, relational and

influential aspects.

The review provides information on how communication is perceived and what tech-

nical, sociocultural, environmental and personal elements has influence on project

communication and project management communication. This insight will serve as

benchmarks for the data analysis in the exploration of project managers’ perception of

communication, their accounts for communicative actions and choices of communica-

tion strategies.


66

2.3. Expanding the understanding from periphery areas of

research

The project manager’s perception of the role and function of communication and the

project manager’s own communication competence can be further explored and under-

stood by focusing on the project manager and his or her (communication) behavior in

the center of a vast relational network of stakeholders. Therefore, the following section

will aim to support this relational approach to project management communication. To

add to the illustrations of different foci, Figure 11 illustrates the relational approach to

project management communication with focus on the project manager’s perspective.

This means that the project manager is positioned at the center of a network (or several

networks) of communication that exist not only within the project, but which goes be-

yond the frames of the project into the entire organization as well as to external stake-

holders who are of relevance to the project and the project manager.

Figure 11: Relational approach to project management communication with focus on the project manager's per-spective

The peripheral areas of research do not all discuss communication. The subjects ‘com-

munication networks and organizational communication’, ‘strategic communication and

strategy as practice’, ‘stakeholder management’, ‘social theories’, ‘leadership and man-

agement’ and, ‘power, influence and persuasion’ all concern communicative actions and

behaviors, and considering the project manager in interaction with a vast network of


67

stakeholders within the project context, literature from the chosen areas contribute to

understanding the project manager’s (communicative) behavioral patterns in relation to

stakeholders and the role and functions of communication in project management from

the perspective of the project manager. Figure 12 illustrates the peripheral areas of re-

search included in this expanded exploration of literature. The numbers (section num-

bers) indicate the order in which the areas are discussed.

Figure 12: Peripheral areas of research to further explore project management communication from the perspec-tive of the project manager – with a partial representation of used sources

The following section introduces the chosen areas and links them to why and how they

contribute to understanding project management communication.


68

2.3.1. Organizational Communication & Communication Networks

Project management communication qualifies as an integrated part of organizational

communication in terms of strategic communication. I will briefly revisit some key defi-

nitions and statements from earlier to demonstrate the validation of this suggestion.

When Kerzner (2009) defines project management as the planning, organizing, directing,

and controlling of company resources for a relatively short-term objective that has been

established to complete specific goals and objectives;

When Webster and Knutson (2006) state that the discipline of project management is

characterized by being a unique profession with the aim of supporting management in

planning, decision-making, and control of the multitude of activities involved in large

and complex (and sometimes simultaneous) projects.

Furthermore, when Webster and Knutson (2006) state that project management is

managing change in situations where executives want to improve efficiency and set-up

new operations, with the use of projects, to implement organizational strategy, project

management, then project management is the interface between general management,

operations management, and technical management, which integrates all aspects of the

project and causes the project to happen.

Then, the following revisited definitions from corporate and organizational communica-

tion demonstrate that project management communication qualifies as being consid-

ered not only from the perspective of project management but indeed from the per-

spective of organizational communication as well:

Defined by Cornelissen (2006) corporate communication is a management func-

tion that offers a framework and vocabulary for the effective coordination of all

means of communications with the overall purpose of establishing and maintain-

ing favorable reputations with stakeholder groups upon which the organization is

dependent.

Van Vuuren (2006, 116) specifies his discussion to the organizational level of

communication being a more operational level when stating that “… it is through

communication that information is shared to provide a fundamental understand-

ing of the tasks that are to be performed as well as the goals to which an organi-

zation is striving.”


69

2.3.1.1. Formal and emergent communication networks match the two di-

mensions of the project management process

Approaching project management communication from a relational perspective entails

exploring the communicative processes initiated by the project manager by looking to

theories of communication networks.

Monge and Contractor (2003, 3) define communication networks as “… the patterns of

contact that are created by the flow of messages among communicators through time

and space”. They state that the concept of message should be understood in its broad-

est sense as referring to data, information, knowledge, images, symbols, and other sym-

bolic forms that can move from one point in a network to another or can be co-created

by network members, and they emphasize that communication networks take many

forms in contemporary organizations, including personal contact networks, flows of in-

formation within and between groups, strategic alliances among firms and global net-

work organizations. With this perspective of communication networks in organizational

communication, Monge and Contractor provide a new alternative perspective on organ-

izational behavior. Their interest lies within the aspect of emergent communication

networks, and they contrast formal and emergent communication networks by distin-

guishing between formal communication networks that relate to organizational struc-

ture and charts on the one hand, and on the other hand, emergent communication net-

works that relate to organizational behavior.

This distinction reflects the duality of what is seen in the literature review: the duality of

the two dimensions of project communication, the technical and the sociocultural. One

that conforms to structure, tools and technical topics and one that conforms to the flow

and dynamics of social relations, behavior, personal style, opinion and attitude to name

just a few.

However, in the context of organizational communication networks the distinction be-

tween the two is approached with the notion of time. Monge and Contractor state that

theoretically, the notion of “emergent network” was a designation that originally differ-

entiated informal, naturally occurring networks from formal, imposed, or “mandated”

networks, the latter representing the legitimate authority of the organization and were

typically reflected by the organizational chart. The formal networks were presumed to

also represent the channels of communication through which orders were transmitted

downwards and information was transmitted upwards. According to Monge and Con-

tractor, early scholars like Barnard (1938) and Follet (1924) were aware that the formal

organizational structure failed to capture many important aspects of communication in


70

organizations and discussed the importance of informal communication and the grape-

vine. They also state that rationales for studying emergent communication networks

have evolved from research arguments of preference to studying emergent structures

because they contribute better to the understanding of organizational behavior.

The concept of emergence represents a set of beliefs about how order appears out of

randomness and is defined by McKelvey (1997, 359, in Monge and Contractor 2003, 11)

as “any order, structure, or pattern appearing in complex random events that cannot be

attributed to some specific prepensive purposeful activity or decision by some identifia-

ble official or unofficial component entity”. This definition contributes to the under-

standing of the processes of communicating with the vast network of project stakehold-

ers that is predicted by the stakeholder analysis that is the formal project related stake-

holder network, but also including the non-predicted, unexpected and emerging stake-

holders that project managers need to consider and deal with during the lifecycle of a

project. Research by Kadushin and Brimm (1990) discuss three types of emergent net-

works:

1. The shadow networks (the “real” way things get done)

2. The social interaction networks

3. The career networks

Kadushin and Brimm challenged the assumption that these three network types always

serve to augment the limitation of the organizations formal network. However, based on

their findings, they argued that these networks frequently work at cross-purposes,

thereby restricting rather than promoting the organization’s interests. Nonetheless, the

challenged assumption and the actual findings are seeking to understand what drives

the project manager in his or her use of communication networks and relations in the

context of project management.

2.3.1.2. The relational approach to project management communication seen

from the basic idea and purpose of Social network analysis

Wasserman and Faust (1994) describes social network analysis (method of social net-

work research) as a network analysis that takes as its starting point the premise that so-

cial life is created primarily and most importantly by relations and the patterns formed

by these relations. The social network perspective focuses on relationships among social

entities e.g. communication among members of a group, economic transactions be-

tween corporations etc. From the view of social network analysis, the social environ-

ment can be expressed as patterns or regularities in relationships among interacting


71

units (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). Social networks are formally defined as a set of

nodes (or network members) that are tied by one or more types of relations. The net-

work approach allows researchers to capture the interactions of any individual unit with-

in the larger field of activity to which the unit belongs.

Exploring project management communication from a relational approach with the pro-

ject manager at the center of a network of stakeholders means applying the perspective

of an egocentric network in order to understand the communicative actions and behav-

ior of a project manager. According to Marin and Wellman (2012) the egocentric net-

work perspective focuses on the network surrounding one node (one individual) known

as the ego. Whereas, ‘whole networks’ take a bird’s eye view of social structure, focus-

ing on all nodes (all individuals).

Figure 13 illustrates the project manager as the center of his or her own egocentric

communication networks.

Figure 13: The project manager as the central person in his or her egocentric communication network(s)

The triangle symbolizes the project. Therefore, the figure illustrates the egocentric

communication network both include those in relation to specific projects but also the

project manager’s own communication networks beyond project related work – these

however, may still be within the profession as a project manager but also own personal

networks.


72

2.3.1.3. Brief history on Social network analysis

Briefly, the development of network ideas in social sciences stems from three main

sources (Freeman, 2004). First, German researchers, such as Kurt Lewin, Fritz Heider and

Jacob Moreno, influenced by developments in field theory in physics, transferred the

network idea to the examination of social interaction. Secondly, the influence of a

mathematical approach to social interaction, evident in Kurt Lewin’s work, was taken up

in the USA first by researchers working with graph theory (e.g., Cartwright and Harary,

1956), and later by a Harvard group working with Harrison White. This emphasis on

mathematics helped transform the study of social networks from description to analysis.

The third main source of network ideas in the social sciences derived not from mathe-

matical-inclined sociologists but from anthropologically-inclined organizational field-

workers. The famous Hawthorne Studies were the first to use sociograms to diagram the

structure of freely-chosen social interactions. Thus, from the very beginning, social net-

work analysis had its roots in organizational settings. A British tradition, centered on the

Department of Social Anthropology at Manchester University, inspired innovative exam-

inations of organizational conflict from a social network perspective. Bruce Kapferer’s

analyses of social interaction, change, and conflict in African workplaces such as a gar-

ment factory (1972) advanced the practice and the science of social network research

(Kilduff and Tsai, 2003; Freeman, 2004).

The network literature contributes with a way of understanding key roles in the project

manager’s network of communication, who he or she communicates with and to what

extent. In addition the approach may reveal and help understand unexpected communi-

cation relations that has no or indirect connection to a given project, e.g. reveal com-

munication links that are not naturally connected through the project but are connected

through social relationships where colleagues share know-how informally (Cross and

Parker, 2004).

2.3.1.4. Summary of opportunities and contributions

Project management communication qualifies to be integrated as part of organizational

communication in that project management communication matches the definitions of

purpose. Furthermore, it is from the theorizing of organizational communication that

the exploration of project management communication is seen as a way to unfold and

explain underlying behavior and dynamics of project management.

The field of communication networks research contributes with the distinction between

formal communication networks and emergent communication networks. Egocentric


73

communication network is established as a point of reference as it contributes with in-

sight on the project manager at the center in relation to key stakeholders.

2.3.2. Strategic communication & Strategy of practice

The relational approach to project management communication challenges the top-

down approach to strategic communication – being from management level to where

influence is desired, to a bottom-up approach of practicing strategic communication

where expertise is conducted on daily basis that is the project manager’s communica-

tion.

2.3.2.1. Connecting strategic communication management and project man-

agement

Strategic communication is defined by Hallahan et al (2007) as the purposeful use of

communication by an organization to fulfill its mission. They state that various profes-

sional fields engage in the development, dissemination, and assessment of communica-

tions on behalf of organizations and causes. They point to six relevant disciplines that

are involved in the development, implementation, and assessment of communication by

organizations: management, marketing, public relations, technical communication, polit-

ical communication, and information/social marketing campaigns. Hallahan et al (2007,

4) state: “[a]lthough their specific activities can be conceptualized in various ways – from

coordinating administrative functions to product promotion and relationship building –

all of these disciplines involve the organization … communicating purposefully to ad-

vance its mission. This is the essence of strategic communication.” Hallahan et al notes

that the focus of various communication pursuits has been narrowly defined around

specific managerial problems, such as improving organizational performance, selling

more products, motivating donors, or building relationships. Furthermore, they argue

that although the nomenclature used by these professional disciplines differs, the un-

derlying concepts behind it are strikingly similar. These concepts, they argue, include,

but are not limited to, audience analysis, goal setting, message strategy, channel choice,

and program assessment.

The purposes of the six identified specialties are as follows: the purpose is to facilitate

the orderly operations of the organization and promote understanding of an organiza-

tion’s mission, vision, and goals in management communication; the purpose of creating

awareness and promote sales of product and services, as well as attracting and retaining

users and customers in marketing communication; the purpose of establishing and


74

maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with key constituencies in public relations;

the purpose of educating employees, customers, and others to improve their efficiency

by promoting effective and satisfying use of technology in technical communication; the

purpose of building political consensus or consent on important issues involving the ex-

ercise of political power and the allocation of resources in society in political communi-

cation, and the purpose of promoting social causes important to the betterment of the

community or to reduce the incidence of risky behaviors in information and social mar-

keting campaigns.

According to Hallahan (2004), organizations are seeking integrations of communication

disciplines from different professional fields. Project managers integrate professional

fields in their project management communication.

Kerzner (2009) defines project management as the planning, organizing, directing, and


tablished to complete specific goals and objectives. He states that project management

is designed to make better use of existing resources by getting work to flow horizontally

as well as vertically within the company. Furthermore, Kerzner argues that this approach

of project management does not destroy the vertical, bureaucratic flow of work but

simply requires that line organizations talk to one another horizontally so work will be

accomplished more smoothly throughout the organization. He continues by stating that

the vertical flow is the responsibility of the line manager and the horizontal flow of work

is the responsibility of the project manager, and their primary effort is to communicate

and coordinate activities horizontally between the line organizations.

As mentioned earlier, project management, defined by Webster and Knutson (2006) is

about managing change and is thereby different from operations and technical man-

agement, which are characterized as managing the steady state, focusing on maintaining

operation in a production, or technology and practice in a technical field with questions

of policy on strength of materials, safety factors, checking procedures etc. And when ex-

ecutives want to improve efficiency and set up new operations, with the use of projects,

to implement organizational strategy. Project management, then, is the interface be-

tween general management, operations management, and technical management,

which integrates all aspects of the project and causes the project to happen.

Kampf (2013) defines project management as “solutions that people agree upon in order

to solve problems they recognize as urgent, timely and important”. This approach de-

centers the project and focuses on an open system of interaction between people, prob-


75

lems, communication practices, knowledge communication and the organizational and

cultural context(s) in which the project is situated.

Projecting the purpose of the six communication management specialties onto the con-

text of project management and comparing it with the definition of project management

communication by Kerzner (2009), Kampf (2013) and Webster and Knutson (2006), the

resulting synthesis is a ten point description of project management communication.

The purpose of project management communication is :

1. To facilitate the orderly operations of the project.

2. To promote understanding of the project’s value in relation to an organization’s

mission, vision, and goals

3. To create awareness and promote the project within the organization in order to

attract and retain the required resources and customers

4. To establish and maintain mutually beneficial relationships with key stakeholders

5. To communicate with technical specialists and coordinate, integrate and com-

municate their expertise and know-how to various other project team members,

resources, customers

6. To assist, motivate and inspire everyone to improve their efficiency

7. To promote effective and satisfying solutions when performing tasks important

to the project

8. To build political consensus or consent on important issues involving the exercise

of influence (political power) and the allocation of resources in the project

9. To promote well-functioning teams, collaboration and social interaction im-

portant to the betterment of the “project” community

10. To reduce the incidence of destructive and counteractive negative behaviors.

This synthesis provides an opportunity to view project management communication

from a strategic communication perspective and understanding rooted in organizational

communication.

2.3.2.2. The aspect of ‘integration’ used to understand project management

communication as an interface between management functions

With the challenges of managing change and making work flow horizontally in collabora-

tion with line managers, among others, Webster and Knutson (2006) point out that the

discipline of project management can be characterized with one single word: integra-

tion. Webster and Knutson talk about the integration of the disciplines of project man-

agement and they say that behind these integrations exists a superstructure in the form


76

of processes, procedures, and/or methodology. The following list of such procedures

and processes demonstrate the sociocultural dimension of the project management

process. The list illustrates disciplines that require human judgment, interaction, collab-

oration, negotiation, and communicative action with stakeholders.

Strategic planning processes, where project managers need to see the connection

between the strategic plan and the project - converted into an ongoing strategic

management process with continuous reviewing of strategic objectives and filtering

down any changes so that the project manager can redirect his or her efforts appro-

priately.

Resource Allocation, where the project manager must ensure that the allocation of

specific resources is adequate but not overcommitted and that the right resources

are assigned to the right tasks. Webster and Knutson argue that human judgment, of

any identified problems, is still required to evaluate and make the final decisions.

Teams, where the project manager needs to address remote or distant teams facing

the challenge of geography and diversity in multi-functional, multi-cultural, multi-

generational, multi-gender, and multi-personality project environments.

Mentorship, where the project manager acts as the mentor, who transfers the “his-

tory”, the “networking”, and the “knowledge” of past projects from one generation

to the next. Webster and Knutson assert that cultures survive by passing knowledge

from the elders to the young.

Competencies - today and tomorrow: Webster and Knutson state that initially, pro-

ject managers focus on their subject matter expertise; those who became involved in

projects transition to competencies, such as scheduling, status reporting, and risk

management like controlling negative risks (threats) to capture positive risks (oppor-

tunities). The next movement, according to Webster and Knutson, is the drive to add

general business awareness skills/competencies; such as financial knowledge, facili-

tation, leadership, problem solving/decision-making, creating/innovation, and ask-

ing: “What’s next in your world?”

The aspect of integration is seen more clearly later on, when the technical procedures

and processes are introduced.

Not only does Hallahan (2004) address that organizations are seeking integrations of

communication disciplines from different professional fields, Hallahan et al (2007) con-

tributes to the discussion on integration by bringing in the aspect of integrated commu-

nication (also going by the name of convergent communications). The argument, they

state, is that otherwise-fragmented activities should be coordinated in a strategic way


77

that focuses on the audience’s needs, concerns, and interests – not merely those of the

organizational communicators and managers. However, Hallahan et al (2007) distinguish

between integrated communication and strategic communication in that they assert

that integrated communication is strategically coordinated organizational communica-

tion with a focus on the various processes involved in how people interact in complex

organizations including interpersonal, group, and network communications. Whereas,

the focus of strategic communication is on how the organization itself presents and

promotes itself through the intentional activities of its leaders, employees, and commu-

nication practitioners without excluding the organization’s use of relationship building or

networks in the strategic process. The focus, Hallahan et al (2007) continue, is on how

the organization communicates across organizational endeavors, on strategic application

of communication, and on how the organization functions as a social actor to advance its

mission. They acknowledge that organizations use a variety of methods to influence the

behavior of their constituencies. While strategic communication recognizes that pur-

poseful influence is the fundamental goal of communications by organizations, certain

disciplines are, according to Hallahan et al (2007) conceptually grounded in merely

providing information (e.g., technical communication) or in establishing and maintaining

mutually satisfactory relationships (public relations). This presentation, by Hallahan et al,

of the focus of strategic versus integrated communication reflects again the technical

dimension and the sociocultural dimension of the project management process by Gray

and Larson (2006).

Integrated communication reflects the operational micro-level communication e.g.,

when the project manager works across departments, across expertise, and from the

center of a vast communication network of relations. Strategic communication is re-

flected in how the project manager communicates strategically about the project with

the purpose of positioning the project, motivating resources and influencing stakehold-

ers.

Based on this defined focus of strategic communication, Hallahan et al (2007) argues fur-

ther that the term strategic in itself is strongly associated with a modernists approach to

management, saying that strategic communication privileges a management discourse

and emphasizes upper management’s goals for the organization and implies that organi-

zations are evaluated in terms of economic contribution. The goal of the modernist ap-

proach, which Hallahan et al. refers to, is a world that can be controlled through admin-

istrative procedures, the elimination of dissension and conflict, and the blind acceptance

of organizational goals and roles. The role of communication is to ensure information


78

transfer from the supervisor to the subordinate in order to gain compliance and to es-

tablish networks to ensure the organization’s power in relations with the public. This

perspective, they state, includes the concepts of strategic message design, management

of culture, and total quality management. The technical dimension’s perspective on pro-

ject management communication can be seen as equal to this modernist approach.

There is a distinct similarity to the tool and technical-based perception of communica-

tion in project management in that communication is seen as objective (information

transfer from A to B), and that communication is something that can be controlled and

measured through procedures and quality management.

According to Clegg and Courpasson (2004) the profession of a project manager entails

assuming a responsibility for the management and recently management theories have

increasingly seen project management as a circuit breaker for bureaucracy, as a short

cut from the modern to the postmodern, from bureaucracy and hierarchy to post-

bureaucratic professionalism, empowerment, self-reliance and collaboration. They state

that projects are usually not contained wholly within bureaucratic corporate hierarchies.

They occur outside the formal structuring of organizations, often involving the coordina-

tion of complex networks and intra-organizational relations. Clegg and Courpasson as-

sert that project management includes a strong hierarchical dimension, vertically defin-

ing objectives and responsibilities, which serve as an instrumental legitimation of project

action. Project management draws on traditions of well-established patterns that build

on classical theories of management. This demonstrates how project managers work

within the frames of organizational structures and management expectations that origi-

nate from bureaucracy. Clegg and Courpasson further state that companies use bureau-

cracy to codify and provide procedures to accompany individual and group action, which

are necessary for a project to make ground and to assess the level of success of the solu-

tions implemented at the end of a project. In this light, they argue, projects become a

tool for standardization.

Clegg and Courpasson (2004) bring up the aspect of calculative control in connection to

practices of administrative accounting systems and calculative instruments that monitor

performance. They argue that making project management action procedurally based,

these techniques of monitoring allow corporate management to assess actions, critical

events, decisions, and reasons behind decisions. Usually, these aspects of control are

based on the search for and assessment of efficiency in managing projects.

Hallahan et al (2007) further emphasize the modernist approach by directing attention

to how the term strategic was first used in the 1950’s to describe how organizations


79

compete in the marketplace, how they obtain competitive advantage, and gain market

share. Furthermore, they state, that the original aim of strategic planning was to control

the environment and maintain autonomy, but also how the term strategic originates

from warfare. It originates from the Greek word strategia which means ‘generalship’,

and strategeo be a ‘general’ (Webster’s Encyclopedia Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). Hal-

lahan et al (2007) argue that this associating strategy with a war metaphore in connec-

tion with communication practice creates a negative perception of the field. They fur-

ther strengthen this argument by relating it to that organizations view the strategy pro-

cess as rational decision making. The familiar SWOT analysis is a part of this process, as

are goal setting, strategy formulation and implementation, and evaluation. Hallahan et

al (2007,12) state: “[i]n addition to formulating their own communication strategies,

communication practitioners are often tasked to communicate to employees the vision

and mission of the organization as set out by management.”

Hallahan et al’s argument about this so called ‘negative’ association with the term strat-

egy and how it can have an unintended and inconvenient influence on the perception of

the strategic communication field when dealing with and being concerned about the im-

age of an organization is acknowledged. So is the argument about the concern about

functioning as a social actor to advance its mission, and making investments in a variety

of methods to influence the behavior of their constituencies. However, from a project

management communication perspective, you can only talk about negative influence,

when looking to the sociocultural dimension of the project management process. Look-

ing to the technical dimension, the “art of war” is a necessity. The two dimensions in the

process can be seen like the Yin Yang in Chinese thought (16th century Korean scholar

Yulgok Yi I), distinct yet inseparable, understood only in terms of the other. “Although

they (i and ki) are one, they are to be spoken of in terms of what is important. In other

words, this refers to what Toegye meant by ‘alternate manifesting,’ or the saying that

‘the horse obeys the rider in some cases or the rider trusts the horse in other cases.”

(The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi Toegye and Yi Yulgok (Part 137), Romeo Lee on De-

cember 12, 2012).

Referring back to the earlier mentioned underlying sociocultural procedures and pro-

cesses, Webster and Knutson (2006) reveal the necessary technical dimension of the

project management process, where superstructures in the form of processes, proce-

dures, and methods exist and influence the context of choices and strategies of project

management communication. These factors are as follows:


80

Quality, where quality management combines project management techniques with

the quality improvement techniques in order to ensure verifiable success.

Metrics and Close-out, where the project manager is to inspect what is expected.

Metrics are the data collected during and after a project is completed to be used to

plan for the next project(s).

Productivity, where the project manager is to do more with less. Webster and Knut-

son assert that the drive to do more with less money and fewer resources, to do it

faster, and to produce the highest quality deliverable will never go away. Project

practitioners use new and creative techniques (automated and non-automated) to

facilitate greater productivity.

Maturity tracking, where project managers, due to increased requests for visibility,

are being asked to account for the latest contributions to the evolution of the project

management discipline and more importantly for what they plan to contribute with

tomorrow.

Risk: The defeating factor, where project managers are required to calculate and

foresee and control negative risks (threats) in order to capture positive risks (oppor-

tunities).

By not perceiving these technical, measurable, and controllable procedures and pro-

cesses as negative associations originating from warfare strategies, but accepting them

as distinct and inseparable from the sociocultural driving factors enables alternative per-

spectives and directions on strategy formulation. Hallahan et al (2007) point to the ap-

plication of the term strategic in connection with power and decision-making. They ar-

gue that when this application is used in conjunction with communication, strategic im-

plies that communication practice is a management function. They support this argu-

ment by referring to Mintzberg’s description, from 1979, of the management function

that Webster and Knutson state is similar to their understanding of the role of commu-

nication managers: stakeholder liaison, boundary spanning, acting as spokesperson, en-

vironmental scanning and issues management, and integration of communication func-

tions. Comparing this described role with the sociocultural dimension that, as described

by Gray and Larson 2006, encompasses the project manager building cooperative social

networks among a divergent set of allies with different standards, commitments, and

perspectives, the distinct but inseparable link is found between the two dimensions, not

only in respect to technical versus sociocultural perspectives on project management


81

communication, but also in respect to the perspective of approaching the understanding

of strategic communication in project management.

Hallahan et al (2007) bring in the aspect of emergent strategy by referring to Quinn’s

(1978) argument that strategy is based on prior experience and action, which legitimates

and values the actions and decisions of employees at all levels of the organization.

Perrow (2000) talks about organization survival and efficiency in connection to strategy

and thereby associates the term strategy with a positive effect. This may for some still

create associations with warfare. However, it emphasizes the intention of a positive out-

come of strategizing. Hallahan et al (2007) give the example of the effort in recent years

to prove the contribution of communication practice to the organization’s bottom line.

Moving from ‘stakeholders at all levels’ to organization’s survival and efficiency, Halla-

han et al (2007) talk about practice and tactics used to implement strategy and link this

to the acknowledgement that the aspect of emergent strategy is actually the successful

practice of technicians and operational specialists that lead to successful strategic deci-

sion-making and not the other way round, where strategic management decisions are

merely implemented by technicians and operational specialists. They imply that the

term strategic, therefore, has the potential to investigate the importance and contribu-

tion of the tactical level of communication practices and so legitimate the work of com-

munication practices at all levels.

Seen from the perspective of a project manager, who often has no formal authority, this

bottom-up approach becomes relevant in that Hallahan et al’s (2007) discussion of how

the concept of agency aligns strategic communication and practice and focuses on pow-

er relations in the communication process. With no formal power, attention may be

drawn to the project manager’s ability to influence via communicative strategies in the

project management process. Hallahan et al point to the notion of the ‘creation of

meaning’ in the service of power and Giddens’ (1984) argument that the agent (the indi-

vidual) is an active person who can navigate the impact of social structure on her or his

life. Hallahan et al (2007,15) state: “[f]rom Giddens’ perspective, then, the communica-

tion agent is able to reflexively resist domination and play an active role in shaping the

organization through her or his (strategic) communication role in the organization.” I will

project this onto the project manager’s role and his or her competence in communica-

tion to influence and shape the context to the benefit of the project, and I will discuss it

from the approach of strategy as practice, emergent strategy in the process, and the ‘do-

ing’ of strategy in communication.


82

2.3.2.3. Terminology of strategic communication and of strategy as practice

guiding the analysis of communicative action and behavior

Strategy as practice is a research approach that has emerged as a distinctive approach

for studying strategic management, organizational decision-making and managerial

work (Golsorkhi et al, 2010). According to Golsorkhi et al (2010),this approach focuses

on the micro-level social activities, processes and practices that characterize organiza-

tional strategy and strategizing. Golsorkhi et al talk about the practice turn in social sci-

ences, as they state that strategy as practice can be regarded as an alternative to the

mainstream strategy research via its attempt to shift attention away from merely a focus

on the effects of strategies on performance alone to a more comprehensive, in-depth

analysis of what actually takes place in strategic planning, strategy implementation and

other activities that deal with strategy. The approach of strategy as practice provides an

opportunity to examine the micro-level of social activity and its construction in a real so-

cial context or field. Thus, according to Golsorkhi et al (2010), a practice approach allows

one to move from general and abstract reflection on social activity to an increasingly

targeted analysis of social reality.

Orlikowski (2010) distinguishes between three different types of practice research: Phe-

nomenon, Perspective and Philosophy. According to Orlikowski, the focus on practice as

a perspective entails treating practices as a central lens through which to understand

organizations, examining the doings and saying of individuals and how those are both

shaped and shape structural conditions and consequences. The focus on practice as a

perspective contributes to the argument that the situation has influence on what the

project manager communicates, and what the project manager communicates has con-

sequences for the context. Hence, the combination of what is being said, how, with

what means, why and for what reason something is said becomes relevant in unreveal-

ing patterns in how project managers communicate.

Drawing on Heidegger’s philosophy, Tsoukas (2010) developed a framework that distin-

guishes between three different types of action according to the involved form and de-

gree of intentionality:

1. ‘Practical coping’ (based on tacit understanding), which constitutes non-

deliberate action.

2. ‘Deliberate coping’ (based on explicit awareness)

3. ‘Detached coping’ (based on thematic awareness), which is the most deliberate

form of action.


83

These forms of action are then linked to three forms of strategy making. Tsoukas argues

that strategy as practice is shifting the focus of analytical attention towards the making

of strategy. This attention can be taken one step further in the context of project man-

agers in that project managers are not making strategy in their communicative consider-

ations and choices of communicative actions, behaviors and strategies, but they are

practicing strategy. Tsoukas discussion on form and degree of intentionality creates un-

derlying reasoning for this argument. The making of strategy, according to Tsoukas, may

occur in both non-deliberate and deliberate ways. Strategizing is a conscious activity,

typically involving deliberate actions.

Tsoukas (2010) explains non-deliberate acting as the practical coping with the situation

at hand: it is not mediated by mental representation. This can be when a project man-

ager is absorbed in a task, in practical coping, he or she is non-explicitly aware of some-

thing, and is not aware that he or she is aware of it. When practical coping is interrupted

by a ‘breakdown’, Tsoukas argues that intentional directedness takes over, and it can

take two forms: explicit awareness and thematic awareness.

Tsoukas describes explicit awareness: an individual pays attention to what they do when

they run into trouble. The individual becomes aware of his or her activity, of what he or

she was trying to accomplish – and starts acting deliberately. When the situation re-

quires attention, mental content arises. Moreover, when someone is explicitly aware of

something, that act of awareness is brought to individual’s awareness too – the individ-

ual is aware that he or she is aware.

Tsoukas continues by stating that in practical coping, language is used as a situational

coping skill; in explicit awareness language is used propositionally to refer to a particular

aspect of a situation, with a particular practical situation, with a particular practical pur-

pose in mind. When practical coping is interrupted the individual stays involved in the

activity, although he or she now pays attention. Explicit awareness is still oriented to-

wards practical ends. When however, the individual detaches him or herself from a spe-

cific practical situation and stares at it from a reflective distance, aiming to know its

properties, then the practical situation becomes occurent and the individual develops

thematic awareness. With thematic awareness the individual moves from aspects to

properties and from practical to quasi-theoretical understanding. In relation to the un-

derstanding of project management communication this helps distinguish between the

levels of communicative awareness, and provides an opportunity of framing the under-

standing of awareness in relation to stakeholders and to the sociocultural dimension of

communication.


84


The literature on strategic communication demonstrates how strategic communication

defined as “the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mis-

sion” can be projected directly to understanding project management communication.

From the perspective of project management communication, this demonstrates the

opportunity of positioning project management communication within the field of or-

ganizational communication in that the definition of strategic communication matches

the purposeful use of communication by project managers is to fulfill the mission of the

project.

Emergent strategy is based on prior experience and action, and as with emergent com-

munication network, the argument is that it is actually the successful practice of techni-

cians and operational specialists that lead to successful strategic decision-making. This

supports the importance and contribution of the tactical level of communication prac-

tices and so bringing the notion of practice to a perspective where strategy in communi-

cation is approached and acknowledged as an influencing factor from the operational

level that is a bottom-up approach. Hence, the field of strategy as practice contributes

with a perspective on the micro-level social activities, processes and practices that char-

acterize strategy and strategizing.

2.3.3. Stakeholder management – understanding relations

Sections of stakeholder management are found in almost every textbook on project

management e.g. Schwable 2007, Boddy 2002, Wysocki 2009, Kerzner 2009, Maylor

2005, and Pinto 1996 to name a few. With a relational approach to exploring project

management communication, the area of stakeholder management in projects serves to

expand the understanding of expected role and impact of internal and external stake-

holders.

In relation to stakeholder management in organizations, Freeman (2011, 53) defines

stakeholder as “any group of individual who affect or is affected by the achievement of

an organization’s purpose”, saying that stakeholder management as a concept, refers to

the necessity for an organization to manage the relationships with its specific stakehold-

er groups in an action-oriented way.

According to Pinto (1996) a project’s stakeholders are individuals or organizations that

are involved in or may be affected by project activities. The process of stakeholder anal-

ysis, as he says, is helpful to the degree that it compels firms to acknowledge the poten-

tially effects its actions have, both intended and unintended, on various stakeholder


85

groups. Just as stakeholder analysis is instructive for understanding the impact of major

strategic decision, Pinto argues that stakeholder analysis is useful for the discussion on

project management that is when discussing the role of politics within the project envi-

ronment, there is a real concern for the impact various project stakeholders can have on

the project development process. This relationship is essentially reciprocal in that the

project team’s activities can impact the external groups.

Freeman (2011) argues that there are at least three levels at which we must understand

the processes which an organization uses to manage the relationships with its stake-

holder: first, it is not sufficient to understand the rational perspective who the stake-

holders in the organization are and what the perceived stakes are; second, one must al-

so understand the organizational processes used to either implicitly or explicitly manage

the organization’s relationships with its stakeholders, and whether these processes “fit”

with the rational stakeholder map of the organization; and third, it is important to un-

derstand the set of transactions or bargains among the organization and its stakeholders

and deduce whether the negotiations “fit” with the stakeholder map and the organiza-

tional processes for stakeholders. The way Freeman relates this to an organization can

likewise be related to the project manager’s stakeholder management capability in

terms of his or her ability to put these three levels of analysis together.

Pinto (1996) states that a project manager needs to be aware of ways in which attaining

the project’s goal may impact external stakeholders outside their authority. In addition,

he states, that project managers must develop an appreciation for ways in which these

stakeholder groups, some of which have considerable power and influence, can affect

the viability of their projects. The group of environmental stakeholders include among

others: political, consumer, and other intervenor groups. Freeman (2011) talks about

interconnection of stakeholder groups and the interorganizational relationships which

exist. Networks of stakeholder groups easily emerge on a particular issue and endure

over time. Coalitions of groups form to help or oppose a company on a particular issue.

Also, Freeman states, organizations are quite adept at working indirectly, that is influ-

encing one stakeholder to influence another stakeholder to influence at third.

Pinto argues (1996) that internal stakeholders are vital components in any project

stakeholder analysis. Their impact is usually felt in positive ways i.e., while serving as

limiting and controlling influences, most internal stakeholders want to see the project

developed successfully. Wysocki (2009) asserts that stakeholders may not be willing

stakeholders, but they are stakeholders nevertheless. There will also be unwilling stake-

holders who are affected by the project but have little or no say in how the project actu-


86

ally delivers against stated requirements. The project manager needs to be aware of all

these stakeholder groups and communicate accordingly. The relational approach to un-

derstanding project management communication contribute in filling a gap in that

Freeman (2011) argues that despite research on power and influence networks, little is

known about utilizing such networks in a positive and proactive fashion and about what

range of alternatives is open to managers who want to utilize such an indirect approach

in dealing with stakeholders. Freeman points to the necessity of thinking through the

possible networks that can emerge or be created to accomplish organizational purposes.

Tuman (2006) states that project success means handling all the unexpected problems

and getting the job done to project stakeholders’ satisfaction. To be successful, project

teams must understand who determines success, what their motivations are, and what

the costs involved are. Tuman describes stakeholders as parties with vested interest in

the activities and results of the project. The motivation of the project sponsors and

those who do the work are obvious. Individuals affected by the project are concerned.

Still, others are motivated by political, social, environmental, and economic interests.

Tuman’s definition is: individuals with some kind of stake, claim, share, or interest in the

activities and results of the project. However, Freeman (2011) talks about two dimen-

sions of stakeholders. The first dimension categorizes stakeholders by interest or by

stake that is, stakeholders with an interest or a stake in the organization. The second

dimension categorizes stakeholders in terms of power that is, the ability to use re-

sources to make an event actually happen. In relation to this dimension Freeman men-

tions the interests of voting power, economic power and political power. He asserts that

there may be possible differing perceptions of both power and stake depending on one’s

point of view; an organization may not understand that a particular stakeholder has po-

litical power, and may treat the stakeholder e.g. like a “purely economic entity,” only to

be surprised when the stakeholder applies its political influence. The congruence prob-

lem, according to Freeman, is that there are few organizational processes to check the

assumptions that managers make every day about their stakeholders.

Tuman (2006) divides the stakeholders into four main categories. The project champions

are those who have some reason to bring a project into being. In most cases the project

cannot exist without them. Furthermore, the judgments, evaluations, and perceptions of

these stakeholders probably have the greatest effect in confirming project success; the

project participants include organizations and individuals who are responsible for plan-

ning and executing the project; community participants include groups or individuals

who are directly affected by the project. They create the environment that surrounds


87

the project e.g. environmental, social, political, economic, health, or safety concerns.

They can have profound impact on the project; and the last group that Tuman calls the

parasitic participants which are organizations and individuals who do not have a direct

stake in the project, but who have a focal point for their energies, and desires to pro-

mote their personal philosophies and views. By definition, according to Tuman, this

group is distinct and different from those whose members have legitimate concerns

about the impact of a project on their community or way of life. The distinction is that

the primary motivation of the parasitic participant is one of self-aggrandizement. The

project provides an opportunity for activity, visibility, and self-fulfillment. This is why this

group also covers the information media. The parasitic participants are not to be under-

estimated, but handled with great care and consideration, as their influence on the pro-

ject can be devastating. Furthermore, Tuman adds on what the stakeholders’ criteria for

success is in the different categories as well as what the stakeholder category’s impact

on project success can be.

According to Freeman (2011) organizations have processes for accomplishing tasks.

From routine applications of procedures and policies, managers invent processes to ac-

complish routine tasks and to routinize complex tasks. To understand how they manage

stakeholder relationships it is necessary to look at organizational processes that are used

to achieve balance between the rational stakeholder map, the emerging networks of

stakeholders, organizational processes for stakeholders, and the set of transactions

among the organization and its stakeholders. The role and influence of stakeholders be-

yond the frames of the project but connected to the project manager carry more im-

portance and influence to the project management process than what is seen in the cur-

rent literature.

This is also seen in Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) statement that projects are usually

not contained wholly within bureaucratic corporate hierarchies, that they occur outside

the formal structuring of organizations, and that they often involve the coordination of

complex networks and intra-organizational relations.

However, Tuman’s description of his four categories contains no information of any in-

ternal organizational structures or levels, and therefore, his and others’ listings and de-

scriptions are not adequate for stakeholder analytical purposes. Defining and describing

stakeholders does not contribute to insight as to how they are positioned professionally

and geographically (physically) in relation to the project itself, and in relation to the pro-

ject manager in his or her communication network. Categorization according to hierar-

chical level and professional roles from the project management literature serve as


88

benchmarking for determining the criteria for mapping stakeholders. The purpose of the

following is to introduce the categorizing of stakeholders in relation to organizational

and project related hierarchies that underlie the chosen criteria for this study.

The training material of Prince2 helps expand the textbook definition and description of

stakeholders. Prince2 defines a project organization both as the organizing structure and

frame around a given project. Figure 14 illustrates organizational levels and the primary

stakeholders within an organization.

Figure 14: Prince2 - project organizational structure and stakeholders (Prince2, 2009)

The project members are at the delivery level, the project manager, team leaders etc.

are at the management level and finally, the steering committee and the upper organi-

zational management level are at the decision level.

Prince2 (2009) works with two categorizations of structure and levels. The first is the or-

ganizational level according to the project. They state that for any project, there is the

project organization itself, but also the structure of the organization that the project is


89

embedded in. This is not limited to the “home” organization, but can also be the struc-

ture of the client/customer. These levels are illustrated in Figure 14.

1. The overall management level of the organization is the all-encompassing level

that surrounds the project. It is also the level responsible for the requests of the

project.

2. The decision and leadership level is defined as being the steering committee

stakeholders

3. The management level is the level, where the project manager has the responsi-

bility of the daily management of the project within the frames set by the steer-

ing committee

4. The delivery level is where the project team is responsible for the delivery of the

expected quality, at the expected time and cost.

As can be seen, the project organization is embedded in the overall management of an

organization. The project organization may also, as the figure illustrates be embedded in

a larger program in an organization consisting of several projects.

Figure 15 illustrates how Connector (2007) groups stakeholders into ten categories and

how they further distinguish between hierarchical levels of the organization.

Figure 15: Ten categories of stakeholders and four hierarchical levels of the organization according to Connector (2007)


90

According to Connector (2007) the decision level establishes the framework within which

the management and leadership level carries out its activities. The management and

leadership level ensures that the project is technologically, legally, and organizationally

anchored in relation to the outside world. The Anchoring level services and supports the

project, and finally the performing level deliver the work agreed upon. According to

Connector, the organization is a bottom-up structure, as both the decision and the man-

agement level are very dependent on the composition of the performing level. Connect-

or asserts that the two top levels together exist only to establish the structure needed to

enable the performing level to deliver the work agreed on.

Applying Covey’s (1989) ‘Circle of Concern/ Circle of Influence’ along with Henderson’s

(2011) ‘Project stakeholders’ illustration contributes with an analytical level to the un-

derstanding of the positioning of project stakeholders and thereby the context within

which the project manager works. In addition this expansion serves as benchmarking for

determining the criteria for mapping stakeholders.

According to Covey (1989), we all have a wide range of concerns such as our health, our

children, problems at work, the national debt, war etc. With the circle of concern/circle

of influence, he illustrates how we can separate those things in which we have no par-

ticular mental or emotional involvement by creating the ‘Circle of Concern’. Looking at

the things within our circle of concern, he says, it becomes apparent that there are some

things over which we have no real control and others that we can do something about.

Covey identifies those concerns that we can do something about by circumscribing them

within the smaller ‘Circle of Influence’. Covey’s Circle of Concern/Circle of Influence con-

tributes with a perspective on proactivity, as Covey states (1989, 82): “[b]y determining

which of these two circles is the focus of most of our time and energy, we can discover

much about the degree of our proactivity.”

Covey’s Circles of Concern/Circle of Influence is sometimes presented with the third and

smallest circle: the Circle of Control. Figure 16 illustrates, alongside with Henderson’s1

illustration of ‘Project Stakeholders, Covey’s three circles: The smallest one, right in the

center, the ‘circle of control’ representing the things that you can affect directly with

your own resources. Surrounding the circle of control is larger circle, the ‘circle of influ-

ence’ representing the things that you can affect through other people. Finally, the out-

side circle, the largest of all, the ‘circle of concern’ representing all the things that con-

1 Henderson’s illustration of project stakeholders comes from a conversation we had in March 2011 while I was visiting University of San Francisco.


91

cern you in the world. Things in this area concern you but you cannot change them di-

rectly by yourself or directly through others.

Figure 16: Covey’s Circle of Concern/Circle of Influence alongside Henderson’s illustration of ‘Project Stakeholders’

Henderson’s illustration of project stakeholders demonstrates how a project manager,

parallel to Covey’s model has control over the ‘Core team’ of a project and can affect

them directly with own resources. Second, the ‘Extended team’ are stakeholders beyond

the actual project core team that the project manager interacts with and has influence

on through his or her communication network. Beyond the extended team, there are

other stakeholders (human and non-human) that the project manager cannot influence

directly with their own resources and that cannot necessarily be changed (such as politi-

cians, regulations, environmental aspects and the like), but that may have huge impact

on the project.

2.3.3.1. Comparing textbook stakeholders to ‘benchmark’

The criteria determining the categorization of stakeholders is derived from definitions of

stakeholders in project management textbooks for example: Pinto (1996); Wysocki

(2009), and Tuman (2006)

Tuman’s (2006, 175) definition of stakeholders as individuals with some kind of stake,

claim, share, or interest in the activities and results of the project embraces both inter-

nal and external stakeholders. Tuman has a more, but is not limited to, external focus

compared to Prince2 and Connector. Prince2 and Connector’s approach are seen in the

internal organizational focus on actual structure. Table 6 shows the stakeholders pre-


92

sented by Tuman (2006), Prince2 (2009) and Connector (2007). Inspired by Henderson’s

distinction of stakeholders, the stakeholders are organized into four groups: 1) Core

team, 2) Extended team, 3) Internal organizational stakeholders, and 4) External and/or

environmental stakeholders.

Table 6: Stakeholder groups from Tuman (2006), Prince2 (2009) and Connector (2007), then integrated into one list of common formal stakeholders

Tuman (2006) PRINCE2 (2009) Connector (2007) Integrated list:

Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurs

Developers Developers

Investors Investors

Visionaries Visionaries

Client/Customers Client/Customers

Politicians Politicians/political groups

Community Leaders Community members

Community members Special Interest Groups

Special Interest Groups Religious Leaders

Religious Leaders Social and Ethinic Groups

Political groups Environmentalists

Social and Ethinic Groups Opportunists

Environmentalists Activists

Opportunists Press/Media

Activists

Causes

Press/Media

Regulatory Agencies Organizational/Program Project administration Organization

Legal, etc Organization Project administration

Vendors Project support Quality assurance Quality assurance

Suppliers User Reference group Reference group

Senior User Users

Senior Supplier Suppliers

Supplier Project support

Project manager Project manager Project participants Project manager

Project team Team leaders Sponsor Part-project manager

Engineers Project group members Project manager Team leaders

Constructors Sreering commitee Part-project manager Project group

Chair of steering committee Professional consultancy Steering committee

Steering committee Engineers

Project owner Constructors

Sponsor

Professional consultancy

Project owner

External and/or environmental stakeholders

Internal organizational stakeholders

Extended team

Core team


93

The listed stakeholders will be used as benchmarking for the formally expected stake-

holders in the project stakeholder analysis. Bronfenbrenner’s four system model of de-

velopment (1979) is combined with the aspects of Henderson’s (2011) project stake-

holders, Prince2 (2006) and Connector (2007) distinction of structural levels and Covey’s

(1989) ideas of ‘concern’, ‘influence’ and ‘control’. This combination rests on Bron-

fenbrenner’s four system model of development (1979) and helps analyze the context,

structures and systems around the project manager. From the perspective of Bron-

fenbrenner’s argument that a social system does not exist isolated from other systems

the model helps analyze the affect that humans and the environment have on each oth-

er. According to Bronfenbrenner, an individual’s “world” is constructed by several dif-

ferent systems that are in continuous interaction with each other and with the individu-

al. The systems have influence on the individual’s development and the individual has

influence on the systems

Bronfenbrenner’s four system model of development (1979) contributes to understand-

ing the context, structures and systems around the project manager. The micro, meso,

ekso and macro systems are four concentric circles. The inner circle defined as the micro

system is the closest environment where the project manager is engaged with the pro-

ject team, daily colleagues, family, friends etc. The second circle, defined as the meso

system consists of connections and activities across departments, units, professions,

levels of hierarchy, interests. The third circle, defined as the ekso system consists of en-

vironments and institutions with which the project manager is rarely engaged but that

have influence on the project manager’s personal and/or professional development e.g.

colleague’s network, client’s network and situation, organizational overall changes and

politics, indirect family situation etc. Finally the fourth outermost circle, defined as the

macro system consists of cultural and subcultural patterns in society concerning: ethos,

tradition, politics, social organizing, and structure etc.

From the perspective of Bronfenbrenner’s argument that a social system does not exist

isolated from other systems the model helps analyze the affect that humans and the en-

vironment have on each other. Figure 17 illustrates the project manager's four systems -

based on Bronfenbrenner's development model:


94

Figure 17: The project manager's four systems - based on Bronfenbrenner's development model (1979).

Used as an analytical frame, this model provides a means to illustrate the levels of inter-

action and the consequences hereof that all originate from the communicative and be-

havioral actions of the project manager as an individual. Analyzing the systems accord-

ing to Bronfenbrenner’s model enables the ability to distinguish between the arenas and

the setting or the situation (Bø 1989 and Clarke 2005). The arena is the geographical

place where the action, the professional and/or the social interaction takes place. The

setting or situation is the actual situation, the context, the interaction itself. When the

context of the arena and systems are more closely defined the connections between

them and the project manager’s communicative action and behavior becomes meaning-

ful.

The structure, functions and interaction between project managers and their stakehold-

ers on the different levels is approached through Fyrand’s (2005) objective of systems

theory. According to Fyrand, the point of departure for any network approach is the un-

derstanding of how social life and community is organized. The whole, within which an

individual is positioned, is created from the fundamental premises of how he or she acts

and behaves. Systems theory enables an understanding of the frames of the dynamics

that take place within a system.


95

Fyrand’s perspective is that a structure in a system is the result of stabile and continuous

patterns of interaction over time.

Fyrand’s considerations of positions and roles in a system, in a network are used to map

the social and professional role as a project manager has many functions within each

system.

Figure 18 illustrates the combined model of: categories and benchmarking of stakehold-

ers, structural and hierarchical levels with Fyrand’s use of the ego network model and

Bronfenbrenner’s model of development. The combined model also comprise: Tuman’s

(2006) four stakeholder categories: project champions, project participants, community

participants, and parasitic participants; Prince2’s (2009) structural levels, marked in

blue; Connector’s (2007) levels of hierarchy, marked in green, and Bronfenbrenner’s

(1979) four geographical system levels: micro, meso, ekso and macro, marked in red.

The combined model serves to map the interaction, the mutual influence, dependencies,

independencies, opportunities, and limitations that occur and frames both the project

manager and the project situation.


96

Figure 18: Tuman’s (2006) stakeholder categories, Prince2 (2009) structure levels (blue), Connector (2007) levels of hierarchy (green) and Bronfenbrenner (1979) geographical system levels.


The stakeholder analysis is instructive for understanding the impact of major strategic

decision and useful for the discussion on project management when discussing the role

of politics within the project environment. Freeman (2011) provides vocabulary that en-

ables examination and discussion of the three levels at which we must understand the

processes used to manage relationships with stakeholders: first, the rational perspective

of who the stakeholders are and what the perceived stakes are; second, the organiza-

tional processes used to either implicitly or explicitly manage the organization’s relation-

ships with its stakeholders, and whether these processes “fit” with the rational stake-

holder map of the organization; and third, the set of transactions required to judge

whether the negotiations “fit” with the stakeholder map and the organizational pro-

cesses for stakeholders.


97

Bronfenbrenner’s four system model of development (1979) is combined with the as-

pects of Henderson’s (2011) project stakeholders, Prince2 (2006) and Connector’s (2007)

distinction of structural levels and Covey’s (1989) ideas of ‘concern’, ‘influence’ and

‘control’. This combination contributes to the analysis of the context, structures and sys-

tems around the project manager in the context analysis section 6, page 257.

2.3.4. Social theory & Social network theory

As mentioned earlier project management communication is approached from the per-

spective of the project manager’s egocentric communication network. Marin and Well-

man’s (2012) definition: the egocentric network perspective focuses on the network sur-

rounding one node (individual), versus ‘whole networks’ that take a bird’s eye view of

social structure, focusing on all nodes (all individuals).

According to Kilduff and Tsai (2003) individuals (and individual organizations) are influ-

enced by social network trajectories. Individuals add and subtract connections to net-

works as they make or break connections, trailing their own egocentric networks with

them. This provides a perspective to the relational approach to the project manager

since, as Kilduff and Tsai (2003,104) state: “[t]hrough this process of actor engagement

and disengagement, connections and disconnections are made to a range of other

bounded groups. So both actors and the networks to which they belong move through a

successive series of states, with decisions being made at the actor level affecting net-

work-level outcomes, whereas network evolution facilitates and constrains actor’s net-

working.” A project manager working across departments, units, professions, cultures

etc., can be seen as this actor moving through processes of network engagement and

disengagement with various network-level outcomes as it depends on the individuals

awareness of the opportunities that lies within the connections. Simmel (1955,162) ar-

gues about membership in different social circles: “… they give an individual of many

gifts the opportunity to pursue each of his interests in association with others.” Kilduff

and Tsai add to this by saying that network memberships provide a basis for individuals

to develop distinctive egocentric network trajectories through intensive interaction with

bounded webs of affiliation characteristic of associations and formal organizations.

According to Waldstrøm (2007), leadership and leaders emerge in informal networks

disregarding formal hierarchies and structures. Leadership emerges from unstructured

contexts. Waldstrøm (2007, 86) states: “… there will always be someone who steps up

and starts to organize.” Not to say that project managers work within unstructured con-


98

texts, but they find themselves in roles of no formal authority. My argument being that

the power of networks does not exist only due to hierarchies in formal structures and

hierarches, the power of networks emerge in accordance to the individual’s competence

in navigating relations in both formal and informal networks. The challenge, according to

Clegg and Courpasson (2004) is to reconcile the system of project authority with those

structures of power embedded in the corporate body. Hierarchical power tends to de-

pend on bureaucratic legitimacy embedded in routines and rules while project authority

typically requires creativity and innovation in the accomplishment of objectives, rather

than adherence to strict rules. They state that experienced project managers know, such

strict rules are merely resources for creativity and innovation in their interpretation and

negotiation. Hence, external regulation meets project governmentality in a highly per-

sonalized bureaucracy.

According to Kilduff and Krackhardt (2008), good administrators sometimes fail to un-

derstand social structure and fail to anticipate its consequences for organizational sur-

vival. This provides a way to examine a project manager and the survival of his or her

project. They further state the importance for managers and would-be leaders to accu-

rately perceive the network relations that connect people, and to actively manage these

network relations, and how informal leaders who may lack formal authority can emerge

to frustrate (or benefit) organizational functioning through the manipulation of network

structures and the exercise of social influence.

Kilduff and Tsai (2003) draw the attention to the individual and his or her endeavors in

pursuing various goals through organizations including the family, the school, voluntary

associations (such as church and sports clubs, colleagues, and work). They stress the im-

portance of noticing that many of these network connections are involuntary on the part

of individuals. Many networks are not actively chosen by the individual. However, as

Kilduff and Tsai (2003,104) argue: “… many network connections that have profound in-

fluence on the individual’s egocentric network development are already in place …”.

These networks influence the individual’s opinion, actions and the trajectories of already

existing social networks.

The four concentric circles described in Bronfenbrenner’s model of development can be

used to obtain a deeper understanding of the interaction, the mutual influence, de-

pendencies, independencies, opportunities, and limitations that occur and frame both

the project manager and the project situation.


99

According to Schiefloe (2004) smaller systems are often part of larger systems and the

interaction and interdependence between and among systems. The structure, functions

and interaction between project managers and their stakeholders on the different levels

can also be understood through Fyrand’s (2005) objective of systems theory. The point

of departure for any network approach, according to Fyrand, is the understanding of

how social life and community is organized. The interaction and interdependence be-

tween and among systems contribute to the understanding of the whole within which

the project manager is positioned. A positioning created from the fundamental premises

of how he or she acts and behaves, seen in the light of Fyrand’s perspective that a struc-

ture in a system is the result of stabile and continuous patterns of interaction over time.

In systems theory, the edges and borders of a system are likewise of relevance. Fyrand’s

approach helps define the following:

What regulations define the edges,

Who is included in the system and what qualifies for someone to be included?

What positions, roles, and functions do the project managers in the system hold?

What are the norms and regulations that concern the interaction between the

individuals in a system?

According to Fyrand (2005), the role is connected to the position or the place an individ-

ual holds in a system. The frame of continuous expectations towards a certain position

constructs the social role. This enlightens the understanding of the construction of a role

as a result of the combination of the expectations from others to how the project man-

ager should act in the given social role and the expectations from the project manager

himself or herself as to how he or she wishes and get the opportunity to fill out and act

the social role.

The project manager has a contract with his or her company explaining the functions

and tasks that are expected from holding the position of a project manager in the given

company. However, the individual’s “world” is constructed by several different systems

that are in continuous interaction with each other and the systems have influence on

the individual’s development and the individual has influence on the systems. Addition-

ally, the positioning is created from the premises of how an individual acts and behaves

in the role connected to the position or the place an individual holds in a system. It is

framed and constructed of continuous expectations towards the position. These expec-

tations and system structures are the result of stabile and continuous patterns of inter-

action over time. Therefore, this research area and literature provides an opportunity to

obtain a deeper understanding of the interaction, the mutual influence, dependencies,


100

independencies, opportunities, and limitations that occur and frame both the project


2.3.4.1. Theories of Self-interest

Many social theories are based on generative mechanisms that are directly relevant to

the emergence and co-evolution of human networks. In relation to the project manag-

er’s awareness and use of communication networks, the theories of self-interest add

perspectives to the understanding of the generative mechanisms in that the theory of

self-interest postulates that people make what they believe to be rational choices in or-

der to acquire personal benefits. Reiss (2007) talks about the twin objectives in project

management, saying that it is about the success of the project but at the same time

about the success of the project manager, his or her future, career and salary. This twin

objective is also relevant when referring back to Webster and Knutson’s (2006) driving

factors - how they influence project management and how project management has in-

fluence on them.

Contribution from literature on embeddedness

Granovetter’s (1985) and Uzzi’s (1996) research on embeddedness – discussing how

embedded networks achieve certain competitive advantages over arm’s-length relations

provides the perspective on communication networks in project management on how

embeddedness and network structure may affect communicative action and behavior.

Based on existing theory and original ethnographic analysis that describes the features,

function, and sources of embeddedness, the aim of Uzzi’s (1996) research is to advance

the concept of embeddedness by formulating a scheme that specifies how embed-

dedness and network structure affect economic behavior. According to Granovetter

(1985) embeddedness refers to the process by which social relations shape economic

action in ways that some mainstream economic schemes overlook or mis-specify when

they assume that social ties affect economic behavior only minimally or, in some strin-

gent accounts, reduce the efficiency of the price system. Granovetter’s statement can be

used as a way of understanding the aspects of the technical dimension and understand-

ing of communication in projects by projecting the main ideas from what Granovetter

calls the mainstream economic schemes to this perception of ‘mainstream and tech-

nical’ ways of working with communication in projects. Likewise, acknowledging and

projecting Granovetter’s statement that social relations shape economic action can con-


101

tribute to the understanding of how social relations may affect project management

communicative action and behavior.

Uzzi (1996) approaches his research by combining organization theory with social net-

work theory. He argues (1996, 675) “[t]hat the structure and quality of social ties among

firms shape economic action by creating unique opportunities and access to those op-

portunities. The type of network in which an organization is embedded defines the op-

portunities potentially available; its position in that structure and the types of interfirm

ties it maintains define its access to those opportunities.”

As with the discussion by Gillard and Johansen (2004) on open versus closed communi-

cation systems, Uzzi talks about a continuum of interfirm networks where at one ex-

treme, the interfirm network may be composed of a loose collection of firms. These

structures resemble prototypical markets and tend to be impersonal, diffuse, and shift-

ing in membership. At the other extreme, according to Uzzi, networks are composed of

finite, close-knit groups of firms. These structures represent the typical notion of an or-

ganization network as a set of firms that maintain ongoing and exclusive relationships

with one another. Powell (1990) argues that when firms keep arm’s-length ties with one

another, the pattern of exchanges produces a market-like structure; when they maintain

embedded ties, the pattern of exchange produces a network. Uzzi talks about the idea

that organizational networks operate on a logic of exchange that he refers to as ‘em-

beddedness’ because ongoing social ties shape actors’ expectations and opportunities.

Findings from Uzzi’s research can help shed light on communicative action and behavior

in the project management context, in that he found that ongoing social ties had a sig-

nificant outcome of trust, which facilitates the extension of benefits to transacting part-

ners and invites the receiving partner to reciprocate when a new situation arises. Uzzi

asserts that trust is important because it increases an organization’s access to resources

and strengthens its ability to adapt to unforeseen problems.

Uzzi (1996) additionally found that embedded ties entail joint problem-solving arrange-

ments that enable actors to coordinate functions and work out problems “on the fly”.

These arrangements provide more rapid and explicit feedback than do market-based

mechanisms.

Uzzi’s research on embeddedness suggests that embeddedness is a logic of exchange

that shapes motives and expectations and promotes coordinated adaption. Uzzi empha-

sizes that this is unique in that actors do not selfishly pursue immediate gains, but con-

centrate on cultivating long-term cooperative relationships. This perspective provides


102

input to the aspect of the purpose of communicating and influencing stakeholders. Does

the project manager strive for success with the intentions of benefitting own gains or for

the benefit of the project as a whole? The perspective of embeddedness contributes to

the understanding latter.

Contribution from literature on structural holes & the strength of weak ties

Burt’s theory of structural holes (1995, 2000, 2004) and Granovetter’s theory of the

strength of weak ties (1973) are used as a lens to understand the motivation in the rela-

tional communicative behavior underlying the project manager’s actions and choice of

strategy. The theory of structural holes argues that people accumulate social resources,

or social capital, which they invest in social opportunities from which they expect to

profit. Monge and Contractor (2003) state that network holes are those places where

people are unconnected in a network. Consequently, holes provide opportunities where

people can invest their social capital. People invest in, fill, or exploit these holes by link-

ing directly to two or more unconnected others, thus creating indirect ties between the

people to whom they link.

By applying the literature of and research on structural holes, the aim is to detect where

project managers seize opportunities of information access, timing, referrals, and con-

trol. The argument in the theory of structural holes is, according to Burt, that opinion

and behavior are more homogeneous within than between groups, so people connected

across groups are more familiar with alternative ways of thinking and behaving. Broker-

age across the structural holes between groups provides a vision of options otherwise

unseen. People are connected to certain others, trusting of certain others, obligated to

support certain others, dependent on exchange with certain others. Push here and

someone over there moves. By dint of who is connected to who, holes exist in the social

structure of any arena; in any competitive arena, organizational arena, project manage-

ment arena etc. The defining features of the social structure, according to Burt (2004, p.

351) are clusters of dense connection linked by occasional bridge relations between

clusters. The structural holes are disconnections between people in the arena.

Granovetter’s theory of weak ties however, is about the strength of weak ties between

groups. The notion of ‘strength’ of an interpersonal tie is defined by Granovetter (1973,

p. 1361) as “[t]he strength of a tie is (probably linear) a combination of the amount of

time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services

which characterize the tie”. Granovetter’s theory of weak ties is used as a tool for linking

micro-level interactions with macro-level patterns. Relations emerge from the overlap of


103

networks, be it friendship (social) networks or relational networks in the context of a

profession in an organizational setting. Those to whom we are weakly tied are more like-

ly to move in circles different of our own and thus have access to information different

from that which we receive. Processes of interpersonal networks provide fruitful bridges

between micro and macro levels. Granovetter refers to Harary, Norman and Cartwright’s

(1965) definition of a ‘bridge’ as a line in a network which provides a path between two

points (two people). It is through these networks that small-scale interactions become

large-scale patterns, and these in turn, feed back into small-scale groups. (Granovetter

1973).


Social theories of self-interest expand the ability to understand the communicative

choices and dynamics of behavior between the project manager and stakeholders in re-

lation to the project manager’s awareness and use of communication networks. The

structure and quality of social ties among project manager and stakeholders shape

communicative action by creating unique opportunities and access to those opportuni-

ties. The type of network in which a project manager is embedded defines the opportu-

nities potentially available. The theory of strength of weak ties provides an understand-

ing of links between micro-level interactions with macro-level patterns in that relations

emerging as weak links from the overlap of networks are more likely to move in circles

different than our own and thus provide access to information different from that which

we receive. The theory of structural holes argues that network holes provide opportuni-

ties where people can invest their social capital by linking directly to unconnected oth-

ers, and thereby creating opportunities in the indirect ties between the people to whom

they link.

2.3.5. Leadership and management – functions and expectations

Pinto and Trailer (1998) assert that few activities are readily acknowledged to be as

“leader intensive” as project management. A great deal of research and practical obser-

vation point to the fact that effective project managers, can by themselves, go far to-

wards ensuring whether a project will be a success or a failure. They say that project

managers take on a number of both traditional and non-traditional roles in pushing their

projects along the chosen path; that they serve as key communicators, motivators, team

builders, planners, expediters, and so forth. At the same time, they must also be the

chief cheerleaders, project champions, politicians, big brothers or sisters, and a thou-


104

sand other roles for which they usually have never been adequately prepared. Pinto and

Trailer conclude that in the project management context, “leadership” is truly a multi-

faceted concept, and they point to the problem that so few project managers receive

formal training in carrying out their roles.

Barnard (1968) states in his early work from 1938 that the functions are to provide sys-

tems of communication, promote the securing of essential efforts, and formulate and

define purpose. To this brief essential list, he adds the necessary personal characteris-

tics: loyalty, responsibility and the capacity to be dominated by organizational personali-

ty (that is work in the interest of the organization).

Barnard specifies the personal characteristics into specific personal abilities such as gen-

eral abilities, particular aptitudes and acquired techniques. The general abilities include

the abilities of: alertness, comprehensiveness of interests, flexibility, faculty of adjust-

ment, poise and courage, which Barnard considers to be innate characteristics devel-

oped through general experience. The particular aptitudes and acquired techniques are

abilities developed at a cost by training and education. Barnard distinguishes the infor-

mal executive organizations as being the communications of, what he names, the ‘intan-

gible facts’. These are: opinions, suggestions, suspicions that cannot pass through formal

channels without raising issues that call for decisions, without dissipating dignity and ob-

jective authority, and without overloading executive positions. It concerns the necessity

to avoid formal issues.

The project manager risks being trapped in a tool and technical topic based mind frame

of communicating due to the expectations from the technical dimension of the project

management process. However, Quinn et al (2007) state that we all have beliefs and we

all make assumptions about the right way of doing things, and they argue that this is al-

so true when it comes to managerial leadership. Based on a review of the evolution of

management models they argue that models help us to represent, communicate ideas

about, and better understand more complex phenomena in the real world. They point to

the fact that although models can help us to see some aspects of a phenomenon, they

can also blind us to other aspects. Based on Quinn et al’s review of management models

from 1900 up to present they contribute with a single framework: the ‘Competing values

framework’, combining the characteristics of four management models:

1. The Rational Goal model (relating to Taylor’s four principles of scientific man-

agement)


105

2. The Internal Process model (relating to Fayol’s general principles of management

and the characteristics of Weberian bureaucracy; Criteria of effectiveness are

stability and continuity.)

3. The Human Relations model (Key emphasis on commitment, cohesion, and mo-

rale)

4. The Open System model (Key criteria for organizational effectiveness are adapt-

ability and external support)

These four models appear to be four entirely different perspectives or domains. Howev-

er, according to Quinn et al (2007), they can be viewed as closely related and interwo-

ven. Quinn et al (2007, 11) argue: “[t]hey are four important subdomains of a larger con-

struct: organizational effectiveness. Each model within the construct of organizational

effectiveness is related. Depending on the models and combinations of models we

choose to use, we can see organizational effectiveness as simple and logical, as dynamic

and synergistic, or as complex and paradoxical. Taken alone, no one of the models al-

lows us the range of perspectives and the increased choice and potential effectiveness

provided by considering them all as part of a larger framework.” This is what brings

Quinn et al to the ‘competing values framework’.


106

Figure 19: Competing values framework: Inner part showing the effectiveness criteria and the outer perimeter showing the eight general value orientations. Based on Quinn, 1988

As seen, in Figure 19, Quinn et al (2007) translate the four theoretical models into man-

agement practice by labeling each quadrant according to the central action focus related

to each model: Collaborate for the human relations (upper left), Control for the internal

process model (lower left), Compete for the rational goal model (lower right), and Cre-

ate for the open system model (upper right). General value orientations are also reflect-

ed in the framework outer perimeter e.g., the action of competing drives towards max-

imizing output, which means increased productivity and accomplishment, clear direction

and goals, and the action of being creative drives towards the value of expansion and

change, having the courage to be innovative, adaptive and thereby grow. They state that

each model has a perceptual opposite. Quinn et al (2007) emphasize that the framework

does not suggest that these opposites cannot mutually exist in a real system. However, it

does suggest that these criteria, values, and assumptions are at opposites in our minds.


107

They argue that we tend to think about them as mutually exclusive; that is, we assume

we cannot have two opposites at the same time. They further argue that in valuing one

over the other we tend to devalue or discount its opposite. However, they assert that it

is possible, in their words it is “it is actually desirable” to perform effectively in the four

opposing models simultaneously. Their argument is that the framework represents the

unseen values over which people, programs, policies, and organizations live and die, and

we often blindly pursue values in one of the models without considering the values on

the other. As a result, our choices and our potential effectiveness are reduced. Manag-

ers tend to become trapped in their own style and in the organization’s cultural values.

The framework therefore provides a tool for the manager to broaden thier thinking and

to increase choice and effectiveness. However, Quinn et al argue, that this can only hap-

pen if managers learn to appreciate both the values and the weaknesses of each of the

four models, they acquire and use the competencies associated with each model, and if

they dynamically integrate the competencies from each of the models with the manage-

rial situations that we encounter.

According to Quinn et al, when a person meets the first challenge and comes to under-

stand and appreciate each of the four models, it suggests he or she has learned some-

thing at the conceptual level and has increased his or her cognitive complexity as it re-

lates to managerial leadership. They continue by saying that a person with high cognitive

complexity regarding a given phenomenon is a person who can see that phenomenon

from many perspectives. The person is able to think about the phenomenon in sophisti-

cated rather than simple ways, and is thereby able to act out cognitively complex strate-

gy by playing multiple, even competing, roles in a highly integrated and complementary

way.

The competing values framework contributes to the understanding of the complexity

within which the project manager works. It is useful, according to Quinn et al, in thinking

about the conflicting roles that are played by managers and therefore, useful in thinking

about the conflicting roles that are played by project managers. Figure 20 illustrates the

framework with a focus on leadership effectiveness, leadership competencies and roles

in the competing values framework.


108

Figure 20: The competencies and the leadership roles in the competing values framework. Based on Quinn, 1988

As Quinn et al (2007, 15) put it “[t]he framework specifies competing roles or expecta-

tions that might be experienced by a manager.” This supports the discussion on how

project managers perceive their own role(s) and how they perceive what is expected of

them and therefore, what expectations they have of themselves in their profession. For

example, Clegg and Courpasson (2004) argue that project managers are intermediaries

between a rule-governed organizational body (as in ‘Control’ for the internal process –

roles: coordinator and monitor, lower left in Figure 20) and local rationalities (more a

combination of ‘control’ and ‘collaborate’ roles: monitor and facilitator, lower and upper

left in Figure 20). This is seen in that project management is a system for controlling

costs and achieving objectives. Control procedures are pervasively and powerfully em-

bedded into the regular and efficient reporting of actions and decisions made. Reporting

is essential to the project objectives and is considered by the governing bodies an indica-

tion of the successful operation of the project.


109

According to Quinn et al, these roles are applicable to all level supervisors and manag-

ers. They assert that responsibilities, however, vary across levels of organizational hier-

archy and so when some responsibilities will remain the same, others will vary. Thus,

managers may need to learn different competencies to plan at different levels of the or-

ganization. They add to this that they must also understand how the means to balance

the various roles and perform in behaviorally complex ways may change from one man-

agerial position to another.

The literature on management and leadership contributes positively to the research on

project management communication in that it helps elaborate on the complexity of the

roles and functions of a project manager during the ever changing challenges, phases

and requirements of a project, which influence the behavior and understanding of

communicative action. By presenting the stated requirements to the function of a pro-

ject manager as it appears from the field of project management, the aim is to illustrate

the overlapping areas of similarities.

2.3.5.1. From the field of project management, what constitutes the personal

profile and characteristics of an effective project manager?

Einsiendel (1987) argues that there is a “project management continuum” for leader

sensitivity concerning projects. At the one extreme you have the “leader-proof” projects

that are, according to Einsiendel, projects similar to some man-machine systems that are

“operator-proof”, where situational factors rather than leadership competencies are

what determine the outcome of these projects. At the other extreme of the continuum

you find the “leader-sensitive” projects. Their outcome depends heavily on the project

manager’s performance, which, as he says, in turn, is contingent on the manager’s com-

petence and motivation. Einsiendel argues that often the project managers themselves

are the project champions and, the personification of the project; their style, whether

effective or not, distinguishes the project.

Einsiendel (1987) dedicates two roles to the project manager: that of the manager and

that of the content expert. He says that most are primarily managers and coordinate a

number of experts, and they act in the role of “marginalists” who must make sure that

decisions are made at the proper time, within the proper framework or expertise, and

by the proper people. He argues that there are at least five related qualities that are es-

sential to be able to perform these roles effectively:

1. Credibility: referring to a combination of the manager’s expertise and trustwor-

thiness in the eyes of the project’s stakeholders. The argument, by Einsiendel, is


110

that it is a significant asset for a project manager to have the specialized tech-

nical education or training, as well as a track record of successful project man-

agement that is relevant to the current project. In addition, the manager must be

perceived as being dependable and honest and should not appear to have dys-

functional ulterior motives.

2. Creative Problem-Solver: referring to the ability to identify and analyze prob-

lems, facilitate the emergence of creative solutions and arrive at optimal solu-

tions. When under time constraints the project manager must quickly improvise

a solution and cannot go strictly “by the book” and employ established and

standardized bureaucratic procedures.

3. Tolerance for ambiguity: the manager must deal with a continuous string of mi-

nor and major issues or crises and therefore it is a characteristic that requires a

high degree of cognitive complexity and maturity.

4. Flexible management style: refers to whether the project manager is able to

change his or her leadership style in relation to the changing situation. Project

managers who possess a wide repertoire of management styles have an ad-

vantage over managers who have a relatively narrow range of styles.

5. Effective communication skills: refers to the project manager’s competence in

receiving, processing, and transmitting complex messages to and from clients,

superiors, functional managers, subordinates, contractors, external consultants,

and, in some projects, media and the public

Point five reveals that Einsiendel perceives communication in projects from the technical

dimension (Gray and Larson, 2006), which also may be the underlying reason for the lack

of sociocultural elements in the listed qualities.

According to Posner (1987) the personal characteristics necessary to manage a project

are personal attributes such as: aggressiveness, confidence, poise, decisiveness, resolu-

tion, entrepreneurship, toughness, integrity, versatility, multi-disciplinary, and quick

thinking. Posner is challenged by Rowan (1986) in that Rowan argues that it is more a

question of considering the critical problems faced by project managers. However, this

requires the ability to foresee the range of problems that will occur in a given project.

Based on a study, by Posner, 900 statements about what factors created problems in

managing projects and 1,400 statements about what project manager skills – traits,

characteristics, attributes, behaviors, and techniques – make a difference in successfully

managing projects, Posner (1987) concluded that while successful project managers

were viewed as good problems solvers, what really differentiated them was their prob-


111

lem-finding ability. He states that due to their exceptional communication skills, goal

clarity and planning, effective project managers were aware of issues before they be-

came problems. Problem finding gave them greater degrees of freedom enabling them

to avoid being seriously sidetracked by problems caused by unforeseen events. Hence,

the results of the study suggest, according to Posner, that these two perspectives are

not contradictory but are fundamentally compatible.

Connecting the above insight into what leadership skills are perceived to be from the

field of project management, I will revisit the discussion on leadership roles. Sheard and

Kakabadse’s (2006) study on switching leadership roles, identified two central compo-

nents of the phenomenon of leadership. The first is that leadership is a process. It is not

a linear one-way event but rather an interactive event. Second, leadership occurs in

groups. Groups provide the context in which leadership takes place. This is based on a

comprehensive review of leadership theory and practice by Northouse (2004). Sheard

and Kakabadse draw the attention to both Parsons (1951) and Belbin (1993) in their

study. Parson emphasizes that all action available to an individual within a social system

is a function of the relationship between the individual and their situation. He character-

izes the relationship between an individual and his or her situation in terms of roles,

which are described as the primary point of direct articulation between personality of

the individual and the structure of the social system.

Belbin’s (1993) observation suggests that by recognizing the roles of others and by be-

coming aware of the range of roles that are available to onesself, people learn to modify

their behavior and take account of the situation. Griffin (2002) argues that it is through

interaction that roles emerge, including the roles of leaders. He argues that the roles of

leaders must be considered in terms of everyday interaction between individuals in their

local situations. In the context of project managers, this can be seen as the project man-

ager in the immediate situation of the project. Sheard and Kakabadse (2006) developed

a perspective on leadership whereby the roles of leaders were defined in terms of four

distinct categories:

1. The legitimate leader: defined as the publicly appointed leader of the team who

is accountable for delivery of the team’s objectives.

2. The social leader: defined as the individual who undertakes to build a network of

relationships with other team members.

3. The task leader: defined as deriving their legitimacy to lead other team members

from the formal allocation of responsibility for delivering a specific task by the

team’s legitimate leader


112

4. The macro leader: defined as the leadership role played by a senior executive

when interacting with the team. The senior executive brings a “macro” view of

the organization to the team.

Sheard and Kakabadse conclude that any individual can occupy one of the four leader-

ship roles, and that it is entirely possible for executives to adopt complementary roles.

Sheard and Kakabadse observed that those executives who were able to develop their

ability to adapt from one leadership role to another as they switched groups made a

more positive contribution to both the speed and quality of organizational decision-

making.

Berkun (2008, 242) argues: “… you do not need to be the best programmer, planner, ar-

chitect, communicator, joke teller, designer, or anything else. All that is required is that

you make trust an important thing to cultivate, and go out of your way to share it with

the people around you. Therefore, to be a good leader, you must learn how to find,

build, earn, and grant trust to others – as well as learn how to cultivate trust in yourself.”

In an experiment, Berkun asked a group of people who they trust in their current places

of work, and why. According to the answers trust is earned by people who do their jobs

well, are committed to the goals of the project, treat people fairly, and behave consist-

ently through tough times. Furthermore, the experiment suggests that trust cuts be-

neath other personal traits, as not a single person mentioned whether they liked these

people. We can trust people we do not like or do not wish to spend time with.

According to Berkun (2008) trust is built through effective commitments. He says that

using the granting of authority and trust leads to enabling people to do great work. To

this he adds that granted power comes from the organizational hierarchy. Earned power

comes only from people’s responses to your actions. Earned power is more useful than

granted power, although both are necessary. However, use delegation to build trust for

the team and to commit the team against diversity, and respond to problems in a way

that will maintain people’s trust. Trust in yourself, according to Berkun, is the core of

leadership. Self-discovery is the way to learn who you are and to develop healthy self-

reliance.


The literature and research on management and leadership has demonstrated a source

of insight to how frameworks of management models provide a tool for managers to

broaden thinking about leadership roles to increase choice and effectiveness. The


113

frameworks contribute to the understanding of the complexity within which the project

manager works.

2.3.6. Theory of authority – Power, influence, and persuasion; Perspective on

the manager with no formal power

Boddy (2002, 75-76) emphasizes that to get things done “[w]ith the cooperation of

groups or functions over whom they have little or no formal authority they need to en-

gage in an intense communication process.” He further states that project managers

need to influence senior management to act in ways that support the project. That sup-

port, as he says, has to be earned, and argued for, in the face of competing claims. The

hierarchy of positions is worth considering when analyzing the project manager’s com-

municative actions and his or her communication network.

2.3.6.1. The leader as an individual and the organization as a whole

Barnard (1968, 172) defines authority as “[t]he character of a communication (order) in

a formal organization by virtue of which it is accepted by a contributor to or “member”

of the organization as governing the action he contributes; that is, as governing or de-

termining what he does or is not to do so far as the organization concerned.” Berkun

talks about ‘a communication’ as a noun in either singular as above ‘a directive commu-

nication’ or ‘communications’ in plural. According to Barnard, the definition of authority

involves two aspects: first, the subjective, the personal, the accepting of what is being

said as authoritative; and the second: the objective aspect – the character in the com-

munication by virtue of which it is accepted.

The subjective aspect of the theory is illustrated in Berkun’s (2008) statement that the

leader is no leader unless he or she has gained and earned the trust from the people

surrounding the leader. He elaborates by saying that everything depends on what the

assumptions people can make of you – as a leader.

Barnard (1968) asserts that if a directive communication is accepted by one to whom it

is addressed; its authority for him is confirmed or established. Disobedience of such a

communication is a denial of its authority. Therefore, as Barnard states, under the defi-

nition the decision as to whether an order has authority or not lies with the person to

whom it is addressed, and does not reside in “the person of authority” or those who is-

sue the orders.


114

Barnard (1968) state that communication is only authoritative when it is an action for

effort of the organization. Considering the objective aspect of the theory of authority,

the project manager, as a manager with no formal authority, only gains formal authority

when he or she acts on behalf of or supported by the steering committee or upper level

management. Barnard argues that this is why individuals are able to exercise authority

only when they are acting “officially”. However, Barnard specifies, authority is always

concerned with something within a definitely organized system.

As a continuation of this, what makes Barnard’s perspective on authority interesting in

relation to Berkun’s statement about trust and in relation to project management com-

munication is that Barnard distinguishes between authority of position and authority of

leadership. He says that people impute authority to communications from superior posi-

tions, provided that they are reasonably consistent with advantages of scope and per-

spective that are credited to those positions. Barnard argues that this authority is to a

considerable extent independent of the personal ability of the holder of the position,

and his advice may be superior only because of the advantage of position. This is the au-

thority of position. But, as he states, it is obvious that some people have superior ability;

that their knowledge and understanding regardless of position command respect. Peo-

ple impute authority to what they say in an organization for this reason only. This is the

authority of leadership. Nevertheless, Barnard asserts that the determination of authori-

ty remains with the individual. If the holder of authority, that Barnard calls the “posi-

tions” of authority, show ineptness, ignorance of conditions, failure to communicate

what ought to be said, or if leadership fails to recognize implicitly its dependence upon

the character of the relationship of the individual to the organization, then the authority

disappears.

The authority depends upon a cooperative personal attitude of individuals on the one

hand; and the system of communication that is, the “lines of authority in the organiza-

tion on the other. Without the latter, the former cannot be maintained. These are the

organizational structure’s lines of authority that Gillard and Johansen (2004) also refer

to in their work. Clegg and Courpasson (2004) contribute to this discussion of positions

by arguing that the legitimacy as project leaders is never simply given by the fact of their

appointment. Organizations may nominate project leaders to manage projects, but pro-

ject leaders have to work in close proximity with those whom they are appointed to

lead. The organizational nomination leads to status hierarchy. Ultimately, the funda-

mental reasons for nomination are less important than the fact that the team members

will consider the project leader as part of the central governing system of the organiza-


115

tion. Thus, as Clegg and Courpasson state, one part of their legitimacy is based on sta-

tus-hierarchy. Project managers are not only leaders, but are also responsible for the

success of potentially important missions. The project leader, assessed on a capacity to

lead a team towards success, has a certain power over other team members. The suc-

cess and commitment of one depends on the success of the other, and visa versa, and

the pressure to succeed leads to personal status. Clegg and Courpasson argue that the

tension between the personal and the hierarchical means that project authority be-

comes based more on interdependence than on hierarchical status. Consequently, they

say, the position of a project leader has a tendency to rely on personalization, where the

competence in communication, and personify, the pressure to succeed becomes vital.

Clegg and Courpasson point to the tension vested in ‘superordinate and subordinate’

relations. Communicating and reporting to upper level management and aligning project

expectations with the overall business strategy is vital. However, Clegg and Courpasson

draw the attention to the fact that project members accumulate project experience and

they have considerable informal learning at their disposal. From such experience comes

tension for the managers of projects that do not live up to the expectations of experi-

enced team members, even as the project is being represented in functional terms to

those in the corporate hierarchy. Resistance to project management is often built on this

basis, as knowledgeable members, able to exploit knowledge gleaned through their own

mobility and migration between projects, spread the reputational word on the adequacy

of project managers.

2.3.6.2. Power, influence and persuasion – means to getting things done

Based on the above discussion of authority, the following serves to emphasize that pro-

ject management communication can be understood as communicating in order to

reach as Kampf (2013, 188) states: “solutions to problems that people (stakeholders)

agree are important, timely, and urgent to solve.” According to Harvard Business School

(HBS , 2005), power is defined as the potential to allocate resources and to make and

enforce decisions. It is stated here that in an organizational context this means that

power gives someone the potential, or according to Barnard (1968), the authority,

among other things to: determine compensation for subordinates, obtain funding, ma-

terial, or staff key projects, have access to important information, resolve disputes, clear

away barriers to progress, determine key goals and marshal resources around them. This

could be a way to describe the power and authority of a project’s steering committee

and upper level management. But as for a project manager, he or she needs to be able

to tap into this source of power as a support for his or her doing.


116

The areas of power, influence and persuasion from the fields of social science and psy-

chology contribute to the understanding of what conscious and non-conscious consider-

ations underlie the project managers’ accounts for communicative actions, behaviors,

and choice of communication strategies. Barnard (1968) asserts that a person can and

will accept what is being communicated as authoritative only when four conditions sim-

ultaneously obtain:

1. He can and does understand the communication

2. At the time of his decision he believes that it is not inconsistent with the purpose

of the organization

3. At the time of his decision, he believes it to be compatible with his personal in-

terest as a whole

4. He is able mentally and physically to comply with it

Whether project management is considered from the technical dimension as in

Kerzner’s (2009) definition of project management: “planning, organizing, directing, and


tablished to complete specific goals and objectives”, or from the people centered, soci-

ocultural perspective of Kampf’s (2012, 188) definition of projects as being: “solutions to

problems that people (stakeholders) agree are important, timely and urgent to solve”,

the project manager is faced with the need to gain authority and /or be supported by

power sources in his or her profession as a project manager. Influence and persuasion

are ways for a project manager to obtain the authority needed in relation to all stake-

holders from his or her position in the organizational structure.

Project managers may gain authority towards stakeholders through different sources of

power. HBS (2005) talks about relational power which is an informal power that emerg-

es from your relationship with others. Coalition is another that they mention. They state

that a coalition is one that effective managers rely on when units must collaborate to get

things done in that managers with very little positional power can wield substantial

power if they are successful in forming collaborative relationships. According to HBS

(2005), real power is realized only through some form of expression, and in organiza-

tions, power often expresses itself as influence.

Influence, according to HBS (2005) and Gass and Seiter (2007), is an extension of power;

it is the mechanism through which people use power to change behavior or attitudes.

Unlike power, influence can produce an effect without the apparent exertion of force,

compulsion, or direct command. Influence, according to HBS, can also be exercised by


117

people who have no formal power. Every manager must understand how to influence

others: bosses, peers, and subordinates.

Barnes (2000) state that power is something you have, whereas influence is something

you do. HBS (2005) encourages us to think about influence as a two-way street: to influ-

ence effectively, a manger must be open to influence by others. They argue that open-

ness to influence from others, even from subordinates, has two important consequenc-

es. First, it is a visible gesture of trust and respect. To gain trust and respect, you must

extend it to others. Second, openness is a means of acquiring information and insights

about the operational environment. People who resist influence close themselves off

from signals about that environment and risk being blindsided by unfolding events.

HBS presents the aspect of sphere of influence: the domain in which one can effectively

exert influence. And as they argue, by strategic consideration and effort you can extend

your influence to other spheres relevant to your business. To gain supportive power, it is

seen you need to influence in order to tap into the sources of power.

Persuasion, according to HBS and Gass and Seiter (2007), is closely related to influence,

but is different in that it isn’t a force and has no coercive component. It is a process

through which one aims to change or reinforce the attitudes, opinions, or behaviors of

others. HBS (2005) asserts that a person who becomes skilled in the art of persuasion

enjoys an edge of selling ideas and making things happen. Concerning project manage-

ment this skill can be further understood from the literature by Dutton and Ashford

(1993) on issue selling. Issue selling according to Sutton and Ashford (1993, 398) refers

to “[…] individuals’ behaviors that are directed towards affecting others’ attention to

and understanding of issues.” Issues that may be the events, developments and trends

that have implications for organizational performance.

Dutton and Ashford discuss middle managers in relation to directing top manager’s at-

tention by providing or concealing important information about issues, by framing the

issues in particular ways, and by mobilizing resources and routines that direct top man-

ager’s attention to some issues and not others. These middle managers relate to project

managers as their need to direct attention to decision-making over which they have no

formal power, is equal to that of the middle managers. Dutton and Ashford envision is-

sue selling as a critical activity in the early stages of an organization’s decision-making

process. They assert that it is a process by which middle-level managers attempt to in-

fluence the identification phase of organizational decision making. Dutton and Ashford

(1993, 399) distinguish the identification stage as the stage: “… that involves both issue


118

recognition, in which opportunities, problems, and crises are recognized and evoke deci-

sion activity and diagnosis, in which management seeks to comprehend the evoking

stimuli and determine cause-effect relationships for the decision situation.” This situa-

tion may be projected to the project manager’s attempt to influence the identification

phase of the steering committee’s decision-making in relation to issues in projects.

Persuasion, according to HBS, is a skill that is essential for success in all relationships –

personal and business alike. Persuasion is not only a matter of presenting a rational case

but also about presenting information and ideas in ways that appeal to fundamental

human emotions. It is about positioning an idea, approach, or solution in a way that ap-

peals to others. Therefore, according to HBS, persuasion blends art and science. It is an

art in that it requires the ability to establish trust. It is a science in that it is based on the

disciplined collection and analysis of information, a solid understanding of human be-

havior, and well-developed communication skills.

The terminology from persuasion contributes to understanding the requirements of

careful consideration of the choice of communication strategies in project management

communication in order to succeed in obtaining for example necessary resources and

creating progress. According to HBS (2005) persuasion involves four elements:

1. Credibility

2. An understanding of the audience

3. A solid argument

4. Effective communication.

Referring back to Barnard (1968) the elements of persuasion are twofold, as in Barnard’s

theory of authority: the subjective and the objective. According to HBS, you build your

credibility by your personality in that other people must view you as believable, trust-

worthy, and sincere (subjective), and by your ideas that must be perceived as sound (ob-

jective); as Barnard (1968, 175) states: “[w]ithout the latter, the former cannot be main-

tained”.

A leader is no leader unless he or she has gained and earned the trust from the people

surrounding the leader. Everything depends on what the assumptions people can make

about you – as a leader (Berkun, 2008).


Influence and persuasion are ways for a project manager to obtain the authority needed

in relation to all stakeholders from his or her position in the organizational structure.


119

Sources of power can be about relational power, an informal power emerging from rela-

tionships with others. Project managers’ doing strategy happens when extending their

spheres of influence to other relevant spheres by strategic consideration and effort. A

project manager’s openness to influence from others is a visible gesture of trust and re-

spect and to gain trust and respect, you must extend it to others. Openness is also a

means of acquiring information and insights about the operational environment – linking

to social theory.

2.3.7. Key terminology from the expanded theoretical framework as vocabu-

lary to guide the analyses

As it has been seen, organizational communication theory is far from adequate to un-

derstand project management communication. Therefore, to explain and understand

the phenomenon, key terminology from the expanded theoretical framework will serve

as an extended vocabulary to examine the communicative and behavioral processes in

order to understand the phenomenon of project management communication.

The literature on communication networks by Monge and Contractor (2003) use termi-

nology describing communication networks. Monge and Contractor’s discussion on

communication networks as being the patterns of contact among communicators

through time and space contributes with vocabulary enabling further elaboration and

examination of project managers’ communication networks that take many forms in

contemporary organizations such as personal contact networks, flows of information

within and between groups, strategic alliances among the project manager and stake-

holders. With this perspective of communication networks in organizational communica-

tion, Monge and Contractor contribute with a vocabulary of the aspect of emergent

communication networks that relate to organizational behavior and formal communica-

tion networks that relate to organizational structure and charts. This helps gain extend-

ed understanding of the processes of communicating with the vast network of project

stakeholders that is predicted by the stakeholder analysis that is the formal project re-

lated stakeholder network, but also the non-predicted, unexpected and emerging stake-

holders.

Hallahan’s (2004) aspect of integrated communication is strategically coordinated organ-

izational communication with a focus on the various processes involved in how people

interact in complex organizations including interpersonal, group, and network communi-

cations. Whereas, the focus of strategic communication is on how the organization itself


120

presents and promotes itself through the intentional activities of its leaders, employees,

and communication practitioners. This vocabulary of integrated communication and

strategic communication contributes to the discussion of project managers integrating

professional fields in their project management communication but also seek to align

project efforts with the overall business strategy and business goals in order to motivate

resources. Therefore, project management communication becomes the interface be-

tween general management, operations management, and technical management,

which causes the project to happen.

The aspect of emergent strategy from the literature on strategy as practice (Giddens

1984; Golsorkhi et al 2010 and Tsoukas 2010) is based on prior experience and action

and emergent strategy is linked to the ‘doing’ of strategy in communication. This focus

on practice as a perspective entails treating practices as a central lens through which to

understand organizations, examining the doings and saying of individuals and how those

are both shaped and shape structural conditions and consequences. The aspect of

emergent strategy supports the importance and contribution of the tactical level of

communication practices and so bringing the notion of practice to a perspective where

strategy in communication is approached as an influencing factor from the operational

level in that it is the successful practice of technicians and operational specialists that

lead to successful strategic decision-making. The field of strategy as practice contributes

with a perspective and vocabulary on the micro-level social activities, processes and

practices that characterize organizational strategy and strategizing.

The terminology seen in the literature on stakeholder management (Pinto 1996; Free-

mann 2011) provides an opportunity to discuss the process of the stakeholder analysis.

The stakeholder analysis is instructive for understanding the impact of major strategic

decision and useful for the discussion on project management when discussing the role

of politics within the project environment. Freeman (2011) provides vocabulary that en-

ables examination and discussion of the three levels at which we must understand the

processes used to manage relationships with stakeholders: first, the rational perspective

of who the stakeholders are and what the perceived stakes are; second, the organiza-

tional processes used to either implicitly or explicitly manage the organization’s relation-

ships with its stakeholders, and whether these processes “fit” with the rational stake-

holder map of the organization; and third, the set of transactions required to judge

whether the negotiations “fit” with the stakeholder map and the organizational pro-

cesses for stakeholders.


121

The terminology from Social theories of self-interest expands the ability to discuss and

describe the communicative choices and dynamics of behavior between the project

manager and stakeholders in relation to the project manager’s awareness and use of

communication networks. The theory of strength of weak ties contributes with vocabu-

lary of the links between micro-level interactions with macro-level patterns in that rela-

tions emerging. The terminology used in the theory of structural holes contributes with

a vocabulary of the opportunities of network holes where people bridge holes to gain

access, and where the broker invests time and effort in social capital and thereby ob-

tains diverse contacts. The vocabulary of embedded networks supports the discussion

and elaboration on achievement of certain competitive advantages that create unique

opportunities and access to those opportunities.

Terminology used in connection to management and leadership includes aspect of loyal-

ty, responsibility, credibility, trust, authority, being a creative problem-solver and prob-

lem-finder, and tolerance for ambiguity. The management terminology extends to

Quinn’s (2007) vocabulary of management roles, taking account of a situation by recog-

nizing the roles of others and by becoming aware of the range of roles such as: collabo-

rative, creative, competitive, controlling that are available to one self. Furthermore,

there is Posner’s (1987) presentation of personal characteristics such as: aggressiveness,

confidence, poise, decisiveness, resolution, entrepreneurship, toughness, integrity, ver-

satility, multi-disciplinary, and quick thinking – characteristics that, according to Posner,

are necessary to manage a project. This vocabulary is supported by Belbin’s (1993) ob-

servation suggesting that by recognizing the roles of others and by becoming aware of

the range of roles that are available to oneself, people learn to modify their behavior

and take account of the situation.

Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) aspect of calculative control in connection to practices of

administrative accounting systems and calculative instruments contributes with vocabu-

lary of procedurally based action and of techniques of monitoring allowing corporate

management to assess actions, critical events, decisions, and reasons behind decisions

based on the search for and assessment of efficiency in managing projects. Barnard’s

(1968) arguments about the authority of position and the authority of leadership also

contributes to the vocabulary about management and leadership in that he distin-

guishes between authority of position and authority of leadership, where he says that

people impute authority to communications from superior positions, provided that they

are reasonably consistent with advantages of scope and perspective that are credited to

those positions. This authority is to a considerable extent independent of the personal


122

ability of the holder of the position, and his advice may be superior only because of the

advantage of position. The authority of leadership specifies the personal characteristics

into specific personal abilities such as general abilities, particular aptitudes, and acquired

techniques. The general abilities include the abilities of alertness, comprehensiveness of

interests, flexibility, faculty of adjustment, poise and courage, which Barnard considers

to be innate characteristics developed through general experience. This vocabulary sup-

ports the discussion on the project manager’s skill in calculating and communicating

consequences of management decisions.

The literature on issue selling contributes with a vocabulary of influence, persuasion,

power, balancing authority and opportunity, and evoking decision activity. Terminology

used in discussions of how a manager or leader must be able to influence and persuade

contributes with a vocabulary of credibility, understanding of the audience, solid argu-

ment, the ability to sell an idea or an issue, and gaining trust that motivates action.

Figure 21 illustrates the key terminology extracted from the expanded theoretical

framework that will serve as a new set of vocabulary, which contributes to the change of

understanding of project management communication in project environments.


123

Figure 21: Key terminology extracted from the expanded theoretical framework - vocabulary guiding the analyses (Original)


124

2.4. Literature review summary

The spectrum of approaches to communication in project management textbooks vary

from not delegating any attention specifically to communication at one end of a contin-

uum to a full acknowledgement of placing people and communication at the center of

the understanding of project processes at the opposite end of the continuum. This spec-

trum of approaches is reflected in models of communication that have been and are

used in project management textbooks starting from the earliest models with three el-

ements to a project communication model placing people at the center of project man-

agement with the focus on people and communication. Finally, the review demonstrates

that all three categories of project management textbooks include topics that are not

labeled ‘Communication’.

In academic research central themes of communication in projects is discussed from dif-

ferent perspectives, different fields and with different objectives in mind. Organizational

structures and socio-technical systems imply how the project manager is influence by

both organizational structures’ lines of authority and communication policies, as well as

sub-systems of social and technical/professional kind. Collaboration and trust emphasize

the degree and type of communication between the project owner and the project

manager. Within the fields of project management and corporate communication pro-

ject marketing show an externally oriented focus of communication towards external

stakeholder.

The review of project management textbooks and academic articles provide valuable

information on how communication is perceived and what technical, sociocultural, envi-

ronmental and personal elements have influence on project communication and project

management communication. It shows a distinct evolvement in the understanding of

the role of communication in project management moving towards a strong emphasis

on management communication and the project manager’s competencies. It was found

that the literature largely ignores the project manager and his or her leadership style

and competencies when discussing project success factors

Project management communication can only partially be understood from the litera-

ture discussing communication in projects. As argued, looking to the peripheral areas of

research (‘communication networks and organizational communication’, ‘strategic

communication and strategy as practice’, ‘stakeholder management’, ‘social theories’,

‘leadership and management’ and, ‘power, influence and persuasion’) strengthens the

encouraged turn in the understanding of the role and function of communication in pro-


125

ject management from a tool and technical topic based, as well as process oriented per-

ception to a broadened understanding encompassing personal competence, relational

and influential aspects. Common ground from the review of project management litera-

ture and the extended theoretical literature is found within very distinct phenomena:

The technical and the sociocultural dimension

The integrated communication and strategic communication

The formal communication networks and the emergent communication net-

works

The authority of position and the authority of leadership

The managerial and the emotional functions of a leader

Cooperative personal attitude and systems of communication.

Without the first, the technical dimension, the other, the sociocultural dimension cannot

be maintained and vice versa. Hence, the requirements to project management com-

munication are as mentioned: distinct yet inseparable, understood only in terms of the

other. Although they are one, they are to be spoken of in terms of what is important. “…

[i]n other words… ‘alternate manifesting,’ or the saying that ‘the horse obeys the rider in

some cases or the rider trusts the horse in other cases.” (The Korean Neo-Confucianism

of Yi Toegye and Yi Yulgok).

3. Methodology

The following section presents the methodological considerations most appropriate for

addressing the research objectives. The term methodology refers to the plan of action

showing how answers to the research questions will be obtained while methods refer to

tools and strategies for data collection and analysis.

The main purpose of this study is to examine why project managers perceive communi-

cation to be the most important aspect of project management and what influences

their communication choices, communication actions and communicative behaviors, fol-

lowed by four objectives:

1. Revealing prominent themes of communicative action and considerations emerg-

ing in project managers’ accounts of communication practices

2. Understanding how project managers understand the role of communication in

project management.

3. Define the context framing project managers’ communication practices.

4. Analyze how project managers’ explain or reveal their use of communication

strategies.

To answer the main research question and to address the four objectives, the following

research design and methods were applied. Yin’s (2003) case-study model was used as

the main framework. Attride-Stirling’s (2001) analytical tool of a thematic network anal-

ysis was applied to help answer research question 1 and 2. The computer assisted quali-

tative data analysis software NVivo was used for interrogation of the data and coding.

The query function enables identifying central themes, comparison of content and pat-

terns across companies and was used to assist the analysis and thereby help answer re-

search question 2,3 and 4. The thematic analysis and the NVivo software both only serve

as organizing tools in the interpretation of the transcriptions.

The first section of this chapter will introduce how Yin’s case-study model has been ap-

plied as the main framework, presenting how the three main stages reflect the design of

this research, including an explanation of how the methods of snowball sampling and

thematic network analysis has been applied.

The second section of the chapter will introduce the analysis consisting of four perspec-

tives: 1) the thematic analysis, 2) the perception analysis, 3) the context analysis, and 4)

the relational analysis. The purpose of approaching project management communication

Chapter 3: Methodology

127

from four perspectives is to expand the understanding and the awareness of the com-

municative situation surrounding the project manager. The communicative situation is

any project management context that requires some form of communicative action,

awareness, and behavior.

For a brief overview, Table 7 illustrates the dimensions of this study:

Table 7: Dimensions of this study (Original).


128

3.1. Applying Yin’s case-study model as the main framework

The design of this case study is based on Yin’s (2003) model of the ‘Case Study Method’.

Figure 22 illustrates Yin’s three main stages: 1) define & design, research purpose, ques-

tions, and theoretical assumptions are defined before the selection of the case, meth-

ods/tools, and data sources, 2) prepare, collect & analyze, tools are piloted and refined

followed by conduct of the main study, collection of data, and data analysis, and finally,

3) analyze & conclude, a four step analysis and comparison of interpretation from inter-

view transcripts that form the primary data source in order to elaborate or expand the

findings from one method of analysis to another.

Figure 22: Yin’s illustration of the Case Study Method (2003).

As Yin states, each case is to be seen as a ‘whole’ study; each case’s conclusions are then

considered to be the information needing replication by other individual cases. Each

case result in a summary report that indicates how and why particular propositions were

or were not demonstrated. This step has not been done in this study. The green dotted

line represents a feedback loop; a situation in which important discovery occurs during

the conduct of one of the individual case studies. Such discovery may lead to reconsider-

ing one or more of the study’s original theoretical propositions, and redesign should, ac-

cording to Yin, take place before proceeding further


129

This study defines the case research approach as a process of inquiry involving the exam-

ination of phenomenon in its natural settings, employing empirical interview data to

gather information from multiple cases. The choice of the case research approach is jus-

tified based on the following considerations of each of Yin’s (2003) conditions:

‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed

o RQ2: How do project managers understand the role of communication in

project management?

o RQ4: How do project managers explain or reveal their use of communica-

tion strategies?

The investigator has little control over projects conducted by the project manag-

er participants

The focus is on contemporary project management communication within the

real-life context of the project managers’ organizational setting and professional

experience

RQ1 and RQ3 are ‘what’ questions with the purpose of mapping salient themes of the

phenomenon ‘project management communication’, and mapping the context framing

the project manager’s communication practices.

3.1.1. Using multiple-case studies to understand the context of project man-

agement - Justification of case research approach

The multiple-case study, a study that contains more than a single case, is used in order

to follow the “replication” logic. According to Yin (2003), this is analogous to that used in

multiple experiments. The aim of this study is to obtain an understanding of the how

and why in connection to project managers’ understanding of communication’s role and

influence in their profession as project managers. The aim is to obtain insight into a gen-

eral view. Therefore, the underlying logic is to select each case so that it can predict

similar results. This is what Yin calls a literal replication. The multiple-case study is used

to investigate and cover contextual conditions because they are pertinent to project

management communication within its real-life context. The purpose of following the

replication logic procedures is to develop a rich theoretical framework. Yin states that

the replication logic of the original findings are considered to be robust and worthy of

continued investigation or interpretation.

3.1.2. Step 1: Define & Design

Yin’s model illustrates the replication approach to multiple case studies. The initial step

in designing the study must consist of theory development. This step also encompasses


130

the case selection and defining specific measures in the design and data collection pro-

cess.

Applying Yin’s case study model as a framework for the high level decision making map

for this research project could be represented as:

Figure 23: Yin’s Case Study Method applied to present study

Figure 23 illustrates the three steps in the methodology of this multi-case research

study. Booth et al (2003) procedure of getting from topic to a focused topic and further

to research question developed the research question and the phases of the study. The

interview guide for the first interview are based on the development of the research

question and theoretical assumptions as presented in the theory of science section 1.5,

page 15. The choices made influence and determine the choice of methods and strate-

gies of analysis. The interview guide for the second round of interviews is defined and

framed by the findings from the first round of interviews.

3.1.2.1. Snowball sampling

The data collection was initiated by sampling via personal networks. This sampling

method is referred to as ‘snowball’ or ‘chain’ sampling. According to Lindlof and Taylor

(2002, 2011), snowball sampling is exclusively used in interview studies. Biernacki and

Waldorf (1981) state that snowball sampling is yielding a study sample through referrals


131

made among people who share or know of others who possess some characteristics that

are of research interest. The method is well-suited to studying social networks, subcul-

tures, or dispersed groups of people who share certain practices or attributes (Lindlof

and Taylor 2002, 2011; Biernacki and Waldorf 1981, Ritchie and Lewis 2003).

Figure 24: Snowball sampling of access to interview participants of current study (Original).

Figure 24 illustrates snowball sampling of referrals to people in this study. It creates an

expanding pool of respondents – a “snowball” growing larger over time (Lindlof and Tay-

lor 2002, 2011). The people marked with pink were merely connecting links and did not

act as interviewees. All people marked with green were participating interviewees. I, the

researcher, am marked with orange.

Chain Noy (2008) argues that when sampling methods are employed in qualitative re-

search, they lead to dynamic moments where unique social knowledge of an interac-

tional quality can be fruitfully generated.

Hence, the subjects for this case study are chosen initially due to their profession but

also as a result of a referral from participating colleagues who are interested in the


132

study, and who thereby refer to relevant other colleagues in their own organization or

connections in their own professional network outside their current organization. (“you

should talk to …., he or she would be interested in participating…”)

3.1.2.2. Dataset

The multiple cases for Company A1, A2, B and C follows what Yin (2003) refers to as the

embedded design that is project management units within, and therefore embedded in,

a larger unit – the company itself. One pitfall, mentioned by Yin, is that when the case

study solely focusses on the sub-unit level, it may fail to return to the larger unit of the

analysis. However, this study aims at focusing on the individual project manager. The

research effort is framed as a case study of “Project managers’ understanding of com-

munication’s role and influence in their profession”. It is highly personalized and based

on the project managers’ personal retrospective reflections on project management ex-

perience. Hence, it is an project manager and communication study from an organiza-

tional communication perspective and not an organizational study.

The interviews are not restricted to only project managers but also include six line man-

agers, two project directors and two ‘expert project managers’. The reason being that it

makes sense to be tentative to how people working with project managers perceive not

only project management communication in general and how it affects their work, but

also to what extent and in what way they pay attention to the way project managers

communicate and act in relation to them as for example line managers and project di-

rectors.

The reason for integrating the two expert project managers is to get a third perspective

on the main salient matters brought up by the other groups of respondents. Their con-

tribution to the understanding of the role of project management communication is

based on many years of experience from working as project managers and from being

project management consultants as well as educators at university level. Thus, it is deep-

ly rooted in reflection and idealistic, at times highly critical and to some degree provoca-

tive and opinionated. Table 8 illustrates the multiple cases that are chosen for this study.


133

Table 8: Data set description for current multiple-case study (Original)

The focus of inquiry is primarily project managers. A total of 17 project managers (where

one is a program manager on a large multiple project program and one is a team project

manager having responsibility for a group of project managers in a unit), 6 line manag-

ers, 2 project directors and 2 expert project managers have been interviewed; a total of

27 individuals. Interviews were conducted twice with approximately one and a half years

in between. Table 9 shows the project managers, project directors and line managers of

inquiry for this study and their job duties, as standard roles, across organizations.


134

Table 9: Objects of inquiry: Project manager, Line managers, Project direction & Expert group and their contribution to this study (Original)

3.1.3. Step 2: Prepare, Collect, Analyze, Collect

The following section describes the process of the research interviews that were con-

ducted twice with an interval of a year and a half.

3.1.3.1. Semi-structured Interviews: ‘Listen in’ to what lies behind the answer

Kvale (1997,15) argues: “If you want to know how people understand their world and

their lives, why not talk to them?” The aim of this study is to understand:

Why do project managers perceive communication to be the most important aspect of


tion actions and communicative behavior?


135

Two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain a deeper under-

standing of the phenomenon of project management communication. The questions

asked are organized according to the four research objectives of the study:

1. Revealing prominent themes of communicative action and considerations emerg-

ing in project managers’ accounts of communication practices

2. Understanding how project managers understand the role of communication in

project management.

3. Define the context framing project managers’ communication practices.

4. Analyze how project managers’ explain or reveal their use of communication

strategies.

Interviews provide answers which are participants’ retrospective reflection, accounts

and explanations of communicative behavior and understandings of the role of commu-

nication.

3.1.3.2. Semi-structured interviews

Two rounds of semi-structured interviews provide initially a general impression of sali-

ent themes concerning the perception of the role of communication in project manage-

ment. The second round builds on the patterns of themes from the first round, and the

questions are designed to explore these themes further. The process of interviewing the

individuals in these groups took several months due to schedule, agenda and logistics

planning. Participants from Organization A were the first to be interviewed, followed by

Organization C and then Organization B (this order only had to do with geographical

placement). Having interviewed all project managers, project directors and line manag-

ers from Organizations A through C, the expert group was interviewed. The purpose of

this interview, based on the same interview-guide, was to get feedback and comments

on what had been learned from interviewing participants from Company A through C.

Semi-structured interviews are more flexible. They serve to ‘listen in’ to the respondents

and to explore what lies behind the answers to the questions asked (Gillham 2005). The

intention with the qualitative research interview is to understand the world from the

point of view of the respondents, to unfold meaning in their retrospective experiences,

reveal the world that they live in, before attempting to provide scientific explanations.

According to Gillham (2005, 70),‘Semi-structured’ interview means:

The same questions are asked of all those involved;


136

The kind and form of questions go through a process of development to ensure

their topic focus;

To ensure equivalent coverage, interviewees are prompted by supplementary

questions if they haven’t spontaneously dealt with one of the sub-areas of inter-

est;

Approximately equivalent interview time is allowed in each case.

Questions are ‘open’ – that is the direction or character of the answer is open

(‘What do you think of…?’; ‘What is your opinion on…?’)

Probes are used according to whether the interviewer judges there is more to be

disclosed at at particular point in the interview.

Research is about discovery and Gillham (2005) describes the preparation stage of re-

search and in particular the exploratory kinds of ‘interviewing’ as the phase where the

researcher needs to develop a naïve eye. However, semi-structured interviewing is not

a preliminary method; it has a developed focus on which it operates with a degree of

precision, which nonetheless produces openness in the level and rage of responses

from the interviewee. The setting of that focus is decided by the researcher. One of the

strengths of the semi-structured interviews is that it facilitates a strong element of dis-

covery, while its structured focus allows an analysis in terms of commonalities (Gillham

2005; pp. 71-72).

3.1.3.3. 1st round of interviews – Key issues

The aim of the first interview is to gain insight about the elements that influence and

shape the respondent’s perception of the role of communication in project manage-

ment. The subjects: 1) Communication in general, 2) Communication networks, 3)

Stakeholders, 4) Power relations, 5) Support from upper management, 6) Alignment

with business goals, 7) Collaboration with communication department, and 8) Definition

of success. The probe-questions are basically the same for all respondents. Minor differ-

ences occur when questions are not directed at project managers, but where the aim is

to obtain knowledge about project managers’ communication behavior and efforts from

the line manager, the project director etc. The first interview guide has eight subjects.

Each subject has between two and six probe-questions.

Expected findings & purpose of subject

Communication in general: The literature review presented how project managers of-

ten are introduced to project communication as something oversimplified and heuristic.


137

Table 10 shows the subject question ‘Communication in general' with the related probe

questions in the guide for the first interview.

Table 10: Subject question 'Communication in general' with probe questions

The purpose of the questions around this subject is to reveal the general attitude to the

elements of communication in project management. How is it perceived, how do project

managers work with it, how does their understanding of communication influence their

profession?

Communication networks: Awareness of the communication networks that the project

manager is consciously or unconsciously engaged in benefits the progress of the conduct

of a project. According to Monge & Contractor (2003), communication networks are pat-

terns of contact that are created by the flow of messages among communicators

through time and space in the organizational setting of project management communi-

cation. Communication networks take many forms: formal versus informal, personal

contact networks, flows of information networks. Monge and Contractor talk about or-

ganizations being embedded in the network of larger social processes. Here, focus is on

the project manager being embedded in larger networks of social processes, networks

intersecting networks, which they influence and which also influence them (Stohl 1995;

Uzzi 1996). Table 11 shows the subject question ‘Communication networks' with the re-

lated probe questions in the guide for the first interview.

Table 11: Subject question 'Communication networks' with probe questions

The purpose of this question is to get insight into the level of awareness of the project

managers’ own communication networks and how, if at all, the patterns of contact in

the networks influence or are actively used to benefit the project managers’ conduct of

projects.


138

Stakeholders: Ever-changing project stakeholders and the diversity of stakeholders af-

fect the conduct of projects in both constructive and challenging ways. What are the

benefits and challenges of diversity? How can project managers turn the challenges of

diversity and elements of ever-changing team members and contexts into positive con-

tributions?

According to Cross and Parker (2004), the network approach provides a way of revealing

key stakeholders in the project manager’s network, and a way of detecting unexpected

communication relations that have no or indirect connection to a given project such as

revealing communication links that are not naturally connected through the project but

are connected through social relationships where colleagues share know-how informal-

ly. Table 12 shows the subject question ‘Stakeholders' with the related probe questions

in the guide for the first interview.

Table 12: Subject question ‘Stakeholders' with probe questions

The purpose of this subject is to analyze the aspect of project stakeholders with the aim

of understanding what role they play at different levels, i.e. in connection to the project,

but also in connection to the project manager. The stakeholder subject is equally con-

nected to the theory of communication networks by Monge and Contractor (2003).

Power relations: Power relations and imbalances occur in project management between

the project managers and stakeholders such as line managers, management, steering

committees, sponsors, clients, project team members etc. Does this effect project

stakeholder commitment, loyalty, sense of responsibility and the like? According to Pin-

to (1996) power and politics play a central role in the successful functioning of project

managers. Social theory such as Burt’s (1995, 2004) theory of structural holes, Granovet-

ter’s (1973, 1985) theory of the strength of weak ties and embeddedness inspire the

questions about the motivation of communicative behavior underlying power relations.

Table 13 shows the subject question ‘Power relations’ with the related probe questions

in the guide for the first interview.

Table 13: Subject question ‘Power relations' with probe questions


139

The purpose of this subject is to obtain an overview of how power relations and politics

influence the communication choices made in project management communication. Is

there a general awareness of how project managers, by making use communication

network(s), can influence consequences of power relations to advance the conduct of

projects?

Support from upper management: Project managers experience less obstacles, re-

striction, drawbacks and dead ends with projects when upper management takes inter-

est and is engaged in the conduct of project management practices. Ashford & Dutton

(1993, 2001) assert that time and attention from upper management is critical but also a

limited resource. Table 14 shows the subject question ‘Support from upper managment’

with the related probe questions in the guide for the first interview.

Table 14: Subject question ‘Support from upper management' with probe questions

The purpose of this subject is to understand how project managers gain and maintain

support from upper level management. How does this support benefit a given project

and how does it benefit the project manager as an individual?

Alignment with business goals: Integrating over-all business strategy and goals in pro-

ject management related communication with for example, the project’s steering com-

mittee, upper management, project sponsors but also project team members, influences

the position of the project manager and the project in prioritizing decision-making situa-

tions, such as choosing one project over another. (Ashford & Dutton 1993; Pinto 1996).

In what ways does the project manager integrate these aspects of alignment in commu-

nication considerations? Table 15 shows the subject question ‘Alignment with business

goals’ with the related probe questions in the guide for the first interview.

Table 15: Subject question ‘Alignment with business goals' with probe questions

The purpose of this subject is to explore whether project managers take into account in

what ways a given project aligns with the overall business strategy and how this may af-

fect their choices of communication.


140

Collaboration with communication department: Companies often have overall commu-

nication policies and strategies in order to align with the company image and goals. Does

this influence project management communication? Does collaboration between the

communication department and project management exist? Table 16 shows the subject

question ‘Collaboration with the communication department’ with the related probe

questions in the guide for the first interview.

Table 16: Subject question ‘Collaboration with the communication department' with probe question

The purpose of this subject is to detect whether any collaboration, any coordinated initi-

atives or procedures, formal or informal, exist between project managers and the com-

pany’s communication department.

Definition of success: Project managers have several, formal and informal, measures of

success for their efforts in their profession. It is not only the restrictions of time, cost,

and resources that define the measurements of success. The performance of the project

manager has influence on the image and the credits given to this individual, on an oper-

ational/professional, as well as on a personal level (Ashford & Dutton 1993; Pinto 1996).

Table 17 shows the subject question ‘Definition of success’ with the related probe ques-

tions in the guide for the first interview.

Table 17: Subject question ‘Definition of success' with probe question

The purpose of this subject is to obtain a more detailed definition of what qualifies as

success criteria in project management and for what reason. What matters for the pro-

ject manager strictly in relation to the project and the organization and what matters on

a personal level? Table 18 shows the purpose and supporting theory of each subject.


141

Table 18: Supporting theory for and purpose of Subjects for interview guide 1


142

3.1.3.4. Interview guide for line managers

The interview guide used for line managers is very similar to the one used for project

managers. Minor differences in perspective and aims exist in some subjects. These dif-

ferent perspectives and aims are selected from the interview guide as a whole and are

separately explained below and illustrated in Table 19

Table 19: Differences in subject perspectives and questions in interview guide for line managers


Communication in general: Line managers are responsible for a department, a unit with

long term goals and operations, whereas a project manager is responsible for a project

with short term and defined start and end dates, and with ever changing project stake-

holders. Key determinants for communication in daily management are: job satisfaction,

security, maintenance and personal development. Whereas key determinants for com-

munication in project management are: action, operations, deadlines, decision-making,

issues handling, consequence analysis and change.

The aim of this subject is to get an understanding of: how the task of daily communica-

tion is perceived by line managers, and what the difference is between a project manag-

er and a line manager in relation to communication – seen from the perspective of the

line manager.


143

Communication networks: Collaboration between line managers and project managers

is affected either in a positive og negative direction depending on whether the line man-

ager is dealing with project managers who use their communication networks deliber-

ately and actively and project managers who do not show this awareness.

The purpose of the subject is to obtain accounts for how the project manager’s network

awareness, or the lack of awareness, influences the collaboration with line managers –

seen from the line manager’s perspective and requirements to run a department.

Resource supply to project managers: Line managers provide resources to various pro-

jects on short and long term projects. Line managers need to collaborate with project

managers and determine how to prioritize what resource is delegated to what project.

Daily operations in the department are affected by having to be without key resources

for periods of time, due to the prioritizing of projects.

The aim of this subject is to detect issues of power imbalances between the line manag-

er and the project manager and issues of loyalty – when resources spend more time in

projects than in the “home” department.

Definition of success (question No 8 in the interview guide): Sharing a common under-

standing of what defines project success from both the perspective of the line manager

as well as from the perspective of the project manager provides a platform for more

open and clear cut communication about project expectations and agreements.

The purpose of this subject is to understand what defines project success for a line man-

ager. How does a project manager’s success with a project influence the line manager’s

role in project management and does it affect the collaboration and communication be-

tween the line manager and the project manager (and maybe even other project stake-

holders).

3.1.3.5. The link between 1st and 2nd round of interviews

The intention of the first round of interviews is to get a general impression of salient

themes concerning the perception of the role of communication in project management.

Transcribing first round interviews to ’listen in’ to the data

Verbatim transcribing all first interviews is done personally as the transcription itself is a

process of interpretation, a process of ‘listening in’ to the data Guillham (2005). All tran-

scription is therefore personal translation. According to Guillham, there are features of

speech which have a more specialized significance, ‘hesitation phenomena’, ‘minutiae of


144

social interaction’ and the like, but these features belong to other areas of research such

as linguistics and ethnomethodology. They are not taken into account in the analysis of

this study.

All transcriptions are marked with for example ‘A2.3’ instead of interviewee names,

date, company A1, A2, B, C or D and indication of interview round (1st or 2nd). It is clearly

indicated when it is the interviewer speaking and when it is the interviewee speaking.

The main questions asked are clearly marked. Punctuation is used in order not to misun-

derstand the intended meaning of what is being said. Time indications are marked for

later reference. An example:

43:10

L: What is your role during a project, what are your primary tasks?

V: I see myself as a facilitator, a communicator and facilitator***. I am convinced that good

project management is essential for whether the project succeeds or not, but I am also

convinced that some projects achieve their goals despite of bad project management. So

depending on what project team members you get, but I am here to remove obstacles on

the road**, I am to keep an eye on the processes and clear the road enabling the others to

do their work, and make sure that the circumstances at all times are allowing them to pro-

ceed with their tasks. To clear the road is also a major communication task, both to the pro-

ject team itself, to the surrounding environment and naturally up to management level. I find

myself spending a lot of time on communication

L: What about the actual planning of the project?

Etc…

3.1.3.6. Thematic network analysis – basic frame for first round of analysis

and used to answer research question 1 and 2

Transcriptions are read through to get an overview of the content and emerging themes.

To obtain this overview, Attride-Stirling’s Thematic network analysis is used as a tool of

organizing. Thematic analyses seek to unearth the themes salient in a text at different

levels, and thematic networks aim to facilitate the structuring and depiction of these

themes. Figure 25 illustrates how thematic network is used to systematize the extraction

of:

I. Lowest-order premises evident in the text (Basic Themes).

II. Categories of basic themes grouped together to summarize more abstract princi-

ples (Organizing Themes).


145

These are represented as web-like maps depicting the salient themes at each levels, and

illustrating the relationships between them. Attride-Stirling makes use of three levels,

however, in this first round of analysis only the first two levels are considered.

Figure 25: Examples of emerging basic themes grouped around second level organizing themes - based on Attride-Stirling’s Thematic network analysis

The organizing themes issue selling, resource acquisition, primary role & tasks, networks

and strategic moves are used as interview subjects for the second round of interviews

and the questions are designed to explore these subjects further. Figure 25 illustrates

examples of the emerging (basic) themes as well as organizing themes (interview sub-

jects) from the first round of interviews, as well as the supporting theory for each sub-

ject.


146

Table 20: Examples of emerging themes from data that makes basis for 2nd round interview subject (Original).


147

3.1.3.7. 2nd round of interviews – Key issues

The purpose of the second interview is to gain further insight into what lies behind the

themes emerging from the answers from the first round of questions. As in the first in-

terview, the subjects and probes are basically the same for all respondents with minor

differences when questions are not directed to project managers. The second interview

guide has five subjects, each with up to six probe-questions.

Subject, probe-questions and purpose is shown in Table 21.

Table 21: Subjects, questions and purpose for interview guide 2, (Original).


Issue selling: In project management, project progress and the project team’s perfor-

mance is the responsibility of project manager. According to Dutton and Ashford (2001)

issue selling is about affecting other’s attention to and understanding of events, devel-

opments and trends that have implications for organizational performance. The project

manager needs to affect the steering committee’s attention to and understanding of

what is required for the project to succeed.


148

The purpose of this subject is to obtain a more nuanced picture of what strategies of

communication and behavior a project manager makes in order to influence decision-

making for the benefit of the project at hand. How does a project manager get the at-

tention of upper management and lead them to take action in challenging situations?

Resource acquisition: It takes more to succeed with obtaining the desired resources for

a project than calculating the needed human and non-human resources. Wysocki (2009)

and Dinsmore and Cabanis-Brewin (2006) state that resources are assets such as people,

equipment, physical facilities, or inventory that have limited availabilities, can be sched-

uled, or can be leased from an outside party. Some are fixed; others are variable only in

the long term. In any case, they are central to the scheduling of project activities and the

orderly completion of the project. ‘Limited availability’ is the key issue. Project managers

need to negotiate with line managers to acquire resources that may not be available as

desired. The project manager may have specific preferences that cannot be accommo-

dated etc.

The purpose of this subject is to reveal how they explain their communication and be-

havioral strategies in connection with acquiring resources and how project managers

handle dissatisfaction with allocated resources.

Primary role and tasks: Project managers are influenced by the textbook understanding

of what role a project manager has as in integrating the activities necessary to develop a

project plan, execute the plan and make changes to the plan in order to convert inputs

(e.g. resources) into outputs of products, services, and ultimately profits (Kerzner, 2009).

The purpose of this subject is to get insight into how project managers perceive their

primary role and their primary tasks as a project manager.

Network: Project managers have different personalities and thereby different styles of

conducting a project, different styles of getting things done. Some are natural network-

ers and others are not. Awareness of one’s own networks and the benefits you are able

to draw from networks make a difference in the choice of communication strategies that

you make use of.

The purpose of this subject is to understand the perception, awareness and use of the

networks that project managers have access to – both networks related directly to a giv-

en project - labeled as the ‘stakeholder analysis’, but also networks related to the pro-

ject manager both in his or her profession, but also on a personal and thereby more so-

cial level – going beyond the conduct of a given project.


149

Strategic moves: Being aware of the influence of consciously chosen communication

and behavioral strategies, project managers enable themselves to affect decision-

making in desired directions for the benefit of their projects and for the benefit of them-

selves as project managers (Dutton & Ashford 1993, 2001).

The purpose of this subject is to get insight into the aspect of awareness of own influ-

ence and thereby practices of behavioral and communication strategies in obtaining

necessary action and decision-making in relation to the conduct of and successful per-

formance of projects.

3.1.3.8. Interview guide for line managers

The second interview guide for line managers is, like the first, very similar to the one

used for project managers, only with minor differences in perspective in some subjects.

These different perspectives and aims are selected from the interview guide as a whole

and are separately explained below and illustrated in Table 22

Table 22: Differences in subject perspectives, questions, and purpose in interview guide 2 for line managers, (Origi-nal).


150


Issue selling: Project managers are consciously or unconsciously aware of how to ap-

proach a line manager in order to obtain desired resources. Project managers who are

aware of their ability to influence, present their arguments for specific needs in a way

that affects the line manager’s attention to and understanding of events, developments

and trends that have implications for what is required for the project to succeed (Dutton

& Ashford 2001).

The purpose of this subject is to understand in what way line managers experience the

project managers’ approach to them when project managers estimate that a given prob-

lem in or with a project needs to be escalated to upper level management for action and

decision-making.

Resource acquisition: Line managers and project managers need to collaborate and ne-

gotiate in order to reach a mutually satisfying agreement on resource allocation. It is in

the line manager’s interest to have a well-functioning collaboration with project manag-

ers for the benefit and development of resources.

The purpose of this subject is to obtain the line manager’s perspective on how project

managers collaborate with them in obtaining desired resources for projects and how

they handle dissatisfaction with resources.

Primary role and tasks: The project manager’s approach and understanding of his or her

primary role and tasks in a project has impact on the collaboration between line manag-

ers and project managers.

The purpose of this subject is to reveal whether the line manager experiences that pro-

ject managers go beyond ‘normal requirements’ and what influence this has to the

working relationship between the project manager and the line managers.

Network: The project managers’ different personalities, different styles of conducting a

project, and different styles of getting things done have an impact on the collaboration

between line managers and project managers.

The purpose of this subject is to reveal the project manager’s awareness of formal and

informal networks and, as a consequence, how the choices of communication strategies

they make use of affect the collaboration with line managers.

Strategic moves: As above, the line manager is influenced by the type of project manag-

er he or she is to collaborate with. For better or for worse, the line manager senses


151

whether they are dealing with a project manager who has consciously chosen communi-

cation and behavioral strategies with the aim of affecting decision-making to benefit

their projects or to benefit themselves as project managers (Dutton & Ashford 1993,

2001).

The purpose of this subject is to get insight into the aspect of awareness of own influ-

ence and thereby practices of behavioral and communication strategies in obtaining

necessary action and decision-making and how this affects the line manager’s percep-

tion of the project manager.

3.1.3.9. Transcription of case interviews

As with the first round of interviews, all are transcribed personally as a process of ‘listen-

ing in’ to the data (Gillham 2005). All transcriptions are marked with for example ‘A2.3’

instead of interviewee names, date, company A1, A2, B, C or D and indication of inter-

view round (1st or 2nd). Please see procedure of transcription for first round of interviews

in section 3.1.3.5, page 143. (Ref: appendix 1 and 2)

3.1.3.10. Computer assisted qualitative Data Analysis: NVivo software - used

to answer research question 2,3 and 4

Following the transcription of all interviews the data were manually analyzed by reading

through, noting down coding themes and comments. At the end of this process it was

decided that it would be necessary to use a software package to assist with many of the

steps required in a qualitative research study due to the volume of data. NVivo was the

software package of choice based on examining alternative software packages and final-

ly due to recommendations from experienced colleagues and due to the fact that there

was asupport service from the university.

NVivo is used with the purpose of increasing the rigor of the study, getting to an accu-

rate and transparent picture of the data as well as providing an audit of the data analysis

process as a whole. However, it is important to stress that the analysis in this study is a

combination of both manual and computer assisted methods. The aim of using a combi-

nation of NVivo and manual analysis is to reduce validity threats. According to Siccama

and Penna (2008) and Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007, 2011), using NVivo provides ana-

lytical techniques that are helpful in getting a deeper understanding of the data. There

are four ways of using NVivo that enables this. These four methods are interrogate in-

terpretations for sound inquiry, and scope date for well-founded analysis.


152

Interrogate interpretations

Interrogate interpretations is a term from the NVivo literature, which refers to establish-

ing a sound and thorough inquiry into the data.

Case nodes:

NVivo has the capability to organize participants/interviewees and data into case files

called case nodes. In this study there are five case nodes: Company A1, company A2,

company B, company C and Company D; each with their respective number of inter-

viewees. Case nodes are used to organize the coding of the cases, where all the data

from one case can be kept (Siccama & Penna, 2008, p. 93)

Attributes:

The attributes: label of company (A1, A2, B, C & D), 1st round of interview, 2nd round of

interview, level of experience of project manager, title of interviewee, gender of inter-

viewee are demographic information about participants/interviewees and can be as-

signed to case nodes. (the aspect of gender is however not taken in to consideration in

this study). Attributes are used for asking comparative questions about the coding rep-

resenting other concepts and categories in a project. With attributes it is possible to

compare and contrast the contents of cases based on the attribute values that is as-

signed to them. By giving the case nodes attributes with assigned values the query tools

of NVivo will be used to create matrices for within case analysis and cross-case analysis

allowing for further interrogation of the data and coding (Siccama & Penna, 2008, p. 94).

Interrogation through coding:

To code using NVivo, nodes for themes within data sources are used to hold relevant

coding references. Nodes are what are used to place meaning on different parts of the

transcription – the text. Nodes in this coding are free nodes that are independent with

no clear logical connection with other nodes and are also organized as tree nodes which

are groupings of nodes that allow for a hierarchical structure, moving from a general

category at the top (parent node) to more specific categories (child nodes) below. The

hierarchical structure of tree nodes allows for organized coding and analysis; shows the

growth of the conceptual framework; and helps from the structure for matrix searches.

Free nodes are used alongside with tree nodes (Siccama & Penna, 2008, p. 94; Welsh,

2002 p.7; Leech & Onwuegbuzie 2011, p. 74).


153

Understanding the data is an issue, and the use of NVivo is not used here as the actual

analysis, but whilst the searching facilities in NVivo can add rigor to the analysis process

by allowing quick and accurate searches of a particular type and can add to the validity

of the results by ensuring that all instances of a particular usage are found, this search-

ing is combined with manual scrutiny techniques so that the data are in fact thoroughly

interrogated.

Scope data – Query function:

Scoping allows for specifying a subset of data to search, then the query tools allow for

specifying what, how and where to search. The query function enables the creation of

matrices for within case analysis and across-case analysis allowing for further interroga-

tion of the data and coding (Siccama & Penna, 2008, p. 97; Welsh, 2002, p.6). For exam-

ple, to answer the question: ‘How do project managers understand the role of commu-

nication in project management?’, a query is done based on the matrix: The code of the

question ‘What does communication mean to you? Why is it important?’ by company

A1, A2, B, C and D. The query enables identifying central themes, comparison of content

and patterns across companies.

Coding

All transcriptions are coded by identifying basic themes. Coding is done across all tran-

scriptions. The determination of what qualifies as a theme is derived from the subjects

of the two interview guides and on salient issues that arise in the transcriptions. The

coding, however, is not limited to the words and aspects used in the questions, but

codes are also defined by the salient issues that emerge. Examples of coding according

to interview question:

Interview subjects - round 1:

1. What is communication?

1.1. What is the difference between a project manager and a line manager?

1.2. Comments on a project manager being globally minded

2. Communication networks – formal and informal

3. Various stakeholders – shifting and challenges of diversity

4. Power relations – influence, imbalance, awareness of effect

5. Support and engagement from upper management levels

6. Definition of success

Interview subjects - round 2:

7. Issue selling

8. Resource acquisition


154

9. Primary role and tasks

10. Network awareness

11. Strategic moves – awareness and use hereof

12. Stakeholder analysis

Examples of coding according to emerged salient issues:

Coding from company A – group 2 (based on first interview):

67. Buy into / willingness to participate

68. Being alone

69. Understanding / No or lack of understanding

70. Responsibility

71. Engagement / Trust

72. Go beyond (my own wording to what is being said)

73. Well-being, comfort, satisfaction of project members / employees

74. Strategy as Practice (dealing with matters, getting their hands dirty)

75. Attitude

76. Forget to / Skip things

77. Transparency

78. Acknowledgment

79. Limitations

80. Personal interest


155

3.1.4. Step 3: Analysis from 4 perspectives: Themes, Perception, Context, &

Relations

Kerzner (2009), Webster & Knutson (2006), Wysocki (2009) define project management

as navigating and conducting a sequence of unique, complex and connected activities

across departments, units, professions, levels of hierarchy, interests etc. In other words:

navigating integrated complex and connected activities across a vast number of very dif-

ferent stakeholders. This definition serves as the point of departure of the analysis

In the analysis the project manager is viewed as an individual, as a project manager for a

given project, with a project team, and as a part of a social system, social networks, and

social structures. The aim of this relational approach is to get an understanding of the

project manager as an individual and the relations in the social system of a project and

the social structures of project management that he or she is part of. The project man-

ager is seen as an actor with influence within a structure that consists of various systems

with which the project manager has contact in the realization of a project. The overall

structure would be the organization and the various systems the units, departments,

groups and teams within the company as well as clients, external suppliers and the like

are stakeholders to the projects.

The analysis consists of four perspectives. The purpose of approaching project manage-

ment communication from four perspectives is to expand the understanding and the

awareness of the communicative situation surrounding the project manager. The com-

municative situation is any project management context that requires some form of

communicative action, awareness, and behavior.

The first analysis ‘Thematic analysis’ answers the first research question: What are the

prominent themes of communicative action and considerations that emerge in project

managers’ accounts for communication practices?

Perspective 1 - Themes: The purpose of this level of analysis is to reveal salient

themes from the full interview transcriptions. This facilitates the structuring and de-

piction of these themes as web-like maps at each level depicting and illustrating the

relationships between them.

The second analysis ‘Perception analysis’ answers the second research question: How do

project managers understand the role of communication in project management?

Perspective 2 - Perception: The purpose of this analysis is to gain insight about how

project managers, when specifically asked about this, understand the role of com-


156

munication and why they apparently perceive it to be the most important aspect of

project management.

The third analysis ‘Context analysis’ answers the third research question: What is the

context situation/framing of project managers’ communication practices?

Perspective 3 - Context: The purpose here is to define and map stakeholders and the

project management context – the setting and situation framing the project man-

agement context. This mapping is done by an eclectic network approach (Fyrand,

2005), using the project management literature and textbook description and defini-

tions of stakeholders and contexts as a point of departure and holding that up

against empirical findings by applying an integrated model of Fyrand’s use of the

egocentric network model and Bronfenbrenner’s four systems model of develop-

ment (1979).

The fourth and final analysis ‘Relational analysis’ answers the fourth question: In what

ways do project managers explain or reveal their use of communication strategies?

Perspective 4 - Relations: The purpose of this analysis is to identify communicative

action and behavior that create connections and meaning in the project manager’s

choice and use of communication strategies. The aim is to gain an understanding of

the relations that occur in the realization of and work with a project.


157

3.2. Strategies of analysis

3.2.1. Vocabulary from the literature review as reference in analyzing the

four research questions

Overall in the aim of answering the four research questions the extracted vocabulary

from the literature review serves as the extended opportunity to analyze, examine, dis-

cuss and understand project management communication, and why project managers

perceive communication to be the most important aspect of project management as

well as what influences their communication choices, communication actions and com-

municative behaviors.

3.2.2. Thematic analysis – answering the first research question

Thematic network analysis is used to detect themes salient in the full transcriptions from

the two rounds of interviews. This analytic tool is used in answering both research ques-

tion 1 and 2. Thematic networks analysis aims to facilitate the structuring and depiction

of these themes. These are then represented as web-like maps. As an example from the

interview transcription, Figure 26 illustrates this extraction of themes:

Figure 26: Thematic network analysis used to systematize into basic, organizing, and global themes (based on At-tride-Stirling 2001)


158

I. Lowest-order premises evident in the text (Basic Themes in light blue): time, limi-

tations, professional focus, honesty, get a feel etc.

II. Categories of basic themes grouped together into organizing themes to summa-

rize more abstract principles (Organizing Themes in olive green): Operational as-

pects, Human Values, ‘Soft disciplines’, Leadership, and ‘Hard disciplines’.

III. Super-ordinate themes (Global themes) encapsulating the principal metaphors in

the text as a whole (Global Themes in dark blue): Human traits & abilities and

Traditional textbook requirements.

This procedure provides a technique for breaking up text, and finding within it explicit

rationalizations and their implicit significance. The thematic networks are not the analy-

sis itself. Once the thematic network is constructed, it will serve as an organizing princi-

ple and an illustrative tool in the presentation of the transcriptions, facilitating disclo-

sure and enhancing understanding for the reader (Attride-Stirling, 2001).

The full process of the analysis consist of three major stages: a) coding the text by iden-

tifying basic themes and constructing the thematic network2, b) exploring the text by

describing and exploring the thematic networks and summarizing these thematic net-

works, and c) integrating the exploration by interpreting the patterns (Attride-Stirling,

2001).

3.2.3. Perception analysis – answering the second research question

First, to answer the second research question, ‘How do project managers understand

the role of communication in project management?’ a query is done in NVivo based on

the matrix coding: Request to examine interviewees’ answer to the question about

communication and why it is important, by individual company. This query enables iden-

tifying central themes, comparison of content and patterns across the companies.

Second, based on the findings a thematic network mapping is done following the same

procedure of structuring and grouping as in the first thematic analysis.

Third, a frequency count is made of the different categories by company and in total in

order to obtain profiles of ‘Communication perception’ of each company. Visualizations

are done in Excel and similarities and contrasts are compared and discussed. The figures

show what themes were mentioned, for example in company A2, ‘motivaiton, engage-

ment, involvement’ is mentioned 3 times, ‘quality of communication is mentioned 2

2 The full description of the process from codes to global themes is found in appendix 4


159

times, but ‘structure, tool, technique, procedure’ is not mentioned, and therefore has no

red line indication. ‘Athority and Power’ is mentioned once, but ‘conflict, expectations,

integrity’ is not mentined, and has no red line indication. Figure 27 shows the example

of company A2’s profile. The red lines indicate whether a theme is mentioned and how

many times. When a theme is not mentioned there is no red line indication. In the below

example it could look like the red lines start from the center going out. This is not the

case. It looks like that because themes around the circle are not mentioned and there-

fore have no indication.

Figure 27: An example of company A2’s 'Communication perception' profile

3.2.4. Context analysis – answering the third research question

To answer the third research question, ‘What is the context framing project managers’

communication practices?’ one query has been done based on the matrix coding:

‘Stakeholders’ by individual company, and another based on the matrix coding: ‘Frame’

by individual company. The queries enable identifying all coded stakeholders mentioned

by the interviewees in each company as well as all sections coded ‘Frame’. The purpose

here is to define and map stakeholders and the project management context. Stake-

holders are mapped according to professional positional level and geographical posi-

tional level in relation to the project.

3.2.4.1. Data analysis

Stakeholders are mapped using the combined model of: categories and benchmarking of

stakeholders, structural and hierarchical levels with Fyrand’s use of the ego network

model and Bronfenbrenner’s model of development (Ref: Figure 18, page 96). The com-

bined model serves to map the interaction, the mutual influence, dependencies, inde-

pendencies, opportunities, and limitations that occur and frames both the project man-

ager and the project situation.


160

Figure 29 shows how the combined model has been integrated into one model that will

serve the purpose of categorizing stakeholders for further analysis. Tuman’s categories

are kept the same, only the parasitic participants have been changed to the category of

‘External/Internal opponents’ as this embraces a wider aspect of opponents that may

exist both externally and internally of an organization. The geographical levels combine

Bronfenbreener’s levels, the structural levels of Prince2 and Connecter, Henderson’s

stakeholder levels and Covey’s levels of control, influence and concern. In addition, the

structural and geographical levels serve as criteria for placing the retrieved stakeholders

in the model according to the following description of the levels:

First level: encompassing the core project level such as the actual project team, or peo-

ple directly passively or actively involved in the project, pertaining to operational task,

performance and delivery.

Second level: encompasses the extended team such as stakeholders connected to the

project as support, administration, legal concerns, leaders, and daily organizational

management influencing or influenced by the project etc. This extended team are often,

but not limited to the internal organizational resources (own or client organization). Re-

sources may also be outsourced or in the profession of consultants.

Third level: pertains to influential stakeholders, with who the project manager rarely or

never engages in the overall corporation, who have overall decision power, for example

Head Quarters in another country, and stakeholders in the local community, where

things and events in the local environment and institutions happen that have influence

on the project manager’s personal and/or professional development.

Fourth level: pertains to stakeholders, situations, and events in the overall society and

political situation, trends, regulations, and traditions.

Stakeholders may be in several categories for example, a special interest group may be

supporters of a project, but may also be against a project. For example the media and

press may have a negative approach and opinion, but may also be of supporting opinion.

Stakeholders may also be placed in different levels such as a client, suppliers, and users,

who can both be within the organization, but can also be external in the local or overall

society. Therefore, some mentioned stakeholders are more “fluid” than others.


161

Figure 28: Tuman categories, Bronfenbrenner system levels, Prince2 and Connector levels, Henderson’s stakeholder levels and Covey’s circles integrated into one stakeholder categorization model

The integrated list of stakeholders that will serve as benchmarking is used as an example

in Figure 29 demonstrating how the model will be used to illustrate the stakeholders by

company from the empirical data. The results from using the model on the benchmark-

ing list show a balanced focus on internal and external stakeholders. No stakeholders are

shown in the internal opponent category within the project. However, these may occur.


162

Figure 29: Integrated benchmarking list of stakeholders placed according to professional and geographical level – balanced internal and external focus.

The context level of analysis aims at getting an understanding of the range of stakehold-

ers that are and can be connected to a project and the project manager in his or her re-

alization of a given project. It also aims at getting an understanding of at which level a

project manager’s communication action is situated. An integrated model of Bron-

fenbrenner’s four system model of development, project management textbooks defini-

tions of who project stakeholders are and Fyrand’s use of the egocentric mapping model

are used to get an overview of where, according to the project plan, the communicative

action is relevant and why. When a project manager talks about challenges in communi-

cative action, the model provides a way of analyzing the arena, the situation of the ac-

tion. Which means of influence is called for in order to advance? The model cannot

however, be seen as isolated systems. The systems are intertwined, interrelated and de-

pendent on each other. According to Bø (1989) the interaction and mutual patterns of

support in the various levels of systems are also influenced by tension and contradicting

aspects of society. The systems are therefore never stable. There is a continuous flow


163

and change over time, reasons for and consequences of the historical process (Fyrand

2005).

To understand the processes and the dynamics that emerge and influence project man-

agement communication, this relational level of analysis goes beyond the stakeholder

analysis and integrates the overall social system, social structure, and relations within

which the project manager operates.

3.2.5. Relational analysis – answering the fourth research question

To answer the fourth research question, ‘In What ways do project managers explain or

reveal their use of communication strategies’ a query has been done on the matrixes of

the coding: request to examine ‘Influence’, ‘Strategic moves’, and ‘Network awareness’

by individual company. The purpose of the Relational level analysis is to get an under-

standing of the project managers’ actual communication interactions and behaviors by

exploring the dynamics of relations that take place within and beyond the project man-

agement textbook defined stakeholder analysis.

This understanding of interrelations between project manager and project stakeholders

is the point of departure for the relational analysis. The context and stakeholders find-

ings for each of the case studies are further explored in order to understand the rela-

tional connections that go beyond the textbook presentation of project stakeholders.

Accounts for relations as well as communicative action connected to the relation are

presented.

The extracted vocabulary from the literature review serves as the extended opportunity

to analyze, examine, discuss and understand project managers’ use of communication

strategies from a relational approach.

Using the query tool in NVivo the search will focus on themes including coding of influ-

ence, strategic moves, and network awareness. This is done across case studies, but also

by individual case study, in order to observe indications of weak ties, structural holes

and embeddedness. This means looking for indicators of:

o Small scale interaction that ties into large scale patterns

o Bridges, indications of ‘the only path between groups’

o Interaction and influence between levels

o Unlikely ties

o Indirect ties

o Local bridges


164

o Strategic role of weak ties

o Manipulation of networks

o Recognition of the value of external information

o Brokers bridging structural holes

o Internal focus creating structural holes

o Individuals awareness of interest between groups

o Transformation of ‘best practice’

o Accounts for and proof of alliances

o Relations affecting knowledge acquisition

This analysis will provide insight into understanding the communicative behavior, ac-

tions, and choices that occur in the context of the situation. It will help clarify the impli-

cations of stakeholder relations in relation to:

A. A given project: what are the direct project management relations, procedures

of communication and transfer of information etc?

B. The project manager in the professional context: indications of behavior, actions

and communicative strategies that enhances the position and goodwill towards

the opportunities for the project manager?

C. The project manager in a personal interest context: indications of behavior, ac-

tions and communicative strategies that benefit the image of and attitude to-

wards the project manager as a person (colleagues, friend, employee, self)?


165

3.3. Summary

Qualitative methodology is chosen for this study because of its appropriateness of

achieving depth of understanding and providing insight into meaning and behavior with-

in social structures. A multiple-case study is perceived as being the most suitable choice

for enquiring knowledge, insight and understanding of what role and function project

management communication has in contemporary project management.

Data is collected by two rounds of semi-structured interviews with project managers,

line managers, project directors and two highly experienced self-employed project man-

agers and educators of project management certifications.

The intention of the first round of interviews is to get a general impression of salient

themes concerning the perception of the role of communication in project management.

The first interview provides insight about the elements that influence and shape the re-

spondent perception of the role of communication in project management.

Transcriptions are read through and a thematic network analysis used as a tool of organ-

izing to get an overview of the content and emerging themes.

The purpose of the second interview is to gain further insight into what lies behind the

themes emerging from the answers from the first round of questions. The questions in

the second interview guide are designed to explore subjects from the first interviews at

a more profound level.

The analysis consists of four perspectives. The purpose of approaching project manage-

ment communication from four perspectives is to expand the understanding and the

awareness of the communicative situation surrounding the project manager. The vo-

cabulary from the literature review serves as the extended opportunity to analyze, ex-

amine, discuss and understand project management communication with the aim of an-

swering the research questions.

The first thematic analysis aims at revealing salient themes from the full interview tran-

scriptions. The second perception analysis aims at gaining insight into how the project

managers’ perceive the role of communication in project management. The third con-

text analysis serves to define and map stakeholders and obtain knowledge about the sit-

uation framing the project management context. The purpose of the fourth relational

analysis is to identify how project managers explain or reveal their use of communica-

tion strategies. The aim is to gain an understanding of the relations that occur in the re-

alization of and work with a project.


166

Introduction to the analyses

The main purpose of this study is to examine why project managers perceive communi-

cation to be the most important aspect of project management and what influences

their communication choices, communication actions and communicative behaviors.

In order to address these aims, four main research questions are used to organize the

discussion of the case studies and their interview data:

RQ 1: What are the prominent themes of communicative action and considerations


To answer the first research question the strategy of analysis is to do a thematic analy-

sis. The purpose of this analysis is to detect salient themes in interviewees’ accounts

from the full transcriptions that is from the two rounds of interviews across interviews

and across interview questions. The thematic analysis aims to facilitate the structuring

and depiction of the themes that constitute the main areas of consideration when inter-

viewees elaborate and reflect on aspects of communication in project management. The

thematic analysis provides an overall mapping. The thematic analysis is not restricted by

questions directly asking about the role of communication as in research question two;

the thematic analysis comprises of all questions and answers connected to the two in-

terview guides.

RQ 2: How do project managers understand the role of communication in project

management?

To answer the second research question a query was done in NVivo based on the matrix

coding: Request to examine interviewees’ answer to the question about communication

and why it is important, by individual company. This query enables identifying central

themes, comparison of content and patterns across the companies. This query likewise

limits the transcription material to only that dealing with this specific question and

based on this a separate thematic network mapping was constructed. The purpose of

this question is to examine how project managers understand the role of communica-

tion in project management based on only this specific question. The underlying purpose

is to enable comparison with the overall mapping from the thematic analysis based on

all questions and answers. It is interesting to see what similarities and differences occur.


167

RQ 3: What is the context situation/framing of project managers’ communication prac-

tices?

To answer the third research question a query was done based on the matrix coding:




here is to define and map stakeholders and the project management context, where the

context is defined the frames within which the project manager works as in working

conditions, procedural and organizational expectations, restrictions, regulations, re-

quirements, and political frames.

Stakeholders are mapped using the combined model of: categories and benchmarking

of stakeholders, structural and hierarchical levels with Fyrand’s use of the ego network

model and Bronfenbrenner’s model of development (Ref: Figure 28 page 161). The

combined model serves to map the interaction, the mutual influence, dependencies, in-

dependencies, opportunities, and limitations that occur and frames both the project


RQ 4: In what ways do project managers explain or reveal their use of communication

strategies?

To answer the fourth research question a query was done on the matrixes of the coding:

request to examine ‘Influence’, ‘Strategic moves’, and ‘Network awareness’ by individual

company. The purpose of the relational analysis is to get an understanding of the project

managers’ actual communication interactions and behaviors by exploring the dynamics

of relations that take place within and beyond the project management textbook de-

fined stakeholder analysis. The relational analysis also aims at demonstrating the com-

plexity but also unfolding some of the reasoning and considerations supporting commu-

nicative actions, behaviors and strategies in a project manager’s communication net-

works.

A metaphor to guide the four analyses

Imagine being at high altitude over the Amazon jungle. From up high, the jungle flora is

seen - all the jungle plant species that make up the jungle. The purpose of the first the-

matic analysis is to demonstrate from up high the prominent themes of communicative

action and the considerations that emerge in project managers’ accounts of communica-

tion practices, creating a picture of what elements project management communication


168

consist of. When asked “What does communication mean to you? – Why is it im-

portant?” the second perception analysis steps closer – zooms in on the actual percep-

tion of communication. Only a smaller part of the overall jungle is in focus. Another step

closer is represented in the third context analysis, where the context framing the project

manager’s communication practices is explored. Who are the stakeholders and what is

the context? The jungle flora is now inspected closer to see what specific species it con-

sists of. And finally, the fourth relational analysis aims at exploring in what ways the pro-

ject managers explain and reveal deliberate or non-deliberate communication behavior,

communicative actions and strategic doing from a relational perspective. Here deep in

the jungle it is not just the flora and the fauna that defines the life, and rhythms of the

jungle but also the relational dependencies, interdependencies and laws.

Figure 30: Using the metaphor of a jungle to guide the logic of the four analyses (Original)

4. Thematic analysis

4.1. Prominent themes of communicative action and consid-

erations in project managers’ accounts of communication

practices

To answers the first research question, ‘What are the prominent themes of communica-

tive action and considerations that emerge in project managers’ accounts for communi-

cation practices?’ a thematic network analysis is used to structure and depict the salient

themes from the full transcription. The thematic analysis shows that the prominent

themes center around three main areas: the personality of the project manager, the

context within which the project manager works and the overall prerequisites for com-

munication that are available to the project manager. The accounts and descriptions dis-

cuss and illustrate aspects influencing, contextualizing, framing and shaping communica-

tive behavior, actions, choices, as well as communicative flexibility and possibilities.

Overall, the interview data can be organized into the following three global thematic

networks:

1. Project manager: Personal characteristics of a project manager based on person-

ality, qualifications, and competencies

2. Context: Overall context descriptions based on context, conditions, frames, limi-

tations, expectations , organizational settings

3. Communication: Characteristics of communication based on organizational

norms, procedures, expectations, and personal preference

4.1.1. Thematic network: ‘Project manager’ - Individual characteristics of a

project manager

The thematic network ‘Project manager’ reveals one of the three main areas of the

overall mapping of what prominent themes constitutes the expanded understanding of

project management communication. This thematic network represents characteristics

of a project manager on the basis of related conceptual correspondence on how a pro-

ject manager is seen as an individual influenced by personal and professional character-

istics. The discussion highlights aspects of, personal character, how he or she acts in the

profession of a project manager, what opportunities of personal and professional devel-

opment, collaboration there are and what will become available along the way, how

does the person act in relation to others, and what is his or her approach and attitude

towards challenges, facts of the project, difficult situations, responsibility of telling

Chapter 4: Thematic analysis

170

things as they are etc. Personal characteristics that have influence on the considerations

and choices of communication behaviors, actions, and strategies.

4.1.1.1. Organizing theme: ‘Personal characteristics’

The organizing theme ‘Personal characteristics’ pertains to the accounts of personal val-

ues and principles. To have integrity, to be empathic, believe in something and fight for

it, being able to step into character as a person and to have an attitude are central and

frequent themes shown in data.

So many things can go wrong, and there is plenty of opportunity to lose your temper and yell

at people, but it is all about maintaining your integrity and being the leader for your people.

Source: D.1.1

The example directs the attention to the personal characteristics of the project manag-

er’s integrity, and the importance of maintaining one’s integrity and not losing your

temper in challenging situations, and to his or her ability to be the leader. This is seen in

Barnard’s (1968) statements about the authority of leadership, where he argues that the

authority of leadership in contrast to the authority of position is about an individual’s

personality and character, like having courage and being able to poise yourself. This and

the next couple of examples can also be viewed in the light of Quinn et al’s (2007) ‘com-

peting value framework’ because the examples show awareness of what role and func-

tion they take on. The above example describes a problematic situation and demon-

strates awareness of what matters is to maintain integrity and be a leader. Referring this

to Quinn et al’s framework, the interviewee is conscious about not taking on a role that

does not fit the situation. The situation calls for the roles of control and monitoring of a

challenge and at the same time the role of a leader, which can be seen as the roles of a

mentor and of a facilitator in Quinn et al’s framework in Figure 20, page 108.

It is about the context and the people that you put into these contexts. Project management

according to textbooks is not what it is about when talking about communication; it is the

people, it is the message, a drive that can fill out the context no matter whether it is a project,

or a company or a business unit. I need to have a group of people to follow me – how do I get

them to do that after having told them what I had to say and I look over my shoulder to see

whether they are following me or not? That is what it is about in project management. It is

more about the person, who stands up and says something.

Source: B.5.1

The example illustrates that it is not enough to know what to communicate to whom;

you also have to know how, and consider the consequences of how you chose to com-


171

municate. What is the personality that fills the context? The context stays the same and

what makes the difference is the person that fills the context and thereby shapes the

context. In addition to relating this to Quinn et al’s (2007) framework, this can also be

seen in relation to Sheard and Kakabadse’s (2006) study on switching leadership roles,

and Belbin’s (1993) observation suggesting that by recognizing the roles of others and by

becoming aware of the range of roles that are available to oneself, people learn to modi-

fy their behavior and take account of the situation.

The following extraction is another example of the person that fills the context:

I mean, we are dealing with people, it is not about systems, it is not about rules, it is about

how we are as human beings, how we are together, how we are together socially …

When the project manager steps into character as a human being that is where you get lead-

ership […]. It is about being in balance, being who you are, and having a strong self-

confidence. It is about everything underneath the surface. It is about who you are as a human

being.

Source: D.1.1.

The two following examples illustrate further the aspect of the project manager as

someone with strong self-confidence, someone with integrity and who dares take on re-

sponsibility and vouch for his or her own actions and decision:

At the end of the day, it is the same thing that comes out of my mouth, the same thing I say.

You have to hold on to your integrity.

Source: B.5.1

[…] to me it is not about power, to me it is about standing up, having a project and taking re-

sponsibility for that project, yes, which does mean that I have power, but I would rather not

look at it that way, I would like to create a sense of authority about me, so that people believe

that what I do, and what I say, and the way I run the project, is the right way.

Source: B.3.2

Being able to step into character, having strong self-confidence, daring to show who you

are, having and being able to maintain integrity, standing up, stepping forward and tak-

ing responsibility shapes the communication of the project manager. According to this

organizing theme, the human aspects of being a project manager, the personality of the

project manager is what determines whether the project manager is able to motivate

stakeholders to do what needs to be done to fulfill the goal of a project. The textbooks

rules and procedures are not enough to make things work, yet the vocabulary and un-

derstanding from the literature on management and leadership contributes to the un-


172

derstanding of the project managers’ reflections and considerations concerning the im-

pact their personal characteristics and awareness of roles has in relation to a project sit-

uation.

4.1.1.2. Organizing theme: ‘Professional characteristics’

The organizing theme ‘Professional characteristics’ pertains to the accounts of profes-

sional skills, roles and competencies related to the job requirements of a project manag-

er. Keeping an overview, making way for the project, ensuring progress, and looking

ahead are some of the aspects extracted from transcript segments. In the following

quote the ideas of ‘drowning’ implies that if the project manager is not able to delegate

tasks and responsibility, he or she will be overloaded with details of the project.

I’m drowning, I’m drowning!! I need someone to take care of all the details. I am so deep into

many details; I need someone to help me with all these details! That is how it is as a project

manager, when you enter a project, then the art is to dive down, which is the easy part to do

– all project managers do that, but then you must be able to grab yourself by the neck and

pull yourself out of all the details, get up and get the overview. That is when I need someone

to take care of the details, so that I can get the overview.

Source: D.1.1

The professional characteristic here is shown in that it is the job of the project manager

to be able to dive into all the details but likewise to get up again and get an overview.

This demonstrates the concept of shifting roles (Quinn et al 2007; Posner 1987; Belbin

1993) and and Furthermore, the statement illustrates that the profession of the project

manager is to be able to delegate tasks to others. But this requires the knowledge of the

details that are to be delegated out to others and the overview as to who to delegate

the details to. This relates to Barnard’s (1968) arguments of that the functions of an ex-

ecutive are to provide systems of communication, promote the securing of essential ef-

forts, and formulate and define purpose. The above example shows a project manager

who, despite drowning in details and tasks, is able to get up and get an overview, which

requires knowledge, skills, and experience. Barnard specifies these personal abilities as

general abilities, particular aptitudes and acquired techniques, including the abilities of:

alertness, comprehensiveness of interests, flexibility, capability of adjustment, which

Barnard considers to be innate characteristics developed through general experience,

and developed by training and education. The next quote also demonstrates this re-

quirement for taking on different roles.

I do a lot of work! It depends on how lucky you are. If you are lucky to get team members who

know what to do, and who don’t need much supervision and instructions about where we are


173

going, how we are going to get there, and why we are doing this, then you can run your pro-

ject in a very relaxed way. However, if you end up in a project with a lot of stakeholders, peo-

ple who are against the project, people who are replaced, scopes that change during the pro-

ject, technical problems etc., then you get busy, because then there is a lot of communication

to handle, a lot of plans that need to be changed, which means a lot of meetings and confer-

ences and so on that need to be facilitated. You need to arrange the meetings and make sure

there is an outcome. You need to make sure people keep to it, and you need to acquire a lot of

new knowledge to be certain that you know what is going on etc.

Source: A.2.2

This example illustrates how different project situations require different approaches

from the project manager because in the first scenario the project manager, according

to Quinn et al’s (2007) competing values framework, takes on the role of a facilitator in

that he or she only has to contribute at a minimum level due to a highly efficient and ef-

fective team. In the second scenario, where things are more chaotic, the project manag-

er takes on a more controlling role and steps into professional character to get things

moving in the right direction because there is a need to monitor and control the process.

When there are no unexpected challenges project management, according to Clegg and

Courpasson(2004), draws on traditions of well-established patterns. It is only when pro-

ject managers are met by challenges and unexpected situations that they become aware

of the need to take on other roles and draw on other personal abilities in the profession

of the project manager.

In the following examples the participants describe and explain what a project manager

is required to do. The examples illustrate situations where everything is working by the

book, but also situations where things take unexpected turns, where unanticipated

changes hit the project and the plans get challenged. The accounts show project manag-

ers’ understanding of expectations in what their job is and what their role is.

It is my experience that, as a project manager, I must work within the frames and work with

people and make sure that they have the right qualifications to be part of the team in order

for them to do their job. However, in doing the actual work, I would say, writing up a disposi-

tion, programming something or training people, I sometimes feel that my influence is limited.

I am standing on the sidelines of the field, observing and giving a bit of direction, but the

game on the field, I don’t feel, I have much influence on that.

I see myself as a facilitator, communicator, and mediator. I am certain that good project

management determines whether a project is successful or not … I am to clear the road for

the project, I am to keep an eye on the process and make way for the team members to do

their jobs and make sure that circumstances are at all times optimal for them to keep going.


174

To clear the road and make way is a large communication task, both to the project team itself

but also for the surroundings and of course for management. I think I use a lot of time on

communication.

Source: A.1.2

I think it is like being a pilot. You have a huge responsibility of getting the project from airport

A to airport B. And it is a responsibility involving a lot of people in the project. They need to

get to the destination. You need to get, with your final product, to the destination at a speci-

fied time, and you are working under a time pressure with a specified amount of energy (fuel).

You have a specified amount of resources at your disposition and you may get into stormy

weather conditions and all of a sudden you have used more fuel than anticipated. So the fact

that you have a deadline, you need to reach a goal, and you have a number of tasks to solve,

and sometimes you experience rather stressing things because things turn out different than

planned. However, when things are running smoothly and you are in control of all the buttons

on the dashboard in front of you, then you may feel that everything is good, but you must at

all times look at the radar and keep an eye on what lies ahead, all the time, all the time, all

the time. … it is your competencies in navigating people in unforeseen situations, I would say.

Source: A2.1.2

Expectations of a project manager shape communicative action in that the defined tasks

and responsibilities frame the context within which the project manager works. Accord-

ing to the organizing theme ‘Professional characteristics’ the expectations of the profes-

sion ‘project manager’ is to keep the overview, clear the road for the people doing the

work of the project requirements, be the facilitator, communicator, mediator for all pro-

ject stakeholders, expect the unexpected and lead your project and your project team to

the designated goal anyway. Barnard’s (1968) arguments of the personal abilities of an

executive and Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) statements that project management

builds on traditions of well-established patterns provide perspectives on the context

shaping the professional characteristics of the project manager.

4.1.1.3. Organizing theme: ‘Personal development and career opportunities’

The organizing theme ‘Personal development and career opportunities’ pertains to the

accounts about how project managers have opportunities for personal career develop-

ment but also accounts of how they play a central role in giving project team members

opportunities for development within the frames of a specific project, which develops

and improves the project management conditions as a whole in the company.

The following accounts illustrate how personal development, learning and opportunities

are perceived as a continuous process. This again can be related to when Barnard (1968)


175

talks about the necessary personal characteristics: loyalty, responsibility and the capaci-

ty to work in the interest of the organization, and the specific personal abilities such as

general abilities, particular aptitudes and acquired techniques developed through train-

ing and education.

I believe it is like with everything else, like when you learn to drive a car. You can sit down and

learn the theory, but you won’t learn to drive the car until you have been behind the wheel for

some years. And that’s how it is. It is the same thing with education and training. You can eas-

ily learn a lot of theory, which is fine, but it will only get really strong when you have a context

to put it into and you have gained experience to build upon it. The same goes for project

management. The more projects, the more variety in the type of projects that you have

worked with, the more you will develop your understanding of the tools, the more you under-

stand the ideas and intentions that the tools originate from and the way that you are to use

them.

Experience means so much … [t]heory is fine, but if you don’t know how to apply it, it is of no

use. Experience is fine, but if you don’t have theory, then you are forced to invent the wheel so

many times during the period of a project and to be honest, there are probably people who

are wiser and more intelligent than you out there, and you might just as well learn from them.

Source: A1.4.1

[…] I have used quite some time on further education and training, where problems concern-

ing projects are discussed. It is often experience with problems in other contexts that people,

from other companies, from other parts of the world and from other professions, discuss and

provide insight about.

Source: A1.2.2

According to the above statements, personal experience is what develops understanding

of tools and theory. However, learning from others is recommended.

The following shows the aspects of collaboration in not only development for the project

manager, but for the whole that is contributing with personal development for the indi-

vidual project team member and taking it as an overall learning experience for the ben-

efit of the project.

You need to have qualified specialized resources, but you also would like to have resources

that you have good experience with from previous projects. However, I also give new re-

sources a chance e.g. a new guy or a new trainee, but then I make sure to double cover my

back. You have a responsibility for development and therefore, you cannot only take in over-

qualified resources. It is important and strategic that you engage someone who has the op-


176

portunity to develop during projects. The idea is to have them develop and gain knowledge

and experience from one project to the next. That way you also get more engaged employees.

Source: C.2.1

… [o]ften, I engage in a dialogue [with the line manager] concerning a competence and the

assignments that are related to a project. I’d rather do that than ask for specific resources.

You can do that in specific situations and also if you are pressed for time, but I don’t think it is

desirable from the perspective of the organization, because then it is always the same who

are called for and the same who are left behind in a corner. We have many examples of situa-

tions, where we did not have enough or just a few specialists with know-how within certain

strategic areas. I believe that I, as a project manager, have a responsibility to make an effort

in expanding our core of specialists, and I would like to make a thorough contribution to that.

I will compromise for the effort of training and educating someone and expanding our base of

know-how to the benefit for the organization. I will gladly make an effort for that.

Source: A1.1.2

Education, experience and learning is described as a continuous process, a mix of theo-

retical knowledge, own experience, and benefitting from the experience of others that

progressively increases the qualifications of a project manager. In addition, the accounts

about personal development also pertain to the context of taking responsibility of and

contributing to organizational development. The accounts explain how this is done by

taking in less qualified resources in projects and training them. The statements reveal

that agreeing to take in less qualified resources is inconvenient at times, however it is

also not optimal to demand only highly qualified and experienced resources, and the

statements show acknowledgement of the compromise of having highly specialized re-

sources be part of training and developing for the less qualified resources. These exam-

ples can be related to Quinn et al’s (2007) framework of competing roles in that despite

the desire to progress with a project and be successful with it, which reflects the values

and roles related to competition, direction, productivity and accomplishment, the pro-

ject manager takes on the collaborating role of a mentor with values of commitment

and morale with the aim of developing human resources (ref: Figure 19: Competing val-

ues framework: Inner part showing the effectiveness criteria and the outer perimeter

showing the eight general value orientations. Based on Quinn, 1988 page 106, and Fig-

ure 20: The competencies and the leadership roles in the competing values framework.

Based on Quinn, 1988 page 108).


177

4.1.1.4. Organizing theme: ‘The networking project manager’

The organizing theme ‘The networking project manager’ pertains to the accounts about

awareness of own networks, access to the networks of others, organizational networks,

the use of, as well as accounts about advantages and disadvantages of formal vs. infor-

mal networks. Additionally, this theme pertains to accounts about the project manager’s

position in relation to others, about how to gain access by influencing the right people,

how to get around issues by considering the right communicative action. Monge and

Contractor’s (2003) discussion on communication networks as being the patterns of con-

tact among communicators through time and space contributes with vocabulary ena-

bling further elaboration and examination of project managers’ communication net-

works that take many forms in contemporary organizations such as personal contact

networks, flows of information within and between groups, strategic alliances among

the project manager and stakeholders. Monge and Contractor likewise contribute with a

vocabulary of the aspect of emergent communication networks that relate to organiza-

tional behavior and formal communication networks that relate to organizational struc-

ture and charts. Freeman (2011) provides vocabulary that enables examination and dis-

cussion of the three levels at which processes used to manage relationships with stake-

holders can be understood. Furthermore, the terminology from Social theories of self-

interest (Burt 1995, 2004; Granovetter 1973, 1985; Uzzi 1996) expands the ability to dis-

cuss and describe the communicative choices and dynamics of behavior between the

project manager and stakeholders in relation to the project manager’s awareness and

use of communication networks such as the opportunities of network holes that people

bridge to gain access, and obtains diverse contacts.

The following illustrate examples of network awareness; using your network(s), being

active in making connections to others, and what it means to be aware of professional

networks:

… nothing gets done if you don’t have the right contacts or networks. It is in this that commu-

nication is extremely important. The Ivory tower – and then down into the fields!

You can train yourself to network, but there will always be some people who are not crazy

about having a lot of informal contacts. They may be able to understand that “If I become

more outgoing, then I will also gain a lot”. You can also learn the hard way, like being relocat-

ed. Then you find out, the hard way that you don’t get anything if you don’t get up and get

talking to people.

Source: A2.1


178

This example reveals that if the project manager wants things to get done then it re-

quires having the right contacts, and you only get to the right contacts by being active,

taking initiative and talking to people. The ‘right’ people are not listed in any guidebook.

The statement reveals awareness of different networks. The statement can both be

linked to the formal and emergent communication networks discussed by Monge and

Contractor (2003) in that it is about an explicit awareness of the many forms of networks

each with various contributions to the situation at hand. The above example can also be

seen as an example of the acknowledgement that patterns of contact change. The ex-

ample describes a person who does not like having a lot of informal contact and who is

at a point where he or she has been relocated. However, the person acknowledges that

he or she has to take initiative to get involved with people, create a network, and create

patterns of contact that will be of benefit to the person on the long run. This brings in

Monge and Contractors argument that communication networks are patterns of contact

among communicators that change through time and space.

Professional networks may differ in character and position according to a given project

as can be seen in the examples below. The example shows how the senior vice president

holds the formal power and the authority to give the green light and to allocate budget

and resources. However the specialist, from who the initiative about the project came

originally, has a very powerful network that according to the account contributes with

more operational value than that from the formal lines and networks of authority:

[o]ften it is people, who maybe neither organizationally or project-wise seem to possess any

means of power position, but who in reality have a lot of influence …

[I] had a project, where the chair of the steering committee was a senior vice president, the

project had been given the green light to start and he was willing to allocate budget and re-

sources etc. It turns out that the project initiative comes from one of the specialist who has

really been enthusiastic about this project. He had been designing, writing, carving, adjusting

and working on this project for a year and a half, from nothing - it was simply his baby - to a

big project. Even though he is three levels beneath the chair of the steering committee, he had

created such a large network in the organization, by working so intensely with this area, by

having been around talking to and asking people about it, and gathering information. It

turned out that his influence was much stronger, operational and useful for the project than

that of the chair of the steering committee. It was a very positive experience because the spe-

cialist’s network was not only a network among people “on the floor”, it was also among

management, and it was very operational. […] But when it came to influence it was very sig-

nificant, how little we used the chair’s help to advance with things and how much we used the

specialist’s.


179

Source: A1.1.2

The example demonstrates that even though there is a high ranking position with formal

power, and this key stakeholder is positive towards the project, what really makes a dif-

ference to the project is the specialist who due to a strong network encapsulating all

levels of the organization, is able to make things happen. The specialists influence was

due to his network. His influence is stronger and more operational because he has con-

tact to the right people, and his network was linked to people on the floor and to man-

agement, and furthermore, it was very operational. The communicative actions that

take place in the communication networks of this example demonstrate the behavior of

bridging communication networks and thereby gaining access as seen in Granovetter’s

(1973;1985) theories of weak ties. The project manager can be seen as the weak tie be-

cause it is not the project manager, but the specialist who has strong ties into required

networks, and it is likewise not the project manager who is aware and takes action to

get connected to these networks. Without the specialist, the bridging would not neces-

sarily have happened, and the bridge between networks may not be maintained or

strengthened after the end of that specific project, which means re-positioning the pro-

ject manager as a weak tie, only now the project manager is aware of these other net-

works.

To summarize, the organizing theme ‘The networking project manager’ covers commu-

nicative action, behavior and strategies related to types of networks, awareness and use

of networks, actions of brokerage and connecting people to obtain for example infor-

mation or access to key people with decision-making power. Furthermore, it covers as-

pects of how and by what means the project manager makes use of communication to

influence and position him or herself in relation to others in order to gain credit and

thereby decrease or prevent issues and conflicts.

4.1.1.5. Organizing theme: ‘Ideal project world vs. Reality’

The organizing theme ‘Ideal project world vs. Reality’ pertains to the accounts about

having the courage to tell the truth about the status of the project, knowing and ac-

knowledging the fundamental facts about the project at the point of departure, and ac-

knowledging own limits as in what the project manager is willing or able or not willing or

able to do. The issues discussed in this theme also include aspects of cowardness that is

how people avoid facing or telling the truth and thereby block the progress of a project.

Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) aspect of calculative control in connection to practices of

administrative accounting systems and calculative instruments contributes with vocabu-


180

lary of procedurally based action and of techniques of monitoring allowing corporate

management to assess actions, critical events, decisions, and reasons behind decisions

based on the search for and assessment of efficiency in managing projects is valuable in

this context of communicating reality versus the ideal project world imagined or ex-

pected by upper level management. In addition Barnard’s talk about personal character-

istics where he mentions that the general abilities include the abilities of: alertness,

comprehensiveness of interests, flexibility, faculty of adjustment, poise and courage,

contributes to the exploration of communicative behavior and strategies. The literature

on issue selling contributes with a vocabulary of influence, persuasion, power, balancing

authority and opportunity, and evoking decision activity. Terminology used by Dutton

and Ashford (1993) in discussions of how a manager or leader must be able to influence

and persuade contributes with a vocabulary of credibility, understanding of the audi-

ence, solid argument, the ability to sell an idea or an issue, and gaining trust that moti-

vates action.

Knowing the project contract, knowing who has internal conflict in the organization,

knowing who the stakeholders are, knowing what is going on and being able to provide

correct information to the steering committee makes up the fundamental pillars on

which a project is built as illustrated in the following extracted segments concerning the

foundation:

… in my opinion, the more clear cut we can communicate to them what it is all about, the

faster we can get them to make the decisions. You must be careful not to present the problem

to them, but make sure to present the solutions to the problem, the possible solutions, in or-

der for them to have something to relate to. It is my view of things that it needs to be very

concrete, when we send something upwards, because they always want to make fast deci-

sion, and to do that they need the right foundation to base the decisions on and we can help

them with that.

Source: C.2.2

The account gives an example of how the project manager has the overview of a given

challenge, a problem that requires attention. The statement demonstrates that the pro-

ject manager is selective in what is presented to the steering committee. He or she

knows that it is not about showing them every detail of the matter, but the details that

they can relate to, the details that influence them into action, motivates them to sup-

port the solution. This example links to the ideas presented in the literature on issue

selling in that the project manager reflects on how to directed communicative actions


181

towards affecting the steering committee’s attention to and understanding of a problem

in order to evoke decision activity.

Another scenario is given in the following account, where the project manager has the

courage to give the necessary information to higher level managers, who are the deci-

sion-making powers, and who must know the actual facts about a given critical situation:

I tell it like it is, I don’t care … This is the way it is. I just tell them that this is reality. Oh, but

they don’t want to accept that. Well, but I can’t make the world turn the other way round. I

wonder if he thinks I can make the world turn the other way round by shouting in my face. I

am professional enough to know that he can shout just as much as he wants to, I don’t care.

Source: D.1.2

It is an example of the necessity of telling the truth to align expectations with reality.

The world looks like this. This is what reality looks like, and somebody must have the courage

to step up and dare tell it like it is.

Source: D.2.2

As can be seen in the last example above, telling the truth about the foundation and

facts of the project requires courage. In relation to daring to communicate the truth, the

two examples can be seen as from Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) aspect of calculative

control in administrative systems of reporting and calculative instruments that monitor

performance, frame project management communication in a way that, according to

Clegg and Courpasson (2004) and Freeman (2011), allow corporate management to as-

sess actions, critical events, decisions, and reasons behind decisions with the aim of im-

proving efficiency. However, in these examples the calculative control is used as a means

of communicating the truth to demonstrate that current decision-making is not in favor

of a project. This is seen in how the project manager communicates reality and thereby

making the consequences visible. This skills of calculation and estimation by formal or-

ganizational procedures relates to Barnard’s (1968) aspects of personal characteristics of

poise and courage and to the communicative competence of persuasion in that accord-

ing to HBS (2005), persuasion is not only a matter of presenting a rational case but also

about presenting information and ideas in ways that appeal to fundamental human

emotions. It is about positioning an idea, approach, or solution in a way that appeals to

others. Hence, the courage and the ability to demonstrate and communicate reality to

key stakeholders of higher influence and authority.


182

The following extract illustrates how courage is more than telling the truth, it can, ac-

cording to this account, also be seen as the art of communicating relevant facts ap-

proached from the right level of interest:

If you think that you can walk in and if you naively believe that everyone thinks that the pro-

ject you are in charge of is fantastic, then you are wrong … You will soon find out that you will

be sent out into the hall ways … It is a problem in the first place to get the chance to talk di-

rectly to upper level management. That is your first challenge. The next step is that you have

to consider very carefully what it is that you expect from this meeting with management,

what it is that you will obtain from it and how you will use the outcome of this meeting. So if

you, I would say, you are playing with fire, when you do something like that. … You risk get-

ting shut out and your project shut down. You risk that they give you huge extra tasks to per-

form on top of your project, because they really didn’t understand what your goal was with

the meeting, because you cannot expect them to have the time to look it over thoroughly.

Maybe it was not such a good idea to have them sit and be operational, so you really have to

be very careful and think things through before you do such a thing. It may ruin your project,

but it may also give it a boost.

Source: A1.2

From the statement is seen that the project manager is called to consider carefully the

goal of a requested meeting with upper level management. The statement also points to

the importance of showing upper management reality from their level of engagement

and consider what relates to their reality and what will make them understand how

their influence can benefit their overall picture and motive to the action needed for the

project to proceed at the operational level. The stakes are high and the project manager

risks ruining his or her project, but it may also inject a boost.

Accounts, such as the next one, demonstrate that daring to tell the truth is about ac-

cepting that sometimes you cannot fulfill listed agreements, but not being honest about

it creates stagnation:

I experience in large projects in the large organizations that the (project) train would slow

down more and more, to be understood in the way that in large projects, one part of the pro-

ject is waiting for a second part to announce that they will not be able to meet their deadline,

because neither can the first. And the second part is waiting for a third part to announce that

they cannot make it to the deadline, so it becomes a limbo of waiting for who will throw the

bomb.

… they don’t dare, they are afraid, don’t have the courage but they are just unlucky and they

have to tell it as it is, that they won’t make the deadline and then Ahhhhh, what a relief! Fi-

nally, someone told the truth. I think it is about the same thing; you don’t always tell it as it is.


183

You don’t need to at all times, there are a lot of details and problems that you don’t have to

talk about, things are not like beads on a string, that is not how the real world functions.

Source: D.2.2

The statement gives an example of how accepting that reality is not like beads on a

string reduces the risk of stagnations. However, being constructive about the truth ena-

bles people to act on it and proceed in some other way..

The organizing theme ‘Ideal project world vs. Reality’ is about going beyond the text-

book ideal version of reality and accepting and expecting the unexpected and ever-

changing context of projects. The theme concerns having the courage to deal with reali-

ty and communicate constructively about obstacles and limitations – as seen in the ac-

counts these obstacles and limitations don’t only relate to the project, but also to the

project manager’s self-acknowledgement.

The final part of this organizing theme is about reflection. Accounts about reflection re-

veal various degrees of intentionality and awareness. This is seen in Tsoukas (2010)

framework that distinguishes between practical coping, which constitutes non-

deliberate action, deliberate coping, based on explicit awareness, and detached coping,

based on thematic awareness. The practical coping can be related to project managers’

communicative behavior that qualitative research methods of observation could reveal.

However, since this research is based on interviewees’ retrospective reflection, aware-

ness about their coping is already created. Paricipating in the interview, their practical

coping is interrupted by ‘interview questions’, and then, Tsoukas argues, that intentional

directedness takes over, and it can take two forms: explicit awareness and thematic

awareness. When the project manager detaches him or herself from a specific practical

situation and stares at it from a reflective distance, aiming to know its properties, then

the project manager develops thematic awareness.

The attitude that reflection accounted for pertains to acknowledging for example the

need to make time for reflection a natural part of the overall project plan, how the re-

quired reporting can be seen as a chance to spend time on reflection and also what

‘time for reflection’ contributes to within the project:

You have to make follow-ups and report, time for reflection. And there isn’t really time for

that. It is reflection that makes the project work. There is a lack of understanding for that kind

of time requirement and therefore, it disappears a little. It is this time that gives something

positive to the project, it provides synergy to the project. When we get to a place where we


184

haven’t been before, and they (management) know that we need to have people with differ-

ent talents to work together, but they forget the time required to get these synergies going…

Source: A2.1.1

The statement reveals that ‘time for reflection’ can be seen as equal to ‘time for com-

munication’ in that, as it was seen in the literature review, communication is the life

blood of projects and what makes the project work. However, the challenge is the lack

of understanding for this priority from management.

Time for reflection is perceived in different ways. The following examples show how it is

seen as the overall exercise that is done in a project to get it going and it is seen more as

the evaluation part.

… but there is almost always time for reflection to the degree that the individual wishes. There

is not automatically scheduled time slots for reflection as part of the plan, when you have ex-

ecuted a project, but time is set aside for evaluation. And nobody forbids anyone to use half a

day, or two half days or three half days to reflect and extract learning from what you have

experienced in a project.

The statement points the attention to two things. The first is that time is not automati-

cally scheduled for reflection. However, there are no rules for not scheduling time for

reflection in the plan. It is up to the individual to do that. As in the next extracted state-

ment the formal requirements of documentation are seen as a burden, however, it is

recognized that being forced to do the documentation contributes with beneficial time

for reflection:

… better follow-ups, more master data, but also with status reporting that has been imple-

mented now as a requirement, so, and it feels a little like Arrrh more excel sheets that I need

to fill out!! But on the other hand it pushes us a little to make sure that things are in order,

because if things are not okay and in order then it is a drag to get things done, and also, it

gives us a fixed time, either every month or every week, where you make time to sit down and

reflect on where we actually are. It is very general like is it green, yellow or green? But where

are we, where should I make an effort, and in that way use the documentation and reporting

requirement as something positive …

Source: A1.1.1

However, as with communication, not being actively aware of it, the time prioritized for

it or the way in which appreciated or the contrary, creates the risk of not getting the

support and understanding concerning how the project and the organization benefits

from the investment in communication and in reflection as can be seen in the following

account:


185

[s]ome managers say ‘Don’t worry about it, let’s move on to the next step!’ Managers who

just want the maximum out of the employees and who don’t use time for reflection! Or ‘why

didn’t I succeed in getting one part of the team with me in contrast to the other part of the

team?’ And ‘what is the reason’… because you cannot set up procedures that ensure success-

ful implementation. … [y]es, you have to challenge yourself, inwards, challenge yourself with

some things.

Source: B.1.2

Reflection cannot be seen as communicative action or behavior directly, but as an activi-

ty that has influence on communicative action, as shown in that the project manager in

the statement reflects on what he or she did, and what went wrong, which can be seen

as explicit awareness and thematic awareness. When the project manager detaches him

or herself from a specific practical situation and stares at it from a reflective distance,

aiming to know its properties, evaluate, learn, and improve, then the project manager

develops thematic awareness.

4.1.1.6. Summary of the thematic network ‘Project manager’

The global theme ‘Project manager’ covers five organizing themes illustrating what, in

relation to the person, the project manager has influence on and what is influenced by

his or her considerations and choices of communication behavior, action and strategies.

The global theme pertains to accounts of personal values and principles: to have integri-

ty, to be empathic, believe in something and fight for it, step into character as a person

and have an attitude, accounts of professional skills, roles and competencies related to

the job requirements such as keeping an overview, making way for the project, ensuring

progress and looking ahead, also having opportunities for personal career development

but it likewise accounts for how project managers play a central role in giving project

team members opportunities for development within the frames of a specific project.

The project managers’ communicative action, behavior and strategies related to types of

networks is reflected in awareness and use of networks, actions of brokerage and con-

necting people to obtain e.g. information or access to key people with decision-making

power.

Finally, the aspect of reflection is not communicative action or behavior directly, but it is

included in this global theme as it is an activity that has influence on the individual pro-

ject manager’s communicative actions and strategies.

Figure 31 visualizes the thematic network ‘Project manager’ that constitutes one the-

matic network comprising five organizing themes and twelve basic themes.


186

Figure 31: The thematic network ‘Project manager’ consisting of five organizing themes and a total of twelve basic themes.

4.1.2. Thematic network: ‘Context’ - Expectations and responsibilities fram-

ing the context

This thematic network represents the context within which the project manager works,

the context that frames the project managers’ considerations and choices of communi-

cation. The expectations from the organization itself, as well as the norms of expecta-

tions from managers, other colleagues and the project manager himself or herself as to

what it means to be a project manager such as job specifications, job requirements, re-

sponsibilities and tasks.

4.1.2.1. Organizing theme: ‘Project management stakeholders’

This organizing theme pertains to the framing of the context in relation to challenges of

the stakeholder analysis, the challenges of dealing with stakeholders, stakeholders re-

lated to the project manager rather than directly to the project and to what role the

steering committee has in setting the context for a project and the project manager. The


187

theme is based on the basic themes: ‘Project stakeholder analysis’, ‘Stakeholder chal-

lenges’, ‘Project manager stakeholder analysis’, and ‘The role of the steering committee’.

Accounts in relation to this organizing theme deal with ‘project management stakehold-

er’, not limited to the discussion about ‘project stakeholders’. Issues discussed both fo-

cus on the stakeholder analysis, take its point of departure in the stakeholder analysis,

but also go beyond doing the stakeholder analysis to the point where it is no longer the

project that plays the central part in the account but the project manager as the central

part. Freeman (2011) provides vocabulary that enables examination and discussion of

the three levels at which we must understand the processes used to manage relation-

ships with stakeholders: first, the rational perspective of who the stakeholders are and

what the perceived stakes are; second, the organizational processes used to either im-

plicitly or explicitly manage the organization’s relationships with its stakeholders, and

whether these processes “fit” with the rational stakeholder map of the organization; and

third, the set of transactions required to judge whether the negotiations “fit” with the

stakeholder map and the organizational processes for stakeholders. This vocabulary can

also be used as a point of reference when processes and transactions with stakeholders

don’t fit.

The stakeholder analysis is a central subject when communication is discussed. Accounts

illustrate that dealing with the stakeholder analysis sets the context for the project man-

ager in ways of the need to consider time pressure, how to approach the analysis, how

often to do the updates, what are the criteria for registering stakeholders, knowledge of

the ideal way of approaching the analysis versus reality of habits (good or bad). Some of

these aspects are expressed the following way:

[i]t is almost impossible because it changes all the time. I mean, it is not that I sit around and

do updates all the time. But there is always something in question and when we talk to some

stakeholders we find out that there are others that we need to involve in the project, so, yes

we do the stakeholder analysis to begin with, but after that it is a question of keeping it

mapped, keep it updated, keep the organization updated about who are stakeholders. …

Some stakeholder who was just marked as a reference before, we may need to get active with

etc.

Source: A1.3.2

[t]here are some things that you cannot prepare for, and therefore the stakeholder analysis

can’t help you here either. You can say that a stakeholder analysis is not interesting in itself.

What is interesting is how you use it; whether you are to transfer it to a risk analysis, or to a

communication plan. Something has to happen to the stakeholder analysis before it is useful


188

for anything. Only noting down what kind of people are in and around your project won’t in

itself do you any good. It is a piece of prep work and you need to find out: what kind of land-

scape am I in? But if you don’t get it over into a risk analysis with a clear plan of action in case

there is a person who is a huge opponent of the project, that’s a big risk for the project, what

are you going to do about that? It cannot stand alone. On the other hand there are also prob-

lems that you cannot prepare for. You cannot prepare for the software platform, you have

chosen for your project, doesn’t fulfill the requirements promised by the sales person. That’s a

game changer!

Source: A1.2.2

The above examples of acknowledging the stakeholder analysis as a useful tool, but a

tool that cannot be on its own. It is a tool that the project manager needs to work with

continuously to benefit from it. However, the conditions for the project are not often

ideal like in the textbooks, and this is therefore what sets the context for the project

manager’s reality as seen in the following example: Time constraints, the project man-

ager does not have the necessary time to do things by the book:

I think, had I known about these people and their influence etc. etc. on paper at an early

stage, I think we could have used them from the start. Whereas now it became more of a

need to know basis and when we need a problem solved and it all came along the way,… but

it doesn’t take long before you find out how things are connected and then you start to ask

around, who else could we get help from. But yes, I firmly believe that it is an advantage to

know from the start, but one must also say that under time pressure, which is often the case

for our projects, especially at the start – just get on with it!, then you don’t use enough time

to think about the things you don’t know, if you know what I mean.

Source: A1.1.2

This example shows the dilemma between accepting the stakeholder analysis as a valu-

able tool but at the same time sees it as a time consuming burden. This example can be

linked to Freeman’s (2011) argument that organizations have processes, routine applica-

tions of procedures and policies, managers invent processes to accomplish routine tasks

and to routinize complex tasks such as the stakeholder analysis. To understand how they

manage stakeholder relationships, Freeman argues that the organizational processes are

used to achieve balance between the rational stakeholder map, the emerging networks

of stakeholders, organizational processes for stakeholders, and the set of transactions

among the organization and its stakeholders. This is also seen in Clegg and Courpasson’s

(2004) statement that projects are usually not contained wholly within bureaucratic cor-

porate hierarchies, that they occur outside the formal structuring of organizations, and

that they often involve the coordination of complex networks and intra-organizational


189

relations. Therefore, the distinct experience of complexity in relation to the stakeholder

analysis can be explained by this imbalance between formal organizational procedures

and well-established processes and the coordination of complex networks and intra-

organizational relations with the consequence of projects not being wholly contained

within bureaucratic organizational hierarchies.

The project manager and the team create a risk analysis and a communication plan ac-

cording to the project stakeholder analysis. There are stakeholders who are the informal

ones that do not get to enter the stakeholder analysis but who nevertheless have an es-

sential part in getting the project going:

If you want something done in operations, then you naturally try out the contacts that you

have in order to push around priorities. … and you don’t bring that up, they don’t want to

hear about how your network of contacts is out in the organization, so you use your network

and try to obtain the required results, in order to avoid having to escalate a problem to the

steering committee, asking for more time or money, or what it is that is required.

Source: A1.2.2

The statement illustrates the unofficial acknowledgment of the informal non-registered

project stakeholders. Handling stakeholders may pertain to individuals who are not con-

nected to the project. Some of the above examples show how informal contacts are

used to get through with something; Contacts that are not registered in the project’s

stakeholder analysis but nevertheless are important people with influence.

Accounts reveal that project managers deal with, are helped by, get through with things,

improve their position and image through connections and relations that pertain to

stakeholders beyond the project, encouraging project managers to be aware of their

personal stakeholder analysis:

… It is kind of a reference group that you use to get good advice and the like, so they have a

bit of another role than the stakeholder analysis. … You could say that it is a separate stake-

holder analysis because it is not very interesting for other participants, right? It is mostly for

me, it can be a drawer that I have, and you could make it just to be aware of whom you could

use at some point.

Source1: C.3.2

… If you have a network of colleagues, or project managers, or you have some specialists that

you know you can get to help you out if need be, well that is not enough to get them regis-

tered in the stakeholder analysis, what relations you work on and maintain on a personal level

at lunch or by the coffee machine, that is not enough, you can’t just write you network into


190

the stakeholder analysis. Hey it would be huge and it would be professionalized at a level,

where it does not fit because it is your informal network.

Source: A1.2.2

Stakeholders, I see them as someone, who you either engage in your project, or someone you

must tend to because they are against your project, or something. […] The other network, it is

kind of like a reference network, a network you can use if you need advice and things like that,

so stakeholders in that network have another role that those in the stakeholder analysis.

Source: C.4.2

These three examples show a distinction between the project related stakeholder analy-

sis and the project manager related stakeholder analysis. The latter is a stakeholder

analysis that has no relevance for other participants. One is not more valuable than the

other, and often they overlap. Stakeholders from the project manager’s informal net-

work may move into the project related stakeholder analysis. Considering them from a

theme perspective they differ also in relation to duration of time. The project stakehold-

ers are relevant to a given project within a certain period of time, on a short term basis.

Whereas the project manager related stakeholders are relevant at all times, and are

therefore to be considered on a long term basis. Apart from viewing these two stake-

holder analyses from the acknowledgement of complex networks and intra-

organizational relations, the theories of structural holes (Burt 1995, 2004) and weak ties

(Granovetter 1973, 1985) also contribute to the understanding of those stakeholders

related to the project and those related to the project manager, in that the mentioned

‘reference network’ can be seen as an attempt by the project manager to bridge holes

with the aim of gaining access to opportunities that are not directly linked to a project,

but to the project manager’s ability to develop skills and competences for personal de-

velopment.

The steering committee is the project manager’s support and means of decision-power.

It is members of the steering committee who have the direct connections to upper level

management, both formally and informally. The steering committee has a role similar to

that of a project manager in the project.

Collaboration with the steering committee is, to me, very important. They are to ensure that I

reach the goals with these things and in addition, it is with them that I have agreements

about what the expectations concerning the goal are. Therefore, my success is subjectively

dependent on how they perceive the project.

So yes, they are a very important point of focus for me. Primarily, they serve to prepare the

ground, that is making sure to remove obstacles in their individual departments and ensure to


191

make their own needs known, in order for us to be aligned across departments, so that no one

can approach you afterwards claiming: you should have done this and that – well they can do

so, but it is not with me you should discuss this, this is anchored all the up in your own top

management.

Source: A1.4.1

The project manager is to remove obstacles in order for the project members to be able

to do their job with the project. The steering committee members are to remove obsta-

cles to enable the project manager to proceed and reach the set goals. However, it is the

project manager who sets the agenda for the collaboration between the steering com-

mittee and the project manager:

It is the responsibility of the individual project [manager] to make the expectations clear cut

(towards the steering committee) because there is no such thing as a ‘Steering committee

training course’.

So again, it is the project manager who issues the directive for the steering committee: what

are they to do, how they should function, how often must they meet, who is to manage them,

how should the steering committee meetings be facilitated. … I am not interested in an open

discussion about something irrelevant.

Source: A1.4.1.

These two accounts can likewise be seen in relation Freeman’s (2011) discussion of the

three levels at which organizational processes used to manage relationships with stake-

holders can be understood in that first, the project manager considers the rational per-

spective of who the steering committee consist of and what the perceived stakes in rela-

tion to them; second, the project manager abides by expected organizational processes

to manage and collaborate with the steering committee, and as the statements show

there is not a match and therefore the project manager takes on the responsibility of

setting the agenda for the expectations for the steering committee in order to create

this match. In Freeman’s terminology the project manager negotiates the “fit” with the

stakeholder map and the organizational processes for stakeholders.

The organizing theme ‘Project management stakeholders’ pertains to elements in han-

dling stakeholders, not to who they are or where they are to be found, but extracted

segments discuss issues such as how the project’s stakeholder analysis is used and the

challenges connected to it, how challenges with stakeholders are handled, how stake-

holders relate not to the project but to the project manager and indirectly have influ-

ence on the project, both current and future projects and finally, issues about the role of

the steering committee and how to approach the committee members individually and


192

as group to get things through and to initiate action to the benefit of both the project

and the project manager.

4.1.2.2. Organizing theme: ‘Ideal project world vs. Reality’

This organizing theme is part of both the global theme ‘Project manager’ and this global

theme ‘Context’. Therefore, please refer to where it is introduced under the global

theme ‘Project manager’ section 4.1.1 start page 169. The perception of the ideal world

vs. reality determines the expectations and thereby the context for the project and the

project manager.

4.1.2.3. Organizing theme: ‘Job requirements’

If everything goes by the book, works smoothly like in the ideal world, then the project

manager can lean back and relax, just keeping an eye on the radar. The project manager

really doesn’t need to do anything him or herself. This is the perception presented in the

below statement:

… I am the glue that makes everything join. … I need to be the hub from where all the spokes

depart. In reality, I don’t have to do anything. If I am doing nothing, then everything is going

well, but the hub has to be there, I am the spider in the web …

Source: C.4.2.

If everything goes as it is supposed to, according to the plan, then, according to the

above citation, the project manager only has to be there, but not do anything.

Statements related to this organizing theme demonstrate the technical and the sociocul-

tural dimension of the project management process in that they reveal both the task re-

lated technicalities of reporting, delegating tasks, make everything join, keeps the over-

view and make adjustments, and the sociocultural side of being the glue and working

with people. The technical perspective is reflected in Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) as-

pect of calculative control in connection to practices of administrative accounting sys-

tems and calculative instruments contributes with vocabulary of procedurally based ac-

tion and of techniques of monitoring. Furthermore, the technical perspective is seen in

parts of Quinn’s (2007) vocabulary of management roles, taking account of a situation

by recognizing the roles of others and by becoming aware of the range of roles such as:

collaborative, creative, competitive, controlling that are available to one the project

manager in relation to the technical perspective, but also in relation to the sociocultural

perspective.This is where Quinn et al’s argument of the opposites being able to mutually

exist helps enlighten the dimensional duality and thereby the complexity of the project


193

manager’s job requirements and expectations. The sociocultural dimensional explora-

tion of the job and role requirements can draw from Posner’s (1987) presentation of

personal characteristics such as: aggressiveness, confidence, poise, decisiveness, resolu-

tion, entrepreneurship, toughness, integrity, versatility, multi-disciplinary, and quick

thinking – characteristics that, according to Posner, are necessary to manage a project.

Furthermore the sociocultural perspective can be seen in the light of Belbin’s (1993) ob-

servation suggesting that by recognizing the roles of others and by becoming aware of

the range of roles that are available to oneself, people learn to modify their behavior

and take account of the situation.

Metaphors are used by interviewees when asked what profession they would compare

the profession of a project manager to, emphasizing this aspect as illustrated in the fol-

lowing extracts:

Movie director: … The movie director sits in his chair during shootings, while people run

around him working. That’s a good picture too. It is not that he isn’t doing anything – there

has to be someone to keep the overview and to make adjustments.

Source: C.3.2.

A football coach … there is the project team that he tries to work with, try to get ready for the

assignment at hand, but in the process itself he has very little influence, and that is my experi-

ence too. I, as a project manager, I can work a lot with the frames, work with the people and

make sure that the right prerequisites are present for them to do their job, but the actual do-

ing of the job, I would say, … there my influence is limited, I can just stand at the side line and

watch and manage a bit, but the game in the field, … I don’t think that I have direct influence

on that.

Source:A1.1.2

These accounts show that if there are no obstacles the job of the project manager is to

sit back and keep an eye on the game. Every line manager was asked how they per-

ceived the role of the project manager. This perspective is explored to get an insight

about the expectations to the profession of the project manager other from that which

the project managers have themselves.

It is the project manager’s responsibility, 100%, to follow up on the project, within the frames

of the project, and of course bring up problems, if there are problems, and then I will of course

do what I can to help.

Source: B.6.2


194

… In a traditional project, it is the role of the project manager to take over from Sales; then he

is to make a project plan that is to be staffed with resources. So his role is to look at what

competencies are required, and then have a dialogue with the resource managers about what

people possess these competencies. Then he is to delegate the tasks and follow up on them to

make sure that they are executed and that they reach the goal and finally, evaluate the pro-

ject. That is his role.

With longer projects, they [project managers] make sure to build up a team and team spirit in

the project in order to get a smoother process and a higher productivity, make sure that they

feel that they are working towards a common goal, and I have always thought that it is really

fine that they do this.

Source: B.6.2

I see the communication task very much as communicating instruction, plans and agree-

ments. To us it has to do with the deliveries to our customers, and in connection to that it is

very important to be clear on what our responsibility is and what is not our responsibility.

Source: C.1.1

From the above extracted statements the list of expectations are as follows: 1)Take over

from Sales, 2)Make a plan, 3)Staff the project with qualified resources, 4)Be 100% re-

sponsible for following up on the project tasks, 5) Bring up problems, 6)Have the over-

view, also the economic overview, 7) Build up a team, 8)Create team spirit,

9)Communicate instructions, plans, agreements, responsibilities and the customer’s ex-

pectations, 10)Be in control of facts, and 11)Evaluate the project. Associations to a

checklist are not far away. Nor is the thought that stakeholders working with project

managers have a technical dimension approach to what they expect of the profession

‘Project manager’, reflected in Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) aspect of calculative con-

trol in connection to practices of administrative accounting systems and calculative in-

struments contributes with vocabulary of procedurally based action and of techniques of

monitoring.

However, the following accounts show a more complex picture of the tasks and respon-

sibilities expected of the project manager, illustrating that there are other requirements

connected to the job context:

I believe my primary role must be to clear the road for the project, be able to ensure progress

and look ahead.

Source: A1.3.2


195

… get a team to function as a high performance team

Source: A1.2.2

Satisfied customers means a lot … At some point there was a product, where we had trouble,

and I experienced that I had to use a lot of effort to get the attention of upper level manage-

ment, but it was my job to do so … If there is a problem, then it is also my job to be able to es-

calate it and keep holding on.

Source: C.5.1

[…] It is very much about structuring, writing it down, so that he could see that someone took

on responsibility.

Yes, it is the most important, it is the law, it is the bible. Read the contract and understand it,

ask questions about it and by doing that you find out which of the other managers have read

it. Who knows anything? ..] Find out, what you are to deliver. Then it is about communicating,

make a construction, make a plan, a tactic, a strategy for what it is you want. …But first an-

nounce: now we are going to do this, and this, and we will make this, and we will go in that

direction according to the strategy and this and that, and do it in a way that enables you to

obtain some quick successes.

Clearing the road, ensuring progress, looking ahead, get at team to function as a high

performance team, escalate problems and holding on, creating structure, taking on re-

sponsibility, read the contract, find out who knows what, make sure you know what you

are expected to deliver, communicate what is to be done and do it in small steps to ob-

tain quick successes; these statements show a context of requirements that go beyond

the checklists of assumed project manager tasks.

What is expected from the project manager by the organization and what is expected

from the project managers themselves is shown in their descriptions of what profession

they would compare to project management. Two have already been presented: the

‘Football coach’ on page 193, the ‘pilot’ on page 174 and the ‘Movie director’ on page

193.

… I would say, you are a bit like a CEO, who wants to get a company up and running. What

you do is, you get the company established, you make sure that it is running, and you make

sure that it delivers the expected output and then you close it down again. In relation to pro-

ject work, that is actually what happens, you run a whole little company that is to balance in

itself and function.

Source: A1.2.1


196

It is like saddling a wild horse …

Source: B.7.1

Pastor that was right. I have a firm belief in how to get a project running, and how easy it is to

get it running, if only everyone adheres to the rules of the game and we actually get them

written down. And I try that in a project. I try to get away with doing nothing other than this

very extensive stakeholder analysis. Then I just need to have everyone else accept it and they

sit attending these meetings, not in church but in these meeting rooms.

I then present my vision of what it is we are to produce, what it requires, what we are to do,

how we are going to make it function – very well aware that there are those sitting out there,

who may agree with what I am saying, but they don’t get around to doing it. And when we

meet again the following week, then I don’t punish them, then I have yet another explanation

of why we should do it this way …

… I have a very clear idea of what I must do and I will happily preach it. That is no problem.

And those who listen carefully, they often agree, however they don’t do exactly what we

agreed upon. They may have the best intentions about it, but it doesn’t get done. And the fol-

lowing week, there I am again preaching again and I never get tired of it, and they sit there

and they probably with a little bad conscious because they hear what I say and they agree,

but they don’t get it done. … Then they promise improvement, and say from now on we will

do it etc.

Source: C.4.2

The accounts demonstrate that the requirements and expectations of the profession of

a project manager are that the project manager has something to deliver, get from A to

B, deliver, but he or she is not in charge of and has little influence on the actual opera-

tional work, sitting in the chair, standing on the side line, have little influence, the pro-

ject manager is in command of people, work with a lot of people, has staff, involving a

lot of people, navigating people , who he or she is to motivate to do the job guided by

the project manger’s firm belief in how to do it, have everyone accept it, present my vi-

sion, get them ready for the assignment based on the conditions framing the mission the

right prerequisites are present for them to do their job, work a lot with the frames, time

pressure, specified amount of resources; conditions that are subject to change and un-

foreseen challenges, stormy weather conditions, unforeseen situations, work with prima

donnas, flexible towards changes.

The organizing theme ‘Job requirements’ pertains to accounts of expectations about the

tasks, roles and responsibilities related to the profession of a project manager.


197

Data shows that there is a distinct balance between on the one hand responsibilities and

tasks in documentation, reporting, following procedures and on the other hand taking

on a leadership role of being the facilitator, the mediator and communicator; being the

one who’s job it is to make way for the team to perform, motivate and encourage peo-

ple to want to be part of the team and reach the goal etc. Project management stake-

holders are a very central part of determining the context for the project and the project

manager as a lot of consideration of communication choices and strategies require: un-

derstanding, accepting, accommodating and negotiating stakeholders’ perceptions of

what is realistic and what is not realistic in relation to what the stakeholder has invested

in the project (economic means, time, work effort etc.)

4.1.2.4. Summary of The thematic network ‘Context’

The context network pertains to issues such as how the projects stakeholder analysis is

used and the challenges connected to it, and how some stakeholders relate not to the

project but to the project manager. The role of steering committee and how to approach

the committee members to get things through and to initiate action make up an aspect

of this network. Data shows a distinct balance between on the one hand responsibilities

and tasks in documentation, reporting, following procedures and on the other hand tak-

ing on various leadership roles. It is seen that project management stakeholders are a

very central part of determining the context for the project and the project manager, as

a lot of consideration and strategies is require in understanding, accepting, accommo-

dating and negotiating stakeholders’ perception of what is realistic and what is not real-

istic. Figure 32 visualizes the thematic network ‘Context’ with one thematic network

comprising three organizing themes and 11 basic themes.


198

Figure 32: The thematic network ‘Context’ consisting of three organizing themes and a total of eleven basic themes.

4.1.3. Thematic Network: ‘Communication'

Interviewee accounts from the transcripts demonstrate how communication is discussed

from several perspectives such as: how interviewees perceive communication in the pro-

fession of a project manager, reflections on challenges concerning communication, how

communication contributes to the progress of a project and how communication con-

tributes when considered as a formal tool and when it is based on an informal personal

act of communicating. A short reminder: this thematic network ‘Communication’ is

based on coding across all transcriptions and not only to data coded with the question

on how communication is perceived as in the separate analysis on this subject.


199

4.1.3.1. Organizing theme: ‘The role and function of communication’

The organizing theme ‘The role and function of communication’ pertains to issues deal-

ing with the understanding of the different roles communication may have in a project,

such as formal vs. informal, aspects of being clear and precise, and estimating time as-

pects in choosing one communication strategy over another.

This interviewee perceives communication as something natural, as something that “we

humans do”, not as a tool that is to be used now and then.

The following examples show how communication is part of every step of the project:

Communication starts day 1, identification process, it doesn’t dip, it increases. The project is

now planned, all has been agreed, and now you execute a plan. You can’t execute a plan

without communication. There is a lot of Q&A, meetings have to be arranged to communicate

change. Communication escalates. Lessons are learned and extra knowledge to change the

plan. Once you get to the goal, communication does not stop. You go into the post project and

you evaluate and review, to use the knowledge for a lesson learned report for future reference

etc. Communication is what we humans do.

Source: A2.4.1

The account illustrates how they perceive the role and function of communication as

something that starts from the very beginning and is ever present, communication is

necessary for every part of the project, you cannot do anything without communication

and it escalates, it does not stop.

The following account shows agreement in saying that communication is “360 degrees”.

It is 360 degrees…. Communication is something that project managers spend a lot of time on,

and it is important that it is done in the right manner no matter what form it takes. And I also

believe that communication is a means of shaping and leading the individual project manager

to success. They communicate at the right time but also to the right colleagues in the right

way. You always have time for communication. A message can be communicated in many

ways. Work with or work against with communication and get the best out of it.

Source: B.2.1

The above quote also points to how it is acknowledged that communication is some-

thing that is to be considered carefully as it can be done in many ways, done wrong it

can work against you, but done right, it works with you. Project managers spend a lot of

time on communication, and therefore, according to the statement, it is important that


200

it is done right. Communication is seen as a means for the individual project manager to

obtain success.

Furthermore, this organizing theme pertains to accounts discussing the advantages and

disadvantages between formal and informal communication.

I do, it happens during the project, formal feedback about the individual’s performance and

especially now, where things have been put into system … But I also give feedback, when I

meet the person by the coffee machine or somewhere else, in the canteen, just for a short

briefing on good and bad, and a ‘thank you for your help’, in case he or she has recently done

something to help me move on with something.

Source: A1.1.2

Interviewees acknowledge the benefits of both; how individual formal feedback is re-

quired and that procedures and systems exist for this, but how informal feedback ena-

bles more informal briefing on good and bad as well as communicating personal appre-

ciation. Interviewees’ accounts about formal and informal communication reveal a con-

tinuous balancing between the two and a very clear distinction between when which of

them serves the purpose.

…but when we have the project plan it is okay that it becomes more dictatorial, but I don’t see

any problem in doing so and still keep a good tone etc. … You have to stick to the documents

and be careful about being too informal. The informal won’t do, not having a plan then things

will fall apart. It won’t work the dependencies that exist will fail. If you are not in control,

things will go wrong. The systematic planning is a necessity.

Source2: C.3.1

The example demonstrates that the project manager must be careful with informal ways

of communicating, and it is to be avoided because without formal communication in

place and planning systematically dependencies will fail.

Several instances show how this balance between formal and informal communication

relies on an estimation of how well the project manager knows for example a manager.

Well, it is always a bit different, if you know the person, I always try to think about “Okay, is

the person fast in reading his mail and answering?” If he is not, then I prefer to make a phone

call or call in for a meeting or if you happen to be in the same building, then just stop by.

Check his calendar and check out if he is in his office and have a personal talk with him. I

mean, there is almost always some kind of time pressure involved. It is rare that we can give

things two weeks. But I try, I guess I use the informal ways a lot, also because in my opinion a

lot of energy is used on the formal way without really getting anything done about the actual


201

problem. It all becomes a matter of placing responsibility and covering your own back etc.

Which is of course also important in its own way, but it doesn’t always create value.

Source: A1.1.2

The example demonstrates the benefit of knowing someone’s habits and preferences.

Estimation of what serves the purpose best and what creates value for the organization

often relate to accounts about communicating in a clear and precise manner. There is a

strong relation between aspects of clear communication, communicating expectations

and agreeing on expectations and getting the required resources assigned as shown in

the following extracted statement:

Well, I may choose to take on the project, say yes to it even though it looks hopeless, but then

I want it to be very clear beforehand that it looks hopeless. Then I want clear-cut lines about

what it is I am agreeing to, and of course I want the time required to get the job done.

Source: A1.4.1

The example demonstrates the emphasis on resources not only being a question of hu-

man resources but also time resources.

As demonstrated, the organizing theme ‘The role and function of communication’ en-

compass accounts of perceptions of communication ranging from communication is ever

present, something that we humans just do, to accounts of awareness about how com-

munication is a means of shaping and leading to success, and further to accounts draw-

ing the attention to pitfalls in both formal and informal communication such as aspects

of time, agreements, and to what degree the project manager knows the person he or

she is communicating with.

4.1.3.2. Organizing theme: ‘Project documentation & formal reporting ’

As an expansion of the organizing theme above, extracts from interview transcriptions

further demonstrate the dominance of documentation and formal reporting in a project

managers’ ways of communicating. Project documentation and formal reporting are dis-

cussed as both chosen strategies of communication as well as required means of com-

munication related to formal communication procedures. This organizing theme covers

issues discussed such as: the purpose of documentation, the role of documentation in

relation to personal communication, and the lack of understanding of the need for doc-

umentation from other stakeholders. Also included in this organizing theme are ac-

counts of the ability to measure by the use of documentation, how documentation be-

comes a means of negotiation due to documented estimations of time, scope and budg-


202

et. Furthermore, accounts of pitfalls and benefits of models and tools are also included

in the theme.

The following extracts show how project managers are aware of the balance between

requirements of documentation and personal communication:

And there is the challenge … that it is the project tools that create a large part of the reporting

that happens in the project, and then there are those who make demands on “Hey, I need to

see a new plan, I want a new report on how much is left of the project and what milestones

have you reached and we have a great project management model in our organization, and

we are approaching a gate, and there is tons of documentation to be done!” And it easily

turns out that way that if the project and a project manager don’t deliver the documentation

in due time, well then he or she loses credit, “ah it is probably a sign that things aren’t work-

ing”. … It is easier to get working on that reporting and get it done, because it is visible: is it

there or isn’t it there? … and it is, to some degree, a little success, a little delivery, and often it

is exactly that which is visible and noticed, from upper levels, is it there or not.

Source: D.2.2

In the quote documentation is discussed as being an obligatory burden, nevertheless

something that has to be done to avoid discredit can be seen in relation to Clegg and

Courpasson’s (2004) notion of calculative control and of bureaucratic corporate hierar-

chies, formal structures, and management constraints in that the project manager, de-

spite the burden, acknowledges the value of preparing the documentation. The account

discusses the aspect of how accommodating the requirements for documentation can

be seen as a little success and a little delivery, visible communication that is noticed by

upper level management, because either it is there or it is not. This aspect of perceiving

the documented communication as visible progress and thereby a proof of a small suc-

cess is supported by Matta and Ashkenas’ (2003) notion of injecting a series of mini pro-

jects into the plan as rapid-result initiatives that produce measurable results.

Accounts show how documentation contributes to clear communication about expecta-

tions and agreements. The following segment is chosen to illustrate how the purpose of

documentation is specified and how the role of documented communication is per-

ceived:

Yes, there are huge amounts of documentation, and it is clear that some of the documenta-

tion serves to communicate status. “this is status”, or… it serves the purpose of locking down

some decisions, to say: “these are our communication decisions”, or: “we need to communi-

cate these decisions” and we then use this documentation to communicate. In addition, there

is a lot of project related documentation that one could call stem data for our projects. It does


203

not have a lot to do with communication, as I see it, it is more a question of having some-

where to look things up and see that this is how things relate to each other. I don’t consider

that to be communication. It is a question of describing what has happened, what did we do,

and have it locked down. I will not call that communication.

Source:A1.4.1

As with the previous example, documentation is discussed as “visible” communication.

Documentation, as visible communicated expectations and agreements, is measurable

and may be used as insurance. A decision that has been locked down has been turned

into data that can be referred to and can be confirmed. The next extract demonstrates

examples of the consequence of not having locked down an agreement:

… and then my projects will be reviewed, my manager will get an objective basis to judge my

performance. External people will look at the project and ask a lot of questions, “who is this

and who is this, where is this written down?” “Well, it is not in writing anywhere, because it is

all in my head”. But now that my colleague is going to take over my project, I see that some of

the things that I have in my head and that are obvious to me, they are not written down, and

if they start asking him the same questions, he will not have the prerequisites to say “but we

agreed on that half a year ago, John and I, and it is written right here, do you remember that?

You agreed to it”.

Source: A1.1.1

The example shows that when there is nothing in writing, then a colleague taking over a

project has no insurance for personal non-documented agreements. There is nothing to

refer back to as guarantee for an agreement.

However, accounts demonstrate how documentation can be used as means for negotia-

tion when challenged with stronger authorities. The following example shows how a

project manager accounts for how he makes project specific agreements and expecta-

tions explicit to a higher authority by pointing out what had been documented in the

project directive, and further how he agrees to present a new directive with new calcu-

lations of time, scope and budget if the authority desires to make the changes they de-

mand:

… and the contract isn’t even signed yet. It is difficult. Luckily, I have my project directives, and

I have some really good tools that I can stick to concerning my obligations etc. “This is my

job”. Then the steering committee may want to give me a load of tasks, but here I can say

“that is not part of my job”. “I can make a new directive, but then it is another project that we

are discussing with a new schedule etc. etc.” I have a really good card on my hand. And ‘a

new schedule’ is often a really good card to play. And you learn from that, which buttons to


204

press and always say “I can do that but I have to go home and make the calculations”. Then

you return with a new schedule and then they look at each other and agree that maybe it

wasn’t such a good idea, and that we will proceed as originally agreed upon. And we keep

that in mind.

Source: C.4.1

As can be seen in the account the synergy between documentation and personal com-

munication provides the project manager with an opportunity to communicate clearly

about procedures concerning agreements and expectations.

Accounts from both project managers and line managers provide insight into how pro-

ject managers from time to time are challenged by project stakeholders from both upper

level management, line managers, and project resources who lack the understanding of

the necessity of doing the documentation and therefore perceives it as a burden in the

project work. The following examples illustrate first: this resistance, accounted for by a

project manager, towards documentation:

Harmony between procedures and your own way of communication; there is no doubt about

the gates and all the instances of control that exist and the documentation. If it were up to

the stakeholders that I work with and the surroundings that I am in, then very far down the

line the stakeholders find the documentation to be a burden and a waste of time. That is their

opinion. … In my world it suits me just fine, so for me it is a very natural thing to work with.

But it is challenging, when you work with someone who is not used to it. They just want to

start off without it.

Source: A2.2.1

Second, the perception of project managers and their documentation habits accounted

for by a line manager:

Well, as a rule of thumb they always have a lot of fancy IT tools, excel and Visio and they are

really good at it, or some other Microsoft software tool, where they check off a lot of lists,

which is fair enough. That is what they were hired to do. … There will probably always be a

need for a lot of documentation. I don’t know if it is because they are suspicious, but I guess

they have tried a few too many times that they need a given statement about something in

writing in order for them to be able to place it in some project folder or in some project relat-

ed way be able to demonstrate the grounds for an agreement ….

Source:B.7.1

The line manager above expresses that he is puzzled by the need for all this documenta-

tion. However, despite his wondering, he expresses his acceptance of it.


205

I will end this illustration of what the organizing theme ‘Tools for measurement & status

reporting’ pertains to with an account from the expert group. They state their opinion

about the project contract and why they find it to be the most fundamental piece of

documentation there is:

The contract is the Bible and if you don’t know it well, things won’t work and the project dies.

… You need to know it from left to right, inside out, in your sleep – you just have to know it!

When I teach, I say that there are five dimensions; length, height, width and time. God creat-

ed the first four and the last was made by humans: AGREEMENTS. All societies in the world,

all treaties build on agreements. If you cannot play the rules, you die. It’s like playing chess.

It’s simple, the one who knows the rules the best has the best chances of winning.[…] You

have to know your foundation, where am I going to operate, what is my platform, it may be

an unsteady platform, but you have to know. It won’t do you any good not knowing that your

foundation is unsteady, because then you think it is solid and steady, and it turns out that just

around the corner there is a big black hole and you don’t want to go there. … It’s basic, what

is up and down in the world and that is agreements, agreements, agreements, agreements.

… If everyone learned all the traffic rules, there would be no accidents – no, that’s not the way

things work.

People must know their tools, of course they must, but that is not what it is about. The tools

only exist to create the results and analyze what it is, then say: “Okay, what do we do next?”

It’s about stepping into character as a human being!

Source: D.1.1; D.2.1

The above examples show how knowing the rules create the foundation for everything

else, but also illustrates that knowing the point of departure, knowing the rules, the

tools, the documentation is only part of what is perceived as constituting project com-

munication.

As such the organizing theme ‘Tools for measurement & status reporting’ pertains to the

understanding of how project management tools for documentation, locking down

communication into information data, and to procedures for formal reporting and

measuring without forgetting the human aspect to it.

4.1.3.3. Organizing theme: ‘Project progress’

This organizing theme ‘Project progress’ groups the aspects of communication concern-

ing the action of creating progress. Progress, according to interviewees’ accounts, center

on an explanation of what a project manager does in relation to a problem, how a pro-

ject manager makes use of informal networks to advance things, creates initiative and


206

progress, and on how the outcome of conflicts are seen as something constructive and

beneficial for project progress. Accounts, under this organizing theme, illustrate the pre-

requisites of the project manager to avoid stagnation and create continuous progress in

projects.

The first example connects to the issues discussing the lack of understanding of the re-

quired project documentation. It is seen how an upper level manager had neither un-

derstanding nor patience for the preparation of documentation. The example illustrates

how the project manager makes use of brokerage to get other mangers involved to ob-

tain influence in order to solve the problem and proceed:

… There was a situation with one who was higher up in the hierarchy, who did not think we

should use time on stage gate. The project manager had a responsibility and so his strategy

was to get other managers to talk to him, and that worked. The project manager made con-

tact to the director of the department of security to get him to discuss the procedures. Then

the project manager called the manager in question and sent him emails and was backed up

by the director, and everything moved on just fine.

Source: A2.2.1

The example show how action is taken by making connections in the network to create

the influence needed to obtain what is required for the project to proceed.

However according to the next example, a line manager expresses his opinion about

spending too much time on documentation when documentation procedures are not

effective or up to date. An example of how documentation is experienced as a hindrance

for progress instead of supporting progress:

… It is almost frightening how little you can get done in such a long time, just because you sit

around fiddling with details and you are unable to focus and get going. Focus and say: “Okay,

what is it actually that I am supposed to build here, what is it that I am constructing? … are

you just fiddling with little bits and pieces that are not relevant, and are you attending meet-

ings where you don’t even talk about what the problem is about and you keep holding on to

protocols and outdated information, which is not really relevant. There is so much…

Source: B.7.1

This line manager points to the risk of using documentation without being aware that

the information is out of date and thereby wasting time on irrelevant details, spending

time on too much detail without the ability to focus.

Another aspect of getting around problematic situations and moving from stagnation to

progress is illustrated in the next example where a project manager changes his ap-


207

proach of communication from focusing on ‘you’ to focusing on ‘us’ and ‘our project’

and thereby obtaining prerequisites for progress:

…when I go to have a talk with our electricians in the engineering department to uncover

“what is wrong, why can’t we get it to function, why do you get mad?” Then they will say: “It

cannot be done, it is impossible to get done, we were told way too late!” – “What can we do,

for you to receive the information earlier?”, “How can I help you?”, “Can we do something?”,

“How do WE reach the goal?” That is what I use – it is our project. It is us doing this together. I

will do my part of the job, you will do your part of the job, but it requires that we both do our

parts otherwise we will not get it to function.

…often there is the reaction, when you ask “Is there something I can do to help you?”: “No,

there isn’t”, but “What can we do to improve, how can we solve this, how can we make sure

that we don’t get into this situation again?” Then problems get solved, then they have to ex-

plain what the problem is and they have to explain what the solution is.

Source: C.4.1

Accounts show that sometimes a prerequisite for progress is that of having been

through issues and conflict:

It has a positive influence when you know each other. You don’t necessarily have to know

each other for something good. You may have had your quarrels with a colleague in the past,

but then you know each other’s viewpoints on certain matters, and that is very very positive.

That you get clearly drawn lines so that you know who has what roles in this …. And knowing

each other before hand, if you on top of that have clear lines, so that you trust each other,

then it has enormous influence. It is so much easier to work with people that you know.

Source: C.4.2

The example shows how having been through challenges makes future collaboration

easier because you know each other’s standpoints and based on that you can engage in

new collaborations.

As has been mentioned earlier, the primary role of the project manager, according to

interviewee accounts, is to make the way and clear the road for the project members to

be able to do their job in order for the project to reach its goal. The organizing theme

‘Project progress’ groups interviewees’ accounts concerning communicative action and

behavior to create this progress.


208

4.1.3.4. Organizing theme: ‘Nature of and attitude towards challenge, change

& conflict’

This final organizing theme ‘Nature of and attitude towards challenge, change & conflict’

pertains to interviewee accounts of how they have dealt with challenge, what they con-

sider to be a challenge or conflict as well as what they consider to be change, and how

they approach the described situations. The first two extracted segments illustrate how

project managers perceive change and challenge to be a natural part of their job, to do

their job that is what they consider as project management:

The planning of communication. To get from ‘orange’ to ‘green’, so you have things to plan

around and now it’s the in between and that’s the transition, that is what projects do, projects

manage transition. From the red to the green and it is that process in between that brings the

input and the output together. […] that ‘business as usual’ manager, they don’t want change,

the slightest deviation puts stress on them. Whereas, project managers have to manage

change and manage the unclear, things that are poorly communicated, he needs to manage

the whole environment at all times.

Source: A2.4.1

This is about change, that something moves, and when we talk change, we talk change man-

agement. Leading change and that is what project management is: leading projects. Projects

change from one state to another. That is what it is about.

Source: D.1.2

The accounts show how project management is described as manage transition, manag-

ing what is unclear, and leading a project from one state to another. Another segment

adds to this description of managing what is unclear as stepping into the darkness and

taking on a responsibility of the uncertain:

… it is about the project manager stepping forward, stepping into the darkness and taking the

responsibility that something can happen without having any idea of what it may be. Step in-

to the darkness as a leader …

Source: D.1.2

“Stepping into the darkness as a leader” indicates an attitude of having the courage to

take on the responsibility of the unknown. Further accounts pertain to how project man-

agers perceive challenges and conflicts. In the following, conflict is not seen as a prob-

lem but as something constructive and positive:

I don’t see it as any problem that project management often is navigating a lot of conflicts.

We aim at implementing tools that can handle these things. However, it often turns out that


209

the good solutions emerge in the dialogues related to the individual projects. … I see the op-

timizing of projects lies within the dialogues even if they include a lot of conflict that is of mi-

nor importance as long as you get to the optimal result. So, I don’t see conflicts as a problem.

Source 3: B.2.1.77

In this example it is also illustrated that conflict can be constructive and positive in that

through dialogue solutions emerge between people. The act of communicating about a

given conflict opens up for the opportunities instead of leading to stagnation of a pro-

ject.

The next project manager distinguishes between project managers and line managers in

terms of how the difference in responsibilities affects their approach to problems and

challenges:

I think that project managers are generally good at bringing up problems and being very

transparent about them and that is one of the huge advantages of being a project manager

and not a line manager. It is that you can approach problems from a fairly neutral position,

you can step back a bit and say “Well, this is not my fight, I am just the facilitator”. So in the

case of a problem, I can openly and honestly put it out in the open, because we just need a so-

lution, and it is not me as a person who kind of has anything to lose here. Whereas the line

manager tends to personalize the department he or she managers, and it becomes ‘Us’. It be-

comes hard to distinguish the personal fight from professional issues.

Source: A2.1.2

According to this account, the project manager is able to stay neutral towards a problem

and avoid taking it personally. And in relation to the previous example, here is also an

account illustrating the difference in focus and level of what is at stake: “…we just need

a solution”. It is not a personal matter.

The accounts demonstrate that the organizing theme ‘Nature of and attitude towards

challenge, change & conflict’ encompass aspects of communication related to challeng-

es, change and conflict, where conflict is not seen as a problem but as something con-

structive and positive, something that opens up for the opportunities. And the project

manager perceives his or her own position as a neutral position enabling the project

manager to take on larger conflicts.

4.1.3.5. Summary of The thematic network ‘Communication’

The thematic network ‘Communication’ consists of the four organizing themes ‘The role

and function of communication’, ‘Project documentation & formal reporting’, ‘Project


210

progress’, and ‘Nature of and attitude towards challenge, change & conflict’ with a total

of 12 basic themes (Illustrated in Figure 33).

Figure 33: The thematic network ‘Communication’ consisting of four organizing themes and a total of twelve basic themes.

The organizing theme ‘The role and function of communication’ include accounts of per-

ceptions of communication ranging from communication being that is ever present,

something that we humans just do, to accounts of awareness about how communication

is a means of shaping and leading to success, and further to accounts drawing the atten-

tion to pitfalls in both formal and informal communication such as aspects of time,

agreements, and to what degree the project manager knows the person he or she is

communicating with.

The organizing theme ‘Project documentation & formal reporting’ pertains to statements

illustrating the understanding of how project management tools for documentation can

be perceived positively as the capability of locking down communication into infor-

mation and data, as procedures for formal reporting and measuring, however without

forgetting the human aspect to it.

The organizing theme ‘Project progress’ groups accounts that demonstrate communica-

tive action and behavior that creates progress in projects by the project managers way


211

to make the way and clear the road for the project members to be able to do their job in

order for the project to reach its goal.

The organizing theme ‘Nature of and attitude towards challenge, change & conflict’ en-

compass aspects of communication related to challenges, change and conflict, where

conflict is not seen as a problem but as something constructive and positive, something

that opens up for the opportunities.

4.2. Summary

This overall thematic network analysis aims at answering the first research question:

‘What are the prominent themes of communicative action and considerations that

emerge in project managers’ accounts for communication practices?’ by covering all ac-

counts and descriptions illustrating aspects influencing communicative behavior, actions,

and choices.

The global network ‘Project manager’ covers five organizing themes illustrating what, in

relation to the person, the project manager has influence on and what is influenced by

his or her considerations and choices of communication behavior, action and strategies.

The global theme pertains to accounts of personal values and principles: to have integri-

ty, to be empathic, believe in something and fight for it, step into character as a person

and have an attitude, accounts of professional skills, roles and competencies related to

the job requirements such as keeping an overview, making way for the project, ensuring


but it likewise accounts for how project managers play a central role in giving project

team members opportunities for development within the frames of a specific project.

The project managers’ communicative action, behavior and strategies related to types of


necting people to obtain e.g. information or access to key people with decision-making

power.

The global network ‘Context’ cover three organizing themes representing the context

within which the project manager works, the context that frames the project managers’

considerations and choices of communication. The expectations from the organization

itself, as well has the norms of expectations from managers, other colleagues and the

project manager him or herself as to what it entitles to be a project manager such as job

specifications, job requirements, responsibilities and tasks.


212

The network pertain to issues such as how the projects stakeholder analysis is used and

the challenges connected to it, and how some stakeholders relate not to the project but

to the project manager. The role of the steering committee and how to approach the

committee members to get things through and to initiate action make up an aspect of

this network. Data show that there is a distinct balance between on the one hand re-

sponsibilities and tasks in documentation, reporting, following procedures and on the

other hand taking on various leadership roles. It is seen that project management stake-

holders are a very central part of determining the context for the project and the project

manager, as a lot of consideration and strategies is require in understanding, accepting,

accommodating and negotiating stakeholders’ perception of what is realistic and what is

not realistic.

The thematic network ‘Communication’ consists of the four organizing themes. Accounts

show perceptions of communication. Accounts here also draw attention to pitfalls in

both formal and informal communication, and to what degree the project manager

knows the person he or she is communicating with. Accounts and statements also illus-

trate how project management requirements for documentation and reporting can be

perceived as a burden and welcomed as a positive support. Furthermore, statements

reveal communicative action and behavior that create progress in projects. And finally,

aspects of communication related to challenges, change and conflict are discussed re-

vealing attitudes embracing conflict as something constructive and positive, something

that opens up for the opportunities.

This overall thematic analysis answers the first research question by revealing that pro-

ject management communication consist of aspects going beyond the labeled subjects

of communication. Project management communication is perceived from perspectives

of the traditional understanding of communication in projects, which is also reflected in

the reviewed textbooks of project management, but the phenomenon is also seen to be

perceived from other communicative perspectives, creating a nuanced mapping. This is

demonstrated by the global networks of ‘Project manager’ and of ‘Context’. Even within

the global network ‘Communication’ aspects of non-labeled aspects are to be found,

such as the aspects of ‘project progress’ and ‘the nature of and attitude towards chal-

lenge, change and conflict’.

The purpose of the following analysis is to get an understanding of project managers’

perception of the role of communication in projects and hereafter compare this map-

ping with findings in research question one, the overall mapping of the phenomen.

5. Perception analysis

5.1. Project managers’ understanding of the role of commu-

nication in project management

To answer the second research question, ‘How do project managers understand the role

of communication in project management?’ a query has been done in NVivo based on

the matrix coding: Request to examine interviewees’ answer to the question about

communication and why it is important, by individual company. This query enables iden-

tifying central themes, comparison of content and patterns across the companies.

5.1.1. Data analysis

The segments of transcription, answering the question ‘What does communication

mean to you and why is it important?’ are extracted and attention is focused on how the

interviewees have described communication, the role of communication and in other

ways talked about communication and its function. The statements are categorized into

16 themes, and further organized into 5 organizing themes based on conceptual corre-

spondence:

1. Characteristics of communication: consists of statements about the characteris-

tics of communication as in what is communication, what is it used for, what

challenges communication and what defines the quality of communication.

2. Tool & Topic based communication: pertains to statements illustrating the tool

and technical topic-based perception.

3. Characteristics of the project manager: pertains to statements about the charac-

teristics of the project manager and his or her attitudes to and habits of commu-

nication.

4. Relations: involve the aspect of people: relations with people, involving and mo-

tivating people and what it means to the project.

5. Context: pertains to conditions that influence the context of the project such as

political issues and perceptions of the focus of communication in project man-

agement for example compared to the focus of communication in daily line man-

agement.

Figure 34 illustrates the analysis of the perception of communication mapped as a sepa-

rate thematic network with the 16 basic themes organized into the five organizing

themes.

Chapter 5: Perception analysis

214

Figure 34: The thematic network of the perception of communication consisting of five main groups and 16 basic themes.

5.1.2. Organizing theme: Characteristics of communication

The following statements demonstrate the acknowledgement of the importance of

communication, not just as communication in projects and project management, but di-

rectly linked to the project manager, both from beneficial and from challenging perspec-

tives.

What is communication & What does communication do?

Communication is 360°. Communication is among the most difficult things. Communication

forms the success of the project manager. Communication is the prerequisite for the profes-

sion as a project manager.

Sources: B.2.1; B.1.1; A1.3.1

Even with the acknowledgement that communication is among the most difficult things,

it is still perceived in the sense that communication is:

… the tool that enables things to be aligned and that prepares us for new things. And it is

what basically connects my various initiatives, if you communicate right then things are

aligned. … As a project manager communication is my tool to make things work and to ensure

progression


215

Source: A1.1.1

… what ensures that the team around the project functions and collaborates, that we have

something in common because of communication.

Source: C.5.1

Diversity – people & context

However, communication is challenged by many factors. Above it was seen how com-

munication is understood as being all about people. People also make up one of the

most demanding factors when it comes to communication challenges:

… there is an operation unit, where communication is almost an unknown aspect. What they

communicate is not customer friendly, and it is seen from within their own little reality … They

focus on their problems and tasks and don’t give it a thought that there is someone at the re-

ceiving end, who is to decipher what comes from them. And then there is the development

unit, and they are really good at interpersonal and informal communication.

Source: A1.3.1

The example shows how a project manager is required to embrace the ability to com-

municate and make things work with people, who don’t at all consider communication.

This and the following example can be seen in relation to how Barnard (1968) and

Berkun (2008) state that the project manager’s is value is determined by how well he

can apply his or her competence to the project through other people, how he or she can

amplifying the value of others in any way possible. Communication, personal behavior

and the ability to build relations is what Berkun argues is the way to do this. Depending

on the different people the project manager is dealing with and what expectations have

been set, the approach must be different.

Another example is of how the project manager is challenged in getting people to col-

laborate around a common goal:

A lot of people have the attitude “My way or the highway”, they want it their way only. “Now

I must make sure to get it as I want it”, and that is a huge challenge for the project manager –

getting people to realize the common goal …

Source: A2.2.1


216

Quality of communication

Communication can be characterized is the outcome and measurable consequences of it

depending on its quality. The statements reveal that judging the quality of communica-

tion is a way for the project manager to measure it:

A controlled start is 50% of the success of the project. Projects need standardization, review

board and quality assurance. You must review success to learn. … With standardization you

bring in communication – things will be the same, you can share knowledge, and people can

go back and review it. If things are not the same every time, you make boundaries. Standardi-

zation breaks down boundaries. … If we are not aligned we are missing each other, with

communication being the heartbeat of a project. Make your model teachable. If you want to

do anything, you need to communicate. Communication is project management.

Source: A2.4.1

The statement gives an example of how by approaching communication in an objective

way, you enable control and measurements. The quality of the communication, of the

information, must be so straight forward, standardized and of such a quality that the

project manager is able to make “teachable” models of it in order to “breaks down

boundaries”.

But the quality of communication is not just about standardization in order to make it

measurable in a quantitative way. It is also perceived in the sense of observing whether

the project manager is successful in getting intended messages across to the receiver:

What is the optimal channel and form of communication in order to get the message across?

… Is my way of writing good enough? I can’t decide how they, inside their heads, will receive

my message. I can only hope that they will perceive it in the right way, but there is no guaran-

tee. … We focus on what training courses would benefit the project manager, and one may

say that it is really beneficial that we are good at estimating a project. However, we also need

to be able to communicate, because if we have made an estimation, and we are really bad at

communicating, then we risk messing up the estimation… naturally.

Source: C.2.1

The example illustrates the possible consequences of communication, both in the sense

of good intentions of communication but with “no guarantee”, and in the sense of “real-

ly bad” communication skills that may have serious consequences such as “messing up

the estimation”. The example also draws the attention to awareness of communication

competencies. The first part of the statement show active awareness of means of com-

munication, input, output and impact of communication – thoroughly considered with

the best intentions of aiming right and achieving the desired action, but acknowledging


217

that there is no guarantee. The last part shows, how the lack of competencies in com-

munication may work against good skills in estimation with serious consequences for the

qualifications of the project manager and for the organization as a whole, as they rely on

projects to be successful. This can be linked to the Dutton and Ashford’s (1993) concept

of issue selling, because communication competence lies in the ability to design and

package the communication in a way that brings about the desired effect or the desired

action to the benefit of the project, the project manager and/or to the organization. It

can also be understood in Clegg and Courpasson’s terms of calculative control in that

having the competence to communicate right in project management can be seen as

rooted in the project manager’s skills of estimation and calculation of facts and potential

consequences. Furthermore, based on the calculations, communicating right is a ques-

tion of being skillful in persuading and influencing the right people to the desired action,

which is seen in the terminology of power, influence, and persuasion (HBS, 2005; Gass

and Seiter 2007).

5.1.3. Organizing theme: Tool & Technical topic based communication

This category is characterized by containing statements about communication that illus-

trate approaches to communication that are objective and very tool oriented, but the

approaches also reveal an acknowledgment of the balance between the technical and

the sociocultural dimensions of communication, a distinct acknowledgement of the una-

voidable existence of both formal and informal structures of communication proce-

dures. Thus, this group demonstrates the communicative challenges of the imbalance

between the ideal world of intentions and expectations about projects and reality, the

real world based on experience.

5.1.3.1. Documentation, written, models

Communication perceived as project documentation as in written reports, Power Point

slides, emails, minutes of meetings, and follow-ups etc., are seen by many as a burden,

but nevertheless a burden that is necessary and has very specific benefits to it:

… it is a necessary evil and a fantastic tool to ensure that the various elements of the project

connect. … I see communication as both the greasing of the machine, but sometimes it is the

actual sprocket-wheel, because without communication – NO project.

Source: A1.4.1

… I have this sense sometimes, that a lot of the written documentation that we do, we do it

mostly for ourselves in order to abide to rules, one could say. … A ‘project management plan’

– a 20 to 30 page document that describes the approach, only very few read it, if anyone at all


218

reads these documents. …if you have something to communicate, it must be by Power Point …

that is one way of accommodating the requirements for the written documentation … and it

also has value for ourselves, because it forces us to remember things, so it not without value,

but we spend a lot of time on written documentation that in itself, in my opinion, does not

have much value.

Source: A1.2.1

The two examples illustrate the negative perception of communication as a burden: “a

necessary evil”, something done to “abide to rules”, not welcomed because it is time

consuming and the documents in themselves are not attributed much value. However,

at the same time written communication is acknowledged as “the greasing of the ma-

chine” and “the actual sprocket-wheel”, and accepted because there are benefits to it in

the sense that preparing the documentation forces the project managers to reflect and

remember. This last aspect is further supported by the following example:

… I will not even call it communication, it is more documentation. … There is a lot of documen-

tation, and it is obvious that some of the documentation serves to communicate a status:

“This is the status”, or it serves to lock down decisions … In addition, a lot of the project relat-

ed documentation, you can call it the project stem data. It does not have a lot to do with

communication, as I see it, it is a question of having a place to check up on information, to see

if things fit and connect. … It is a question of describing what has happened, what have we

done and have it locked down. I will not call that communication.

Source: A1.1.1

Documentation serves the purpose of locking down information that can then serve as a

place of reference with project data that supports the project manager in remembering,

and that ensures that the validity of decisions are not questioned, because they are writ-

ten down. The insurance function of documentation is also seen in the statements about

the importance of the ‘project contract’ that serves to lock down expectations and

thereby realistic agreements. The quotation about the contract being the bible in sec-

tion 4.1.3 Thematic Network: ‘Communication' is a good example illustrating the aspect

of what it means to the project manager to know the contract, to know the documented

rules and expectations.

5.1.3.2. Structure & Alignment

Agreements are alignments of expectations between for example management and the

project manager. It is alignment between expectations of an ideal world from for exam-

ple the customer and upper level management, who neither have the expertise, nor the


219

insight about what is realistic. The reality of what can be done based on the expertise

and experience of project managers.

It is about aligning expectations. That is part of communication. There is always an expecta-

tion from management that this cannot be so difficult, it will not take a very long time, and it

doesn’t really cost anything. Max two weeks. And then we come along and say that it will

take at least half a year etc., and that is of course because we have the experience. … There is

always someone at the upper level management who will say “How hard can it be?”

Source: A1.2.1

One last example of the attitude towards agreements:

You can learn the discipline ‘Project management’, you can learn to make your own

flowcharts and your report templates, but if you cannot communicate with your project team

members and make good solid agreements with the organization, then forget about it.

Source: B.5.1

The example shows the technical and the sociocultural dimension of project communi-

cation in that the technical dimension of documentation: “flowcharts, report templates

and agreements”, and the sociocultural dimension of: “communicate with your project

team members”.

5.1.3.3. Formal & Informal

The previous examples also illustrate the aspect of distinct yet inseparable between the

formal and the informal communication, the formal structures and expectations of

communication, the formal communication networks versus the informal and non-

scheduled communication, and the informal and emergent communication networks.

The formal communication is formal. It is formal because we have made agreements of how

to communicate, for example when we talk about status reporting and reporting to the steer-

ing committee. It follows a certain pattern, and this is expected by the stakeholders who re-

ceive it. But before that, before a steering committee meeting, a lot of clarifications have

been going on at all levels, so that I know that when I get to the steering committee meeting,

then I have a chance to get through with the suggestions that I propose. This means that the

informal communication, it has to be ongoing. At least that is my experience.

Source: B.4.1

5.1.4. Organizing theme: Characteristics of the project manager

The statements in this group share the conceptual characteristics of demonstrating the

personality and attitude of the project manager in his or her way of talking about and

dealing with certain situations.


220

5.1.4.1. Authority – No power

The extracted segments show that project managers do not have formal authority, and

therefore they need to use the influence of communication and communicative actions

in order to earn authority, and in order for the authority to be accepted by the receivers

of it.

You need to keep your people at it, or else they will forget. You have no authoritative means

of power as a project manager, and therefore, your communication competencies become ex-

tremely important. If you cannot communicate appropriately to your stakeholders and your

surroundings, people will give up and back off. … You need to have an understanding for the

different aspects of communication. Sometimes you need to be pushy, other times, one phone

call is all you need.

Source: A2.1.1

This example illustrates very clearly that the project manager acknowledges that it is a

question of knowing your audience and having the competence of communication to

obtain understanding and commitment. Sometimes the authority is expressed by being

“pushy” and other times: “one phone call is all you need”. As in the next example, the

communicative action of explicitly taking on the responsibility, demonstrates an authori-

ty of being in control and on top of things.

There is a responsibility to take, and it is important that the project manager takes the re-

sponsibility. You have to show that you are on top of things

Source: B.2.1

A project runs over a limited period of time, it has a start and an end. This limited time

perspective forces the project manager when necessary to take on an authoritative role

of drawing lines and being very clear of what is expected of the project stakeholders and

especially the project team members. The next examples show such incidents:

With respect to other people’s time, I sometimes have to become very strict and cut to the

bone, and then the cozy atmosphere disappears. And then you have to make it very clear that

this is not up for discussion. I may be a little shy of conflicts, but I have to do it. It is a limited

period of time, and then off to the next project and then we will have to reconcile.

As a line manager, you cannot use an “either/or” situation. … You can do that as a project

manager. It is okay to say: “Now you must do like this or else…”, “Or else what?” “Or else I

have to report to your head of department because…” I feel really uncomfortable. It is what I

hate about this job, but you cannot be good friends with everybody. You sometimes have to

tell someone that “you are not doing a good job”.


221

Source: C.4.1

The project manager states that it is not a comfortable situation when he or she has to

cut clear lines: “become very strict and cut to the bone”, and when it is necessary to

draw the lines in making the consequences of a team member’s actions (or lack of ac-

tions) very clear, showing that despite the fact that the project manager does not have

any formal power in the position of a project manager, he or she possess the right to,

and is expected, to use communicative means of stating consequences by being the

strict and demanding project manager, who is allowed to “fire” members of the project

team if they don’t deliver as agreed on.

By being very clear about agreements and expectations concerning the tasks to be per-

formed and not being shy of conflict, the project manager keeps the road clear and the

right conditions present for the decision-making that he or she cannot make:

The project manager does not make decisions, but he or she makes sure that the basis and

the right conditions are present for decision-making.

Source: C.4.1

The above can equally be seen in relation to Quinn et al’s (2007) vocabulary of manage-

ment roles, taking account of a situation by recognizing the roles of others and by be-

coming aware of the range of roles that are available to one the project manager and

also in relation to Quinn et al’s argument of the opposites being able to mutually exist.

Based on the demonstrated necessity of taking on roles that are less comfortable the

awareness of doing so illustrates the aspects from Posner’s (1987) presentation of per-

sonal characteristics that appears to be required in project management. Accounts re-

veal this requirement in talking about the ability to take on different roles of aggressive-

ness, confidence, poise, decisiveness, resolution, entrepreneurship, toughness, integrity,

versatility, multi-disciplinary, and quick thinking – characteristics that also, according to

Posner, are necessary to manage a project. Additional support for this is seen in Belbin’s

(1993) observation suggesting that by recognizing the roles of others and by becoming

aware of the range of roles that are available to oneself, people learn to modify their

behavior and take account of the situation.

5.1.4.2. Reflection, consideration, calculation

The statements about communication reflect project managers being very aware of the

time needed for reflection in order to evaluate and thereby communicate according to

the requirements of the situation. The statements show how project managers are very


222

explicit in calculating consequences of circumstances and communicating these conse-

quences in order to obtain whatever is needed for the project or situation at hand.

When asked about resource acquisition, a project manager said:

Well I think it is a struggle with line managers, but it is not a personal struggle, but it can take

a lot of time, I must say, it can be really uphill sometimes. But at the end of the day, it is a

question of us estimating what it is required. Based on this, if we still cannot get the people

we need, we have to escalate the situation. We cannot do anything else. Again, what are the

consequences and make them very explicit to upper level management.

Source: A1.2.1

The example illustrates how project managers spend a lot time on estimation and calcu-

lation of what is needed for the project to progress, and when these needs are not met,

they calculate the consequences of not having the required resources. In the case that

the communicated consequences have no influence on what the line manager is able to

do, then the consequences are made “very explicit to upper level management”.

There appears to be a distinct connection between the before mentioned expectations

about the ideal world and the reality of what is possible based on the experience of the

project manager:

Managers think that project managers can handle several projects at a time with one hand,

just like that, but they don’t take into consideration all the time that needs to be spent on

meetings and you must coordinate and schedule among a lot of people which requires a great

deal of reflection. You cannot just sit and be operational – you need to follow up and report –

time for reflection, and that time is lacking. It is reflection that makes a project run smoothly.

… Reflection is what gives something positive to projects; it is reflection that creates synergy.

… Time for reflection is not prioritized and often forgotten and then you don’t get the syner-

gies going.

Source: A2.1.1

This statement shows the imbalance between expectations of the project manager,

however reality is, according to the experienced project manager: “You cannot just sit

and be operational – you need to follow up and report – time for reflection […], it is re-

flection that creates synergy”. The comments on the requirements for written documen-

tation and reports also show the concern for having adequate time for reflection and

what purpose this invested time serves. The mentioned connection between expecta-

tions from the customer and upper level management and the reality based on experi-


223

ence also rests on the ability to step back and reflect, evaluate and calculate the conse-

quences of actions, decision, initiatives, restrictions and the like:

… the frustrating thing is that things cost a lot of energy and you wish to do the right thing

and maybe use a little more time to consider things before you start something, instead of

just hurrying on with things … all the excel sheets that I need to fill in and, but on the contrary

it pushes us a little to ensure that things are in order and under control, because if they are

not, it will be a drag to get the documentation done. It provides us with a fixed time, where

you sit yourself down and think about what the status of things are, … where are we, and

where do I need to make an effort …

Source A1.4.1

The examples illustrate this link between the required documentation, reflection, and

the calculation of what is to be done next, as well as the desire to do things right from

the start.

5.1.4.3. Evaluation

Reflection and consideration are also connected to statements about evaluation. Invest-

ing time for evaluation, learning and improving things:

We celebrate by going out for dinner. Those who have been a part of the project, and we get

a chance to discuss things … yes, and we say ‘goodbye’ to each other in a good way. Despite

everything, you have been through a project together and it has probably not been jolly and

cheerful at all times, and therefore it is important to be good colleagues after all, or friends

with the suppliers when everything is over.

Source: A1.3.1

You can very well close down a project with going out for dinner and a beer, or where you sit

and have a laugh about what you have been through together. You evaluate once in a while,

not systematically. Where it is estimated necessary, where it makes sense to do so.

Source: C.2.1

When you have delivered, you close it down, and then you evaluate. There is always one with

the customer. Not necessarily one with the technicians. We don’t have any plan, but we are

working on getting a procedure, a template, so that we get evaluated. Sometimes we go out

for dinner, but there are no rules. … Sometimes, things go wrong, and then you have to evalu-

ate and call in everyone who was involved. It doesn’t take long for the common attitude to be

that there is no reason to work against each other.

Source: C.3.1


224

The three examples illustrate that project managers make sure to finish off things in a

constructive way: “it is important to be good colleagues”, “evaluate and call in every-

one”. The table is cleared. No lose ends are left. Together you proceed: “there is no rea-

son to work against each other”.

5.1.4.4. Conflict, expectations, integrity

Several places statements include the mentioning of the imbalance of expectations and

how this leads to conflicts and further the mentioning of how these conflicts are han-

dled, what attitude the project manager has towards conflicts.

These statements about conflict, expectations and integrity reveal characteristics about

the project manager’s personality in that they illustrate what attitude the project man-

ager has towards challenging situations. A team project manager states:

… A project manager is allowed to make requirements to the organization. If the contract

owner cannot explain what the effect of the project is, then the project manager cannot run

the project, because then he or she will not know in what direction the work is to be done. So,

all the general things that can have great impact on the project, the project manager can de-

mand to be informed about. … I tell them that they are allowed to refuse to sign a contract, if

something is stated in it that they cannot or will not put their name to … The sales person

must turn down the expectations, because it will hit the project manager at the end of the

day. … The project manager is also allowed to get angry with the steering committee internal-

ly, that is legitimate.

Source: B.2.1

The statement shows encouragement to project managers not to accept taking on a pro-

ject that lacks clear and well defined expectations and mutual agreements. The state-

ment shows a team project manager, who encourages the project managers to com-

municate and voice their concerns about the lack of information, disagreements about

the contract and what is required of the project manager, in case the project manager

estimates the contract statements to be unrealistic or the like.

The account demonstrates how project managers are encouraged to step up and voice

their opinion in the case something is estimated as being unacceptable. This seen in re-

lation to Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) aspect of calculative control shows the require-

ment of skills in calculation and estimation in order to know the fact and expectations of

that frame a project. The account likewise demonstrates calculative control in their at-

tempt to initiate a project with inadequate support and resources. Furthermore it

demonstrates that based on calculations and estimation of consequences the project


225

manager is encouraged to reject the project, decline taking on the responsibility of the

project. Here the discussion of what is seen in the account changes character form the

technical perspective of calculation to the sociocultural perspective of personal charac-

teristics and abilities in relation to Barnard’s (1968) aspects of personal characteristics of

poise and courage and Posner’s (1987) presentation of personal characteristics of ag-

gressiveness, confidence, poise, decisiveness, resolution, entrepreneurship, toughness,

integrity, versatility, multi-disciplinary, and quick thinking – characteristics that, accord-

ing to Posner, are necessary to manage a project, and in the context of this account,

characteristics that are necessary in order to have the courage and integrity to step up

and communicate the calculated consequences of reality.

Statements illustrate that conflict is also discussed as a positive thing in relation to prob-

lem-solving and conflict resolution.

I don’t think there is a problem that there can be an ocean of conflicts to navigate in. We try

to implement software programs that can handle these things, but it in the end the good solu-

tions always emerge from the dialogues in the individual projects. … so therefore, I see that

the optimization lies within the dialogue, whether it is full of conflict or not. That is of less rel-

evance, as long as you get to the correct result. So, I don’t see conflict as a problem.

Source: B.2.1

The example show how conflict is perceived as something constructive. Conflict creates

dialogue from where solutions emerge and thereby prevents stagnation in the project.

The line manager has staff responsibility and he or she has another purpose of communica-

tion, salary things. We don’t have that towards a project team. We can take larger conflicts.

We often get to work with the same people, so it is important with a good tone. Some people

don’t deliver as they are supposed to and that you cannot ignore and let go unnoticed.

Source: C.3.1

This example is in line with the earlier statement about making sure to communicate

that things are not up for discussion. The two statements show that the project manager

must be able to handle conflicts and get on with the project.

Then again it is seen in the statements that being firm and clear in communicating radi-

ates authority and integrity:

… explain the goals, if they are not clear … then I have to make them clear. What is it we want

to do with this and why are we doing it? That is what I emphasize when I communicate. …

And it makes no difference whether I am communicating to a project team member or to a

line manager, one from the steering committee or to the customer. It is basically the same


226

thing that comes out of my mouth. The integrity has to be there. … Yes, it is me, it is the way I

am. I will not change that. If I have a problem, then I have a problem, if I have a challenge,

then I have a challenge, and I don’t try to hide that from anyone.

Source: B.4.1

This example shows that it all comes down to communicating the truth and the truth is

the same at all levels and with all stakeholders.

5.1.4.5. Integrity, truth, responsibility

The above example leads to statements on maintaining integrity, being truthful and tak-

ing on responsibility:

I have tried to receive a recommendation about something that I was to do instead of doing it

my own way and you feel it right away, that it doesn’t work. It is important to express and

communicate things your own way if you know that it works. … If a model of something is

forced upon you, then make it clear that it is not your way of doing things, but it is something

that we have been ordered to do.

Source: A2.2.1

The project manager in the example expresses the importance of being true to what you

believe is the right way, and even if you cannot do it your way, then being true to the

people you work with by letting them know that this is not your opinion.

The aspect of integrity is also expressed in relation to taking on responsibility:

Everything can go wrong and you have all the opportunities in the world to lose your temper

and shout at people, but it is about maintaining integrity and be the leader for your people. I

think that many times in the project management situation you forget to communicate that

my task is also to be your leader. … You also have the job to be the leader for the project team

members, because they have been taken out of their daily line department, and even though

you have confrontations and the atmosphere is loaded from time to time, make sure to com-

municate, it is still my responsibility to communicate, and I try to live up to that and demon-

strate it.

It is about getting a structure on things and writing things down, so that you can see that

someone takes on the responsibility.


The above demonstrates that communicating your role is communicating that you take

on the responsibility of being the leader. Being the leader is being in charge, communi-

cating clear lines, getting structure and communicating that you are taking on the re-

sponsibility. Being a leader can further be elaborated on in relation to Berkun (2008)


227

argument of what it takes to be a good leader. According to him, to be a good leader,

you must learn how to find, build, earn, and grant trust to others – as well as learn how

to cultivate trust in yourself. According to Berkun, trust is built through effective com-

mitments, and using the granting of authority and trust leads to enabling people to do

great work, use delegation to build trust for the team and to commit the team against

diversity, and respond to problems in a way that will maintain people’s trust. However,

trust in yourself, according to Berkun, is the core of leadership.

5.1.5. Organizing theme: Relations

These categories include communication statements describing relations with people,

involving and motivating people and how relations have impact on project management

and the project context, and how it influences project management communication.

5.1.5.1. Motivation, engagement, involvement

This category contains statements describing communication that is characterized by

communicative action of motivating, engaging and involving people in the project man-

agement process:

When you need a project to get running, communication is alpha omega. You can have a real-

ly good project with yourself, but if you don’t have your people with you, you don’t have a

project. People need to buy into your project, if not; you are on your own.

It is not enough to make reports, follow plans, and check off check lists. If you don’t hold your

people to their responsibilities about deliveries and other things, if they don’t understand

what is written in a specific report, then you won’t get far. You need to keep your people at it,

or else they will forget. … If you cannot communicate appropriately to your stakeholders and

your surroundings, people will give up and back off. If you cannot communicate your needs

and requirements, then you will not get any understanding and people will not help you. You

need to have an understanding for the different aspects of communication. Sometimes you

need to be pushy, other times, one phone call is all you need.

Source: A2.1.1

The example illustrates all three aspects of this category. If you cannot motivate your

people, they will not engage in your project. If you cannot motivate, people will disen-

gage. If you cannot get people’s understanding and get them motivated, they will not

involve themselves.

The following example illustrates what it means to motivate and what happens when

the project manager does not have the competence of motivating:


228

Communication is the ability to communicate and influence someone to move in a specific di-

rection that benefits my project. If you want to achieve something, communication is the tool

a project manager needs. It is also the ability to focus, and aim, and send the right message

and create an attractive path that people agree to follow. Create a vision and an attractive

path. That is communication. The other way round: bad communication is where it makes no

sense at all, and the project manager does not understand what he or she is doing, like when

you try to pull something down on people.

Source: A2.2.1

The statement shows that communication is considered thoroughly. There is no coinci-

dence or hesitation in this statement. You almost sense the concentration, like Robin

Hood drawing his bow, aiming and shooting. There are numerous other metaphors to

associate with (Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King to name a few) when the act of

motivating people to engagement and action is described as: “… create an attractive

path that people agree to follow. Create a vision and an attractive path.” And just as well

the example point to the consequences of when the role and function of communication

is not understood then things make no sense at all.

5.1.5.2. Relations, people, attitude, collaboration

This category shows the sociocultural dimension of communication in projects. These

statements demonstrate what goes on between the reports, documents and checklists.

In other words, the statements demonstrate what really makes things work:

… I have started having ‘one-to-one’ meetings with both my project sponsor and my project

team members, where everyone each gets half an hour, a little depending on how big of an

influence they potentially have on the project. Every other week, and in that way you get a lit-

tle time to talk, and for me it gives me a chance to see how the person is and how things are

going at home, all those things that may have influence on the project, …

A1.4.1

The example shows a project manager, who invests time in getting to know people,

spend time with them, talks to them one-on-one in order to be informed about personal

things. Things that are of importance to the individual and thereby may influence the

project as it may be prioritized over the project in some situations.

The following statement is a brief description of the project manager’s job:

… I only have one tool, and that is my computer, it is my media and it is my communication. I

don’t do anything. … I write and I talk to people, I explain how things connect. … It is im-


229

portant to keep on communicating. … You must motivate all the way through and show the

human side of yourself, I believe that is what motivates the most …

Source: C.2.1

The last example that I will show in this is also very brief:

It is way more complex, I mean, it is about people, it is not about systems, it is not about rules,

it is about how we act as human people, how we interact, how we are social together …

Source: D.2.1

This is a statement that could be about anything but project management. However, it is

about what is important in project management.

This category of statements reflect the people centered approach by Kampf (2013) in

that it de-centers the project as the main point of interest and instead puts focus on the

people engaged in creating the solution to the project in question. It is all about people

and how we work together, how we get things to function with the knowledge, skills,

competencies, motivation, engagement and communicative action that we each pos-

sess.

5.1.6. Organizing theme: Context

This last main group pertains to statements demonstrating the context within which all

the above discussed statements of communicative action and behavior take place. In

relation to the question of what communication means and why it is important the as-

pects of ‘Politics’ and the ‘Perspectives of communication’ were mentioned.

5.1.6.1. Politics

Statements about frames to which the project manager must abide demonstrate how

the project manager’s communication is affected, and how they reflect upon it:

… If a model of something is forced upon you, then make it clear that it is not your way of do-

ing things, but it is something that we have been ordered to do.

Source: A2.2.1

This example from earlier demonstrates that some frames, some models can be forced

upon you, and the project manager deals with it within these frames. Political framing

can also, as demonstrated in the following example, be when the project manager can-

not trust the reasoning and validity behind a “Go” or “No Go”- a green light for a project

to be accepted, to proceed or to be closed down.


230

We have boards of approval that evaluate and judge … these projects, and they don’t care

about looking at 22 of this kind of projects. They almost don’t care about looking at even one,

because it has already been estimated and decided that the project is to proceed, and by the

way, they are not keen at saying “No” to each other, because they never know if they need to

get something through for approval next week.

Source: A1.1.1

The statement reveals that an approval is of no real value, as the project may have quali-

fied just because some board member has a double agenda of getting some other pro-

ject approved next week.

5.1.6.2. Perspectives – long vs. short term

Statements show that project managers are aware that their context and the frames of

their project are different from that of the line manager and that of the project team

members whom they work with during the period of a project’s life cycle:

Well, I assume that a line manager … is closer to the individual employee, what an employee

wishes are, “you are here today, where would you like to be?”, he [the line manager] has to

have an eye for where the employee would like to go, so his communication to the employee

is naturally in the light of the employee’s ambitions etc. Where my communication to the em-

ployees is, “Well, I have this assignment A and I would like it solved – what do we do?” I am

more a point of a needle where the line manager must have other things in mind. His depart-

ment is to function for half a year+; my project is done in three months. That is my focus. So

he has a long term perspective, I must assume, where I have a short term perspective.

Source: A1.3.1

This first example illustrates that the communication takes form corresponding to the

time perspective and responsibilities of the manager – line or project manager. There

are different priorities: “employee’s ambitions” versus “assignment A - I would like it

solved”, and there are different time perspectives framing the context: “is to function in

half a year (+)” versus “a prick in time - done in three months”.

Another way of considering the perspective of time in project management is illustrated

in the following statement:

… something that I remember, and I didn’t like it, was that while you were in the project, you

were an important player, an important resource for the project manager. You met frequent-

ly, and the good project managers asked about how things were going, what the status was,

and the project manager was kind of part of the team. But the day the project ended, and the

project manager was on to another project and got another team … then I felt, at least at one


231

point, it was very obvious that you were no longer part of that new team. Also then, you

didn’t know each other any longer, and then the problem was that it all felt so awkward and

false in a way […]. The project manager also has some kind of role afterwards in having con-

tact with those people that he works with in the same organization.

Source: B.7.1

The example illustrates that the project manager ought to consider his or her relations

to the project team members during and after a given project and not dump the team

members of the old team for the team members of the new team: “you didn’t know

each other any longer”. The example also illustrates the importance of being aware of

the internal relations in the organization on both short and long term, since you are very

likely to get to work together again: "[t]he project manager also has some kind of role

afterwards in having contact with those people that he works with in the same organiza-

tion.” Quinn et al’s (2007) framework of competing values contribute in the aspects of

long term and short term relations in that the project manager’s role, as seen in the ex-

ample, goes beyond the project in that the project manager takes on a different role in

relation to former project team members and potential team members when he or she

is in between projects or when interacting with former team members and colleagues

who are not part of a current project team.


232

5.1.7. Main categories compared to main groups

A frequency count has been made of the different categories by company and in total.

Figure 35 illustrates the frequency of all categories with the five dominant categories

circled in red to the left.

Figure 35: Frequency of categories across all companies with the dominant categories emphasized

The frequency count per category across all companies show that statements about

documentation, written communication and models is most distinct (with a score of 12)

in connection to the interview question of what communication means and why it is im-

portant. Second place is taken by comments about the quality of communication (with a

score of 10), and as it has been illustrated in the organizing theme ‘Characteristics of

communication’ these statements are characterized by an objective and measurable ap-

proach to the quality of communication, standardization of communication and ways of

measuring the success of the perception of intended messages communicated by the

project manager. In the third place the category of authority and power (with a score of

8) concerning the acknowledgement of not having formal authority but how the project

manager nevertheless gains the authority by other means of influence and power. In a

shared fourth place (with a score of 7) is where the mention of the influence of people,

diversity, involvement, and motivation on communication is found.


233

Table 23 shows 16 categories to the left in the table, and the 5 organizing themes are

shown to the right next to the table. The high scores of how many times a category is

discussed are circled in red and the scores of total number of statements in the organiz-

ing themes are indicated in the last column to the right in Table 23.

Table 23: Frequency count of categories by company and by main groups, showing main groups to the right.

However, looking at the frequency of statements per main group the picture looks a lit-

tle different. The count shows that the main group characterizing communication has

most statements, and herein you find the category of diversity and of the quality of

communication. The second largest group becomes the group with statements ap-

proaching communication from the tool and technical perspective. Whereas the catego-

ry was very dominating in the first count, it now is less dominating as part of the overall

main group. The category authority and power that took third place in the first count,

makes up one fifth of the main group that characterizes the project manager.

At first it looks as if project managers all understand communication in projects from the

absolute technical side due to the dominance of the categories of documentation, writ-

ten communication, and models and of quality of communication. However, when ob-

serving the statements a little closer, the technical dimension takes a less dominating

part in the overall picture.

This is further confirmed when looking at the difference in the visuals of what is empha-

sized when comparing the five groups. To ease the reading of the figures, a short re-

minder of that the figures show the theme’s frequency score, for example when a


234

theme is mentioned 3 times the mark is set on the indication of three, and when a

theme is not mentioned, no mark is set, and therefore the theme has no line indication

in the figure. To make a full comparison Figure 36 illustrates an alternative visual to Fig-

ure 35 showing the dominating categories across all companies.

Figure 36: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication across all five groups

Whereas, looking at company A1, illustrated in Figure 37, the priorities change. Compa-

ny A1 consists of project managers from IT project management units with 1 to 5 years

of experience within the production and engineering industry. The category ‘Documen-

tation, written, models’ is still highly distinct, but now it is nuanced with the domination

of the category of ‘structure, tool, technique and procedure’.


235

Figure 37: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company A1

What characterizes these two categories from the perspective of company A1 is their

way of seeing documentation both as a burden and as a fantastic tool. They disapprove

of how time consuming documentation requirements are, but they acknowledge the

value of the advantages that come with it.

… it is a necessary evil and a fantastic tool…

Source: A1.4.1

… we do it mostly for ourselves in order to abide to rules, one could say. … only very few read

it, if anyone at all reads these documents. … and it also has value for ourselves, because it

forces us to remember things, but we spend a lot of time on written documentation.

Source: A1.2.1

… There is a lot of documentation … it serves to lock down decisions … it is a question of hav-

ing a place to check up on information, to see if things fit and connect. …

Source: A1.1.1

They are aware that they are faced with expectations of an ideal world from manage-

ment that they perceive communication as a tool to handle these challenges by consid-


236

ering, calculating and communicating explicitly about the consequences of these expec-

tations in contrast to reality based on their experience.

It is about aligning expectations. There is always an expectation from management that this

cannot be so difficult …. And then we come along and say that it will take at least half a year

etc., and that is of course because we have the experience.

Source: A1.2.1

The categories ‘Reflection, consideration, calculation’, ‘Diversity – people & context, and

‘Authority & Power’ have second place in priority, however only half as many state-

ments as the two first. What characterizes these categories in company A1 is in line with

the above statement, the ability to make consequences visible, but also the desire to

have more time for reflection in order to do the right things and do things right instead

of hurrying along without consideration of well thought through priorities.

… it can be really uphill sometimes. But at the end of the day, it is a question of us estimating

what it is require. … what are the consequences and make them very explicit to upper level

management.

Source: A1.2.1

… the frustrating thing is that things cost a lot of energy and you wish to do the right thing

and maybe use a little more time to consider things before you start something, instead of

just hurrying on with things …

… all the excel sheets that I need to fill in and, but on the contrary it pushes us a little to en-

sure that things are in order and under control, … It provides us with a fixed time … where you

sit yourself down and think about what the status of things are, … where are we, and where

do I need to make an effort …

Source A1.4.1

The project managers demonstrate authoritative behavior in that they perceive it as

their responsibility to set the right expectations between the steering committee and

the project manager due to their experience, and thereby create the right basis for dia-

logue and prioritizing.

I evaluate my success … according to how well I fulfill the steering committee’s expectations

of me, but they expect, of course, that I set the right expectations … and create the right basis

for prioritizing new things … It is the project manager who issues the directive for the steering

committee, how they are to function…

Source: A1.1.1


237

Their way of viewing their authority is also seen in their understanding of their role as

project managers in the overall business strategy:

… the purpose of doing projects is to create value for the company … and when we focus stra-

tegically we must support the overall strategy in being successful and that is where we create

value.

Source: A1.2.1

And diversity is acknowledged as a daily challenge in their context of working with a

wide range of different professions, professional cultures and thereby attitudes towards

what purpose communication serves.

… there is an operation unit, where communication is almost an unknown aspect. … And then

there is the development unit, and they are really good at interpersonal and informal commu-

nication.

Source: A1.3.1

Overall, what characterizes company A1 is their understanding of communication as be-

ing a tool with the purpose of creating value, as in making upper management under-

stand the reality of things and thereby creating value, investing in time for reflection to

do things right and thereby create value, or lock down decisions in documentation for

future reference to see if things fit, and thereby create value.

Company A2, is the same company as A1, but consists of project managers from another

IT project management unit with 5 to 15 years of experience within the production and

engineering industry. As shown in Figure 38, the dominance lies within the category of

‘Documentation, written, models’ and the category of ‘Motivation, engagement, in-

volvement’.


238

Figure 38: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company A2

What characterizes the statements about documentation, written communication, and

models is a positive attitude towards how communication emerges from standardiza-

tion, the need for and benefits of standardization, and the consequences of not having

it. The following statement demonstrates what happens when there is no documenta-

tion, no standardization:

When you don’t have standardization, no formal way of starting, managing and closing a pro-

ject. They all have the stage gate, but no consequence for following it, there is no review

board, no quality assurance, who is actually making sure they are following the mode? – No

one. … Glorified checklists, if he is new, he will follow it to the letter and some elements he will

not need. … every step of the model is a communication step.

A2.4.1

The count reveals that the other equally dominating category in company A2 is the cate-

gory of ‘Motivation, engagement, involvement’. This is quite opposite to the arguments

for documentation and standardization.


239

… if you don’t have your people with you, you don’t have a project. People need to buy into

your project, if not; you are on your own.

…You need to keep your people at it, or else they will forget. … If you cannot communicate

appropriately to your stakeholders and your surroundings, people will give up and back off, …

then you will not get any understanding and people will not help you.

Source: A2.1.1

Communication is the ability to communicate and influence someone … create an attractive

path that people agree to follow. Create a vision and an attractive path. That is communica-

tion.

Source: A2.2.1

The domination of these two apparently opposite categories may at first glance appear

contradicting. However, despite the opposites in the perspectives of documentation and

standardization on the one hand and people and involvement on the other, what it

comes down to is clear communication. The first appeal to standardization is not arguing

for inflexible machinelike procedures, it is arguing for clear unambiguous communica-

tion. As it has been stated the consequence of ambiguous communication is if you can-

not communicate appropriately to your stakeholders, people will give up and back off,

you will not get any understanding and people will not help you.

The categories ‘Diversity – people & context” and ‘Quality of communication” are also

emphasized in company A2. Diversity in company A2 is seen as different habits of, ap-

proaches to and attitudes towards communication.

A lot of people have the attitude “My way or the highway”, they want it their way only. … a

huge challenge for the project manager – getting people to realize the common goal …

Source: A2.2.1

… people want this and that product, but they are not willing to participate actively, or con-

tribute actively. They expect that of the project manager. The project manager must pull at all

times to get people to act. If people have problems with something: “then you just get a pro-

ject manager on the task, he will solve it” The attitude of the project manager solving it is

whether I participate or not.

Source: A2.2.1

The quality of communication is apparent again in the statements of unambiguous

communication that makes it possible to measure, that enables standardization and

checklists: as in what is to be delivered, when, why, how.


240

A controlled start is 50% of the success of the project … A communication plan controls the

‘Need to know’, how it should be delivered, when it should be delivered etc. Most people un-

derstand that they need to tell what happened but then don’t understand that they need to

communicate how it happened, why, how it worked and how important it is.

A2.4.1

The categories ‘Reflection, consideration, calculation’ and ‘Integrity, truth, responsibility’

are also represented, indicating that even though the count shows a profile leaning to-

wards the technical dimension, the sociocultural dimension is present.

You cannot just sit and be operational – you need to follow up and report – time for reflection

… reflection is what gives something positive to projects; it is reflection that creates synergy.

Source: A2.1.1

Company A1 and A2 are two IT units within the same company. Nevertheless a differ-

ence in their profiles is seen. One thing that may influence this difference is that the pro-

ject managers of A1 have 1 to 5 years of experience in project management, whereas

the experience in A2 is from 5 to 15 years. It appears that the more experience you have

the more equal a balance the profile will show between the technical and the sociocul-

tural dimension. If a project manager has little experience there is a need to lean against

standardization and documents and stick to the glorified lists, which can be understood

in the light of Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) talk about formal structures and well-

established patterns building on traditions that dictate procedures of control, monitor-

ing, and assessment of success, which serve a highly accepted and appreciated purpose

in that Clegg and Courpasson assert that the bureaucratic ways of reporting and stand-

ardizing templates of communication serve to ground and assess the level of success. A

project manager with more experience has more confidence and has the courage to rely

on his or her own way of doing things and thereby shows more personal characteristics.

Company B consists of project managers with 5 to 15 years of experience and a project

director with 25 to 30 years of experience within the production and engineering indus-

try. This profile, illustrated in Figure 39, varies from the company A1 and A2 in that the

dominance lies within what communication is, the quality of it, and the perspectives of

it. The dominant categories are ‘What is communication’ and ‘Quality of communica-

tion’.

The perception of communication is characterized by statements of what communica-

tion is, what it is not, and what it contributes with in case of conflicts.


241

Communication is 360°. Communication is among the most difficult things. Communication

forms the success of the project manager. You always have time for communication.

Sources: B.2.1; B.1.1

It means everything. If there is bad communication between me and a project manager or an

employee, then we end up with a bad project. … If you cannot communicate with your project

team members and make good solid agreements with the organization, then forget about it.

Source: B.5.1

Figure 39: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company B

According to a statement in company B, the quality of communication is also about voic-

ing what it is that you would like as a project manager, in order to get to the projects

that interest you:

It is the responsibility of the project manager to voice his or her interests.

Source: B.1.1

A message can be communicated in many ways. Work with or work against with communica-

tion and get the best out of it.


242

Source: B.2.1

Characteristics of communication is, by company B, also defined in their way of talking

about conflict and authority, in that communication is seen as a useful tool in situations

of conflict, and as a tool showing your authority, taking on that responsibility that you

are in charge.

… A project manager is allowed to make requirements to the organization… the project man-

ager can demand to be informed about … The project manager is also allowed to get angry

with the steering committee internally, that is legitimate.

I don’t think there is any problem that it can be an ocean of conflicts to navigate in … the

good solutions always emerge from the dialogues in the individual projects … I don’t see con-

flict as a problem.

Source: B.2.1

There is a responsibility to take, and it is important that the project manager takes the re-

sponsibility. You have to show that you are on top of things

Source: B.2.1

Another characteristic of company B is their emphasis on perspectives in communica-

tion. The approach to communication goes beyond the limits of the project, both pre-

project and post-project, but also in the sense of seeing the project as a part of the

whole organization.

They have acknowledged that the project runs a thousand times better if the project manager

is involved in the actual sales process, because you will have established relations, you have

talked to them, and you have seen them and heard their opinions …

Source: B.1.1

The project manager also has some kind of role afterwards in having contact with those peo-

ple that he works with in the same organization.

Source: B.7.1

The perfect project manager to me is a project manage, who is able to see beyond the limits

of his or her own project. If he can see that the organization has a need for something else,

and he is willing to offer part of his project for the benefit of the big picture and has the com-

petence to do so. That makes him a competent project manager.

Source: B.5.1

Company B’s perception of communication is dominated by defining what the function

of the tool ‘communication’ is in various situations. What it can contribute with and how


243

it serves the purpose of getting a message across. Finally, the role of communication is

not perceived as being limited to the frames of the project, but as being important in the

sales process and after the closure of the project, as well as in the sense of the project

being a part of the whole organization.

Company C consists of project managers with 1 to 10 years of experience and a project

director with 15 to 20 years of experience within the software production and engineer-

ing industry.

Figure 40: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company C

Figure 40 shows that the category ‘Quality of communication’ dominates, and hereafter

the categories ‘Relations, people, attitude, collaboration’ and ‘Authority & Power’ are

prominent. The nature of the statements from these categories characterizes company

C as a very people centered company. Statements concerning the quality of communica-

tion, authority, and power are focused on engagement and collaboration with people

and respect for other people.


244

When communication is missing, you get a reaction. But they don’t think about it until some-

thing goes wrong. … If people are not adequately informed, they will come running. … In case

they are in doubt, they will ask … but you cannot catch everything with communication. You

cannot cut everything out in cardboard.

Source: C.3.1

What is the optimal channel and form of communication in order to get the message across?

… Is my way of writing good enough? I can’t decide how they, inside their heads, will receive

my message. I can only hope that they will perceive it in the right way, but there is no guaran-

tee. … We focus on what training courses would benefit the project manager, and one may

say that it is really beneficial that we are good at estimating a project. However, we also need

to be able to communicate, because if we have made an estimation, and we are really bad at

communicating, then we risk messing up the estimation… naturally.

Source: C.2.1


don’t do anything. … I write and I talk to people, I explain how things connect … It is important

to keep on communicating … You must motivate all the way through and show the human

side of yourself, I believe that is what motivates the most.

Source: C.2.1

… communication is what ensures that the team around the project functions and collabo-

rates; that we have something in common because of communication.

Source: C.5.1

With respect to other people’s time, I sometimes have to become very strict and cut to the

bone, and then the cozy atmosphere disappears. And then you have to make it very clear that

this is not up for discussion. I may be a little shy of conflicts, but I have to do it. It is a limited

period of time, and then off to the next project and then we will have to reconcile.

As a line manager, you cannot use an “either/or” situation. … You can do that as a project

manager. It is okay to say: “Now you must do like this or else…”, “Or else what?” “Or else I

have to report you to your head of department because…” I feel really uncomfortable. It is

what I hate about this job, but you cannot be good friends with everybody. You sometimes

have to tell someone that “you are not doing a good job”.

Source: C.4.1

The project manager does not make decisions, but he or she makes sure that the basis and

the right conditions are present for decision-making.

Source: C.4.1


245

I see that people perform their best, when they have influence on tasks, on how they solve

problems, when they don’t feel that they are under observation at all times. So it is, but it re-

quires that management dare let go and have trust in people … I think it is anchored in many

“management brains” that trust is good, but control is better.

Source: C.PD.1.

The statements show that no matter what is discussed it is always related to people, to

relations to people, attitudes towards people, which characterizes the company as very

people centered. This company appears not to be dominated by the technical dimen-

sion, but rather the sociocultural. The company differs from company A1, A2 and B in

that this is a software engineering company. It is not a heavy production and engineer-

ing company, which means that the organizational culture may differ. On the other

hand, the units in company A1 and A2 are IT units that could be comparable to company

C. However relevant, the cultural discussion is beyond the limits of this study and is rec-

ommended for future research.

Company D has a profile that resembles company A1. Company D consists of the expert

group of two project management consultants and educators with 25 to 30 years of ex-

perience with project management. The resemblance lies within the dominance of the

categories ‘Documentation, written, models’ and ‘Structure, tool, technique, procedure’

as illustrated in Figure 41. Where company A1 has a further emphasis on the category

‘Relations, consideration, calculation’ and the category ‘Diversity – people & context’,

company D shows a similar emphasis in the category of ‘Integrity, truth, responsibility’

and further the categories ‘Motivation, engagement, involvement’ and, like company

A1, ‘Relations, consideration, calculation’.


246

Figure 41: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company D

Based on the dominating categories ‘documentation, written, models’ and ‘structure,

tool, technique, procedure’ shown in Figure 41, what characterizes company D is the

very firm belief that the documented contract with structure and all clear cut agree-

ments is what makes the basis for everything else. It is not a question of the contract be-

ing perfect. What is stressed is whatever quality of contract you have; it is the contract

that determines the project managers’ point of departure for everything else. The ex-

ample has been referred to earlier nevertheless; it makes sense to repeat it:

The contract is the bible, and if you are not familiar with it, you burn out and die. You must

know it [the contract] from above, beneath, from the inside out, in your sleep … I always say

that we have five dimensions. There is length, width, height, and time. The first four was cre-

ated by God, and the fifth was created by man. AGREEMENTS. Every society in the whole

world, all treaties are built upon agreements. If you cannot play by the rules, you die, just like

playing chess. … It is very simple, the one who knows the rules best have a bigger chance of

winning. … Learn the rules, and the rules are written down in the contract. Learn the rules and

then you can start to navigate. … You need to know your foundation, where am I to operate,

what is my platform? It may be an instable platform, but it serves you no good not to know


247

that the platform is unstable, because then you think it is stable, and suddenly a huge black

hole appears in the corner, and you don’t want to go there. What is up and what is down in

this world? It is agreements, agreements, agreements.


A miracle, a break down, two show-stoppers and a couple of minor crashes a day is what we

could take … so one can say that getting things structured is what made it possible, because

before that no one knew what was to be delivered and when, and there was no structure at

all.

Source: D.2.1

It is about getting a structure on things and writing things down, so that you can see that

someone takes on the responsibility.


Despite the firm technical dimension emphasis on the contract, on agreements in writ-

ing, and on knowing the rules that are to be found in the contract, company D is equally

characterized by the sociocultural dimension illustrated in Figure 41 with a high score in

the category of ‘integrity, truth, responsibility’. This sociocultural dimension is seen in

the following quotes:

Everything can go wrong and you have all the opportunities in the world to lose your temper

and shout at people, but it is about maintaining integrity and being the leader for your peo-

ple. I think that many times in the project management situation you forget to communicate

that my task is also to be your leader … You also have the job to be the leader for the project

team members, because they have been taken out of their daily line department, and even

though you have confrontations and the atmosphere is loaded from time to time, make sure

to communicate, it is still my responsibility to communicate, and I try to live up to that and

demonstrate it.

It is way more complex, I mean, it is about people, it is not about systems, it is not about rules,

it is about how we act as human people, how we interact, how we are social together …

Source: D.2.1

Even though you are in a PMI3 regulated system and use the model for communicating things,

well, it is still very different people who communicate the different terms and therefore inter-

pret them their way, and it is different every time anyway … Some very structured people may

be able to help you out and distinguish facts, where I miss information, but there is no quality

in that communication in itself in such a system. Quality comes from what you create be-

3 Project management institute (PMI): serve practitioners and organizations with standards that describe good practices, globally recognized credentials that certify project management expertise, and resources for professional development, networking and community. (www.pmi.org: retrieved March 5, 2013)

http://www.pmi.org/


248

tween you and your project team members, and between you and the people that surround

you.

Source: D.2.1

Key terminology in relation to communication by company D is: truth, integrity, leader,

people, responsibility and yes, contract, agreements and rules.

The profile of company D support the suggestion that the more experience a project

manager has, the more equal a balance the profile shows between the technical and the

sociocultural dimension. Company D is very strong in both dimensions and as in compa-

ny A2, the project managers in this expert group are very experienced. They are confi-

dent and have the courage to rely on their own ways of doing things and show personal

integrity. However, they also know the value of documentation, rules, and agreements

in writing. They do not discuss one without mentioning the other.

Comparing the five companies it is seen that company A1, A2 and B are primarily orient-

ed towards a perception of communication relating to the technical dimension, whereas

company C is primarily oriented towards a sociocultural understanding. Company D and

to some degree A2 have a more equal balance between the two dimensions, which

could be explained by the project managers’ years of experience.

This will be further elaborated on in the next section where the companies’ perception

of communication is related to models of communication in project management.


249

5.1.8. The perception of communication reflecting models of communication

in project management

The five companies each show their individual characteristics of how communication is

perceived. The findings reflect the models of communication in project management

textbooks (presented in the literature review section 2.1.3.4 about communication

models page 38) and thereby also the dimensional approach of technical and/or soci-

ocultural. Table 24 shows the perception of all five companies as well as examples of the

models and dimension reflected.

Table 24: Perception of communication in project management, reflected models and dimensional approach (Origi-nal)

There is a distinct representation of the early models in that description of how commu-

nication is a tool that serves the purpose of getting a message across in order to achieve

action, with the ultimate aim of fulfilling the project goal, is quite dominating. However,

the models integrating the sociocultural dimension are equally represented. Communi-

cation is approached from the technical dimension, reflecting the early models of com-

munication such as Lasswell’s model with: sender, message, channel, receiver and im-

pact. Company A1 perceives communication as technical requirements of documenta-

tion (channel) with project data (message), required by the steering committee and/or


250

the organization (receiver) with the goal of delivering the project successfully (impact).

The sender being the project manager. Osgood and Schramm’s (in Mooz et al, 2003) as

well as Berkun’s models of communication are reflected in that Company A1 demon-

strate significant attention to the act of encoding and decoding messages, and to the ac-

tion desired as a result of the communicated messages.

Company A2 perceives communication primarily form the technical dimension, which is

similar to A1, but A2 reflects Lasswell’s model with a stronger emphasis on the infor-

mation of ‘What’, ‘How’, ‘Whom’, with what effect-‘Why’. The steps 3 to 5: ‘understand-

ing’, ‘agreement’ and ‘achieving useful action’, in Berkun’s model are reflected in com-

pany A2’s aim of creating unambiguous communication to optimize understanding and

thereby reach agreements, engagement and motivation for involvement, and it is this

aim for agreement, engagement, and involvement that reflect step 4 and 5 supporting

the sociocultural dimension of company A2’s perception.

Company B’s perception is focused on the functionality, the technical dimension of get-

ting the message across, reflecting Osgood and Schramm’s model of encoding and de-

coding, as well as Berlo’s model of a wider range of considerations in ‘source’, ‘mes-

sage’, ‘channel’ and ‘receiver’ in order to decide on the right way of getting the message

across. Company B’s understanding of communication can be seen in the light of Mooz

et al’s model of facilitating communication through systems management. Their percep-

tion shows considerations of communication that extend into various managerial and

functional aspects of project management, for example that communication is seen as

being part of not only the actual project, but as an element of the organization as a

whole, as well as being present before and after the specific project period.

Company C also reflect the above mentioned aspects of Mooz et al’s model as they inte-

grate communication with stakeholders beyond the specific project context. Their em-

phasis on people and relations in all aspects of communication reflect Kampf’s people

and communication centered model, indicating a strong sociocultural approach.

Company D demonstrates a perception of communication that is well-balanced between

the technical and the sociocultural dimension. The perception therefore, reflects most of

the spectrum of the models of communication. However to emphasize the most promi-

nent Lasswell’s ‘What’, ‘How’, ‘Whom’, with what effect-‘Why’, and Berkun’s emphasis

on ‘understanding’, ‘agreement’ and ‘achieving useful action’ are dominant in relation to

the technical dimension, whereas, Mooz et al’s model of facilitating communication


251

through systems management, and Kampf’s people and communication centered model

dominate in relation to the sociocultural dimension.

5.1.9. Reflection on findings

These observations of what models are reflected in the perceptions of communication in

project management indicates the limitation of the ability of viewing and understanding

the role of communication as more that a functional tool. A correlation is seen between

the dominating technical approach in the project management literature and the ob-

served perception of communication. This argument is based on the observation (men-

tioned earlier) of how project managers with less experience tend to lean against the

objective tool and technical based communication relying on standardized procedures

and glorified checklists. This approach to communication originate from the available

literature on project management used in project management training.

The more experience the project manager gains, the more confident they become on

relying on this experience. It appears that experienced project managers acknowledge

the indispensable need for documentation, procedures, locked down decisions and

agreements in order to maintain structure and to keep the overview of the project.

However, the experienced project manager knows that the crucial resource of project

management are people and the relation to and interaction with every individual that in

some direct or indirect way is linked to the project. This argument is supported by the

observations of the perceptions of communication showing that a company like compa-

ny A1 with project managers with only 1-5 years of experience lean towards the tech-

nical dimension, and the company A2, B and D with 5-15 years of experience lean to-

wards a more equal balance between the technical and the sociocultural dimension.

Company C differs in that it has project managers with 1 to 10 years of experience, and

the perception of communication leans primarily towards the sociocultural dimension.

As mentioned earlier, this may be explained from a cultural perspective.

This analysis is based on the retrospective reflections from interviewees answering the

question: “What does communication mean to you?” And: “Why is it important?”. In the

following, the findings from this analysis are compared to the findings in the thematic

network of ‘Communication’. The aim is to compare and contrast similarities and differ-

ences and thereby detect a deeper understanding of communication based on state-

ments that reveal communicative behavior and considerations not directly linked to a

question about communication.


252

5.1.10. Comparing and contrasting findings from the analysis of the percep-

tion of communication to findings from the thematic network ‘Com-

munication’

In the overall thematic analysis in section 4, page 169, it was seen how accounts and de-

scriptions discuss and illustrate aspects influencing, contextualizing, framing and shaping

communicative behavior, actions, choices that can be organized into the three global

thematic networks:

1. Project manager: Personal characteristics of a project manager based on person-

ality, qualifications, and competencies

2. Context: Overall context descriptions based on context, conditions, frames, limi-

tations, expectations , organizational settings

3. Communication: Characteristics of communication based on organizational

norms, procedures, expectations, and personal preference

The overall thematic analysis revealed that project management communication con-

sists of many aspects beyond the labeled subjects of communication, and even within

the global network ‘Communication’ aspects of non-labeled aspects were to be found.

These aspects were the organizing themes of ‘project progress’ and ‘the nature of and

attitude towards challenge, change and conflict’ (Ref. Figure 43)

Presenting the thematic network mappings of both the perception of communication

and that of the thematic network ’Communication’ from the overall thematic analysis

section 4.1.3, page 198 helps ease the comparison of the two analyses. As illustrated in

Figure 42 and Figure 43 the perception of communication has two distinct areas in

common: the main group of ‘Characteristics of communication’ with its sub-themes in

the network of ‘Perception of communication’ and the organizing theme of ‘The role and

function of communication’ in the network of ‘Communication’.


253

Figure 42: The thematic network ‘Perception of communication’ with highlighted areas of communication aspects shared with the thematic network ‘Communication’.

Figure 43: The thematic network ‘Communication’ with highlighted areas of communication aspects shared with the thematic network ‘Perception of communication’.


254

The communication aspect of ‘Time’ is not referred to directly in the analysis of the per-

ception. An example of this time aspect is where there is direct mentioning of the time

aspect:

I ought to shift more to formal communication. It is just difficult because it is time consuming

… so informal communication is a way of getting things going a bit faster with the risk it in-

volves.

Source: A1.2.1

… check out if he is in his office and have personal talk with him. I mean, there is almost al-

ways some kind of time pressure involved.

Source: A1.1.2

The main group ‘Tool & Topic-based communication’ shares the same communication

aspects as the equivalent area, the organizing theme ‘Project documentation & formal

reporting’. The two common areas again reflect the dominance of the technical dimen-

sion. A last area in common is the aspect of ‘Conflict’ that appears in connection to the

project manager in the network of the perception and in connection to project progress

and in connection to the attitude towards, challenges, change and conflict in the net-

work of communication. The shared areas show the classic areas of communication from

the project management textbooks.

The aspect of feedback is mentioned in statements from the thematic network ‘Com-

munication’ but is not mentioned when asked about the perception of communication.

… formal feedback about the individual’s performance and especially now, where things have

been put into system …. But I also give feedback, when I meet the person by the coffee ma-

chine or somewhere else…

Source: A1.1.2

Communication aspects concerning project progress, both what promotes and what

hinders progress appear in the ‘Communication’ network but not in the ‘Perception of

communication’ network.

Then the project manager called the manager in question and sent him emails and was

backed up by the director, and everything moved on just fine.

Source: A2.2.1

… It is almost frightening how little you can get done in such a long time, just because you sit

around fiddling with details and you are unable to focus and get going

Source4: B.7.1


255

The more nuanced selection of statements about the nature and attitude towards chal-

lenge, change and conflict that is represented in the ‘Communication’ network is not re-

flected when asked directly about the perception of communication. These statements

appear in relation to other subjects of discussion, that is, subjects not labeled ‘commu-

nication’.

The rest of the thematic network of ‘Perception of communication’ can be related to the

two other thematic networks of the overall thematic network analysis. Statements in

the main groups ‘Project manager’ and ‘Relations’ are reflected in the thematic network

‘Project manager’ and the main group ‘Context’ is reflected in the thematic network

‘Context’. This demonstrates that to understand the scope of the role and function of

project management communication one must go beyond the subjects normally associ-

ated with communication.

Projecting this observation to the literature review, the main groups ‘Project manager’,

‘Relations’ and ‘Context’ are reflected in the project management textbooks that inte-

grate and approach communication as dialogue, behavior, skills, individual and personal

competence and hereafter, I will argue, in the defined communication aspects that are

not labeled as ‘communication’.

5.2. Summary

The aim of this perception analysis is answering the second research question: ‘How do

project managers understand the role of communication in project management?’

Findings show that communication is perceived as being the most difficult task of pro-

ject management but at the same time it is seen as a prerequisite for progress, in that it

is seen as the project manager’s tool to make things work, get things aligned, connect

initiatives, and to motivate, engage and create collaboration among stakeholders. Pro-

ject managers perceive the communication requirements with stakeholders as challeng-

ing due to the stakeholders’ huge difference in attitudes towards the role of communi-

cation.

Accounts demonstrate how project managers perceive communication as being a tool

for information exchange, reporting, documentation, and quality measurement. Docu-

mented communication enables standardization that can be evaluated, measured, and

improved. Communication is therefore a means for the project manager to monitor and

control the performance and the success of the project and of own achievements.

Communication in the sense of documentation is both seen as a burden and as a fantas-


256

tic tool. Project managers disapprove of how time consuming documentation require-

ments are, but they acknowledge the value of the advantages that comes with it as in

being able to lock down decisions in documentation for future reference. They perceive

communication as a tool to handle challenges such as expectations of an ideal world

from management by considering, calculating and communicating explicitly the conse-

quences of these expectations.

The findings reflect the models of communication presented in project management

textbooks and thereby also the dimensional approach of technical and sociocultural.

There is a distinct representation of the early models descripting communication as a

tool that serves the purpose of getting a message across in order to achieve action, with

the ultimate aim of fulfilling the project goal is quite dominating. However, the models

integrating the sociocultural dimension are equally represented.

Observations indicate that experienced project managers acknowledge the indispensa-

ble need for documentation, procedures, locked down decisions and agreements in or-

der to maintain structure and to keep the overview of the project. However, the experi-

enced project manager know that the crucial resource of project management are peo-

ple and the relation to and interaction with every individual that in some direct or indi-

rect way is linked to the project. It is seen from the perceptions of communication show-

ing that a company like company A1 with project managers with only 1-5 years of expe-

rience lean towards the technical dimension, and the company A2, B and D with 5-15

years of experience lean towards a more equal balance between the technical and the

sociocultural dimension. Company C differs in that it has project managers with 1 to 10

years of experience, and the perception of communication leans primarily towards the

sociocultural dimension.

The implications of these findings suggest that in order to understand the underlying

processes of communicative action, behavior, and choices one must consider the years

of experience that a given project manager has, as this has influence on his or her un-

derstanding of the role and function of project management, which in return has an im-

pact on the project manager’s communication competence.

6. Context analysis

6.1. The context framing project managers’ communication

practices

To answer the third research question, ‘What is the context framing project managers’

communication practices?’ one query has been done based on the matrix coding:




here is to define and map stakeholders and the project management context. Stake-

holders are mapped according to professional positional level and geographical posi-

tional level in relation to the project.

Findings demonstrate that the textbook determinations of stakeholder categories are

insufficient and too vague to capture the complexity revealed in the extracted segments.

The textbook categorizations may be adequate to get an overall idea of what primary

stakeholders should be registered in the project stakeholder analysis on which the

communication plan is based. But results show that the stakeholder mapping and there-

by the stakeholder context of the project goes far beyond these categories.

6.1.1. Findings

The benchmarking list of stakeholders is, according to the extracted mentioned stake-

holders from the query, insufficient. Data shows that a part of the mentioned stake-

holders fit the benchmarking list and a part fit indirectly. However, interviewees men-

tion other stakeholders that go beyond the list and again others that don’t fit any listing.

In addition, non-human stakeholders such as procedures, structure, contract, values,

goals, etc. make up a stakeholder mapping of its own demonstrating the frames that

have influence on the project and on project management communication.

Chapter 6: Context analysis

258

6.1.2. Company A1 - primarily internal focus

Company A1 (illustrated in Figure 44) shows that mentioned stakeholders to some de-

gree fit the internal part of the benchmarking list (stakeholders marked in black). There

is a distinct internal focus, which is also seen in the stakeholders mentioned that fit indi-

rectly (stakeholders marked in green). What characterizes the latter group of stakehold-

ers is that they are non-specific; it is stakeholders of some kind in general. The inter-

viewees mention people involved, various managers, friends, etc. The boxes around the

model indicate the mentioned stakeholders that go beyond the textbook definitions, for

example informal contacts, colleagues and their networks, sales people, John (some

contact mentioned), others wanting your resources; stakeholders that have impact and

influence on the project.

Figure 44: Company A1 stakeholder mapping – showing primarily internal focus


259

6.1.3. Company A2 - primarily internal focus

Company A2, illustrated in Figure 45, shows as company A1, a distinct internal focus.

Company A2 does not mention that many stakeholders that either directly or indirectly

fit the benchmarking stakeholders. However, the list of stakeholders that goes beyond

the benchmarking has close to the same number of stakeholders of which most are in-

ternal. Similar to company A1, these stakeholders include organizational relations be-

yond the project setting such as people who can pull in the right direction, annoying for

someone, others who see and comment, colleagues that I meet, former project mem-

bers, etc. Company A1 and A2, are units from the same company, however there is a dis-

tinct difference in number of stakeholders matching the benchmarking list.

Figure 45: Company A2 stakeholder mapping – showing an internal focus


260

6.1.4. Company B - distinct internal focus

The findings concerning company B show an even more distinct internal focus in their

accounts. The number of stakeholders matching directly the benchmarking list is quite

equal to company A1, however findings show a much larger number of indirect match-

ing stakeholders. As for the stakeholders that go beyond the listing, there are no ac-

counts of external/internal opponents or of community participants. Although stake-

holders from the organizational setting are mentioned, as in company A1 and A2, what

differs in these accounts are the mentioning of stakeholders that have more personal

characteristics e.g.: my spouse, the person behind the profession, the individual and their

world, people and their private networks.

Figure 46: Company B stakeholder mapping – showing a distinct internal focus


261

6.1.5. Company C - distinct internal focus

Accounts from company C show an internal focus very similar to company B. There is a

few interesting stakeholders mentioned in the categories of ‘Community participants’:

Academics, and in ‘External/Internal opponents’: Ancient human bones. The latter could

very well be placed in the list of stakeholders that go beyond the listing – but since it is

human bones, I have decided to leave it here. I will refer back to this specific one later in

the relational analysis. The list going beyond textbook definitions demonstrate a combi-

nation of organizational relations such as manager colleagues, someone you depend on

to deliver something for you to proceed, and internal ‘us’ and ‘them’, and personal char-

acteristics relations such as my spouse’s network, some network that they know of, peo-

ple in private network, old colleagues, and the right person.

Figure 47: Company C stakeholder mapping – showing a distinct internal focus


262

6.1.6. Company D - distinct internal focus and framing

Accounts from company D show a different emphasis than the previous four companies.

As seen in Figure 48 there is, however, a dominant internal focus. The benchmarking

stakeholders are represented mostly in the ‘Project champion’ category and not so

much in the ‘Project participant’ category as has been the case with the other four com-

panies. The indirect stakeholder representation is likewise limited in this latter category

compared to the other companies. Very characteristic about company D is the emphasis

on power as in: people with power – who has it, other’s power fights; the individual such

as: not hopelessly useless people, the individual and their world and yourself; and project

framing as in: contract, values, rules of the game, objectives, structure, small delivery,

values, method, process etc.

Figure 48: Company D stakeholder mapping – showing internal focus and framing characteristics


263

6.1.7. Project contextual frames shaping communication

This last group of framing characteristics is distinct to the point that I have chosen to

make it part of the stakeholder mapping in that this contextual framing is at all times

mentioned in relation to stakeholders and their ability or disability of action. The follow-

ing example illustrates how knowing the contract frames the project manager’s ability to

navigate and win the game:

… If you cannot play by the rules, you die, just like playing chess. … It is very simple, the one

who knows the rules best, has a bigger chance of winning. … Learn the rules, and the rules are

written down in the contract. Learn the rules and then you can start to navigate.


Furthermore, the aspect of structure in relation to framing is seen in the next example

where getting structure, in what seems to be a chaotic situation, enables progress.

Structure frames the context and thereby the possibilities for the project manager.

A miracle, a break down, two show-stoppers and a couple of minor crashes a day is what we

could take … so one can say that getting things structured is what made it possible, because

before that no one knew what was to be delivered and when, and there was no structure at

all.

Source: D.2.1

The statement is also an example of how break downs, show-stoppers and miracles

frame the context that influences project management communication in that the pro-

ject manager is to navigate in a context characterized as described.

Company D consists of the expert group of two highly experienced project managers in

contrast to the other four companies consisting of both project managers with a few

years of experience and project managers with many years of experience. Another as-

pect that distinguishes the company D from the rest is that the expert project managers

are independent consultants versus the rest who are employed in larger companies.

Nevertheless, company D has emphasis on aspects of framing. Company A1, B and D

share the framing aspects of rules of the game, structure, methods, process and values.

Figure 49 demonstrates the framing aspects that are often subject to many levels and

categories. For example reality cannot be limited to one level or one category. Reality

may refer to the reality of some specific situation at any level or in any category. Values

are placed within all levels of the category ‘Project participants’ as it is values in relation

to the project context. It could be argued that it fits just as well in the category of ‘Pro-


264

ject champions’, but here it may be subject to referring to for example an upper level

manager’s own values or values in relation to the overall company – which is a valid ar-

gument. However for the sake of limiting misunderstandings, I chose to place values

where it specifically relates to the project context.

Figure 49: Mapping showing the framing context mentioned by company A1, B, C and D

Goals, however, are more related to the goals of the organization, the customer, the

project sponsor, project owner etc., that goals is placed at all levels in the category of

‘Project champions’. Rules of the game, procedures, reporting, 20 projects (waiting) in

line, the contract, and methods are all aspects accounted for in connection to what is

expected of the project manage and what frames he or she work with and therefore in-

fluence considerations of communicative action, behavior and choice of communication

strategies.

Findings show that project managers are aware of the frames (the reality) within which

they work, and they are aware of their limitations in influencing the frames which is il-

lustrated in the following examples:


265

… there are some things that I cannot change. Some things that I don’t have influence on.

Sometimes there are some strategic initiatives and some strategic projects that are prioritized

over my own … and I cannot do anything about that. … It is my experience that I as a project

manager, I can work within the frames and work with people, I can make sure that the right

conditions are present for them to perform their job.

Source: A1.4.2

I have my context that I operate within, and if we need to go beyond my context, then I have

someone help me and that is my steering committee …

Source: B.4.1.

… We cannot go beyond the frames, which means that if you need to go beyond, then you

have to contact your steering committee …

Source: B.3.2

However, shaping the frames in the first place appears to be within the influence of the

project manager if he or she is proactive about it. Statements reveal that there is no

such thing as “Steering committee training” and therefore it is up to the project manag-

er to set the frames for what is expected from the steering committee, defining the un-

derstanding of their role and actions.

It is the project manager’s responsibility to draw clear lines of expectations, because we don’t

have any training for steering committee members, as we do for board members. … It is the

project manager who comes up with the directives for the steering committee, what is ex-

pected of them, how are they to function, how often do they meet, … what is the agenda at

meetings, what is to be discussed …

Source: A1.1.1

They are aware that there are things that you cannot change, and yet you can work

yourself around it if you know who to talk to. It is seen several times how the project

manager is aware that he or she himself stand without the authority, without the power

to make a decision or change priorities in the favor of a given project, however, by

communicating their needs to the right stakeholders and thereby influencing the frames,

they create progress.

It doesn’t always fit the formal procedures of reporting, it doesn’t, but then you adjust accord-

ingly. … There are fixed frames and structures, but beyond that. I support structure, and I be-

lieve there is too little of it, structure is important, but you don’t have to follow all the spokes

in the wheel, I can jump from one to another, I just have to make sure that things connect and

make sense.


266

Source: A2.1.1

The frames for a project manager are held up against procedures and templates that are to

be filled out and status reports that are to be handed in by certain dates, which are not opti-

mal for the need for flexibility that the project managers has. … Of course there are norms

and rules that you have to follow, and you do that to a certain point, but from time to time

you take action to get things to run more smoothly by preparing the soil in advance. For ex-

ample, one thing is to get the resource that you want, but if you also take it a step further by

going down to the resource and even make the resource participate in getting selected for the

project.

Source: C.2.2

This last example shows how the project manager sees the need to influence a resource

to want to join in on a project: “make the resource participate in getting selected for the

project”, which is an example of ‘issue selling’ only in the opposite direction. In the liter-

ature on issue selling, attention is focused on getting upper level management to favor

doing something about an issue, which means influencing upper level management to

action. This is seen in several places in these findings as well. However, here it is an ex-

ample of influencing resources to buy into the project. I will get back to this later on in

section 7.1.5.2 Influence, a prerequisite for project progress page 298 in the following

relational analysis.

Another aspect that shapes the context is the aspect of taking on responsibility for the

contract. Taking on the responsibility of the frames, however being very explicit about

what those frames are and thereby aligning that foundation to the expectations, in oth-

er words: being very explicit about communicating ‘reality’:

I may choose to take it, say ‘yes’, even though it looks hopeless, but then I want to make sure

that it is very clear beforehand that it is a hopeless case. I want clear cut lines about what it is

that I am accepting, in order to get the time I need to run this project …

Source: A1.1.1

The contract is the Bible and if you don’t know it well, thing won’t work and the project dies.

… You need to know it from left to right, inside out, in your sleep – you just have to know it! …

You have to know your foundation, where am I going to operate, what is my platform, it may

be an unsteady platform, but you have to know. It won’t do you any good not knowing that

your foundation is unsteady, because then you think it is solid and steady, and it turns out

that just around the corner there is a big black hole and you don’t want to go there. … It’s

basic, what is up and down in the world …

Source: D: 1.1


267

The stakeholder analysis, also stands out, as part of the framing context as can be seen

in the below example.

The stakeholder analysis is the prerequisite for everything else to be successful. You get hold

of some people, you find out who has the power and who wants something with this compa-

ny, and who is able to do things formally and informally here. That is what it is all about. It is

a game …

Source: D.1.2

However, again it is distinctly expressed that despite the frames and the context, the

project manager is able, through influence, to work the frames and shape the context.

Accounts draw the attention to the art of balancing the frames against reality:

What I want to say is that you must be careful not to make up ghosts … You can come to

agreements with team members that this or that person won’t have any impact and then you

push them aside, and with others you sometimes stay a little unimpressed about things that

happen …

Source: A2.1.2

The stakeholder analysis is a picture of NOW, as you see it at the moment that you elaborate

it, and based on that you make your communication plan …

Source: B.4.1

The given frames and the stakeholder analysis is a snap-shot picture of a present mo-

ment. As the first statement says “be careful not to make up ghosts”, because things

change over time, the picture does not stay the same. This is supported by the time as-

pect of Bronfenbrenner’s model of development, as it is equally not just a snap shot of a

given moment, but the idea behind is that the time aspect requires the user of the mod-

el to consider the changes that occur over time. Stakeholders may take one position at

one point in time, but if they are not reconsidered, they may figure in the outdated

stakeholder analysis as ‘Ghosts’, which again calls for a reconsideration of the communi-

cation plan.

6.1.8. Stakeholders who don’t fit

Finally, accounts reveal a small group of stakeholders that don’t seem to fit in any of the

mentioned categories. These are:

Education and relations related to education and training

Someone you don’t know

Key holders


268

Many sources

I could very well get the question of why I have kept all mentioned stakeholders instead

of reducing and simplifying. My argument is that that is exactly the reasoning underlying

a technical approach to project management communication. However to get a deeper

understanding it is desired to keep the nuances in the mapping in order to capture the

complexity of relations influencing and likewise being influenced by project manage-

ment communication.

6.2. Summary

The aim of the context analysis is to answer the third research question, ‘What is the

context framing project managers’ communication practices?’

This contextual analysis has demonstrated that the benchmarking list of stakeholders is

not able to capture the stakeholders mentioned by the interviewees. Furthermore, there

is a distinct focus on internal stakeholders in the accounts which differs from the

benchmarking list that show a balanced focus of internal and external stakeholders. Fi-

nally, the list of stakeholders that do not fit any category, suggest that there will always

be the unknown, unexpected and surprising stakeholders to consider and be prepared

for in project management communication. Findings show that project managers are

aware of the frames (the reality) within which they work, and they are aware of their

limitations in influencing the frames. These frames comprise of the project contract,

structure, organizational goals and values, rules of the game, project procedures, meth-

ods and 20 other projects waiting in line.

The following relational analysis aims at demonstrating the complexity but also unfold-

ing some of the reasoning and considerations supporting communicative actions, behav-

iors and strategies in a project manager’s communication networks within the restricting

frames of the project context.


269

Pre final analysis summary

The review of project management textbooks and academic articles show a distinct

evolvement in the understanding of the role of communication in project management

from a very tool and technical based understanding moving towards a strong emphasis

on management communication and the project manager’s competencies. Management

communication, leadership, interpersonal communication processes and competence,

human communication and motivation, were central fields of research referred to in ar-

ticles discussing project communication and project managers’ communication compe-

tence. Findings show that the discussed topics not labeled ‘communication’, themes of

leadership, influencing others, trust building, social network building, stakeholder man-

agement, as well as other communication behavior themes are dominating.

The overall literature review shows how communication in projects from some perspec-

tives is perceived objectively as data and information; as tools and topics; and as the

process of transmitting information from A to B. However, other perspectives

acknowledge the influence of behavior, personal style, and environmental, cultural and

organizational structures on the process of communication and the act of designing

messages, and finally the perspective of full acknowledgement of placing people and

communication at the center of the project with the project manager as the coordinator

of communication, knowledge and motivation processes between people involved in

and affected by the project.

The thematic analysis, answering RQ 1, shows that prominent themes of communicative

action and considerations center around three distinct networks were one of the three

pertain to actual communication subjects. The other two networks reveal aspects deal-

ing with the context of project management i.e. job requirements, roles, expectations,

stakeholders and aspects describing the ideal project world versus the real project world

within which the project manager works, and reveal aspects of the characteristics of a

project manager in both a professional and a personal sense.

The perception analysis, answering RQ 2, shows how models from project management

literature are reflected in the perceptions of communication indicating the limitation of

the ability of viewing and understanding the role of communication as more that a func-

tional tool. There is an observation of how project managers with less experience tend

to lean against the objective tool and technical based communication relying on stand-

ardized procedures and glorified checklists. Whereas, the experienced project manager

relies on self-confidence and own experience, acknowledges the indispensable need for


270

documentation, procedures, and structure to keep the overview of the project, and the

experienced project manager knows that the crucial resource of project management

are people and the relation to and interaction with every individual that is linked to the

project. The findings in this perception analysis reflect the balance of the overall themat-

ic analysis in that only a limited part concerns actual communicative subjects. The bal-

ance weighs more towards themes dealing with the context, the project manager as a

person and relations.

The organizing themes of ‘project management stakeholders’, ‘the networking project

manager’, ‘project progress’, and ‘Ideal project world versus reality’ relate to the aspects

‘not labeled communication’ seen in the literature review .

Furthermore, the context analysis findings show that in relation to stakeholders there is

an explicit emphasis on internal project related stakeholders as to external project relat-

ed stakeholder in contrast to the benchmarking stakeholder mapping shows a more bal-

anced picture between the internal and the external. In addition, findings show that the

framing of the project in relation to organizational expectations of procedures and for-

mal means and line of communication act as distinct non-human influential project

management restrictions.

All the above findings demonstrate that there are large areas of unexplored ground in

the understanding of the role of communication in project management. Research so far

is limited and only partial.

Placing ‘Relational approach’ as the main theme, a thematic network with a new focus

relating to the pattern of the themes ‘not labeled communication’ from the thematic

analysis, the perception analysis, and the literature review motivates to the relational

analysis.


271

Figure 50: Illustration of the thematic network of ‘Relational approach’

The purpose of the final analysis, the relational analysis, is to identify behaviors that cre-

ate connections and meaning in the project manager’s choice and use of communication

strategies. The aim is to gain an understanding of the relations that occur in the realiza-

tion of and work with a project.

7. Relational analysis

7.1. Project managers’ use of communication strategies

To answer the fourth research question, ‘In What ways do project managers explain or

reveal their use of communication strategies’ a query has been done on the matrixes of

the coding: request to examine ‘Influence’, ‘Strategic moves’, and ‘Network awareness’

by individual company. The purpose of the Relational level analysis is to get an under-

standing of the project managers’ actual communication interactions and behaviors by

exploring the dynamics of relations that take place within and beyond the project man-

agement textbook defined stakeholder analysis.

7.1.1. Data analysis

The queries done for this analysis enable identifying communicative strategies in these

situations. Accounts for various communicative behaviors and explicitly expressed strat-

egies demonstrate central themes shown in Table 25:

Table 25: Central aspects defining communicative action and strategy organized by common denominator

The networking project manager Influence

Personal relations

Informal and formal networks

Martin

Project management stakeholders Project stakeholder analysis

Absense of social relations

Key holders

Project stakeholder analysis

Prerequisites for project progress Strategic pre-work

Strategic actions

Calculation of reality

Creation of all ies

Rational approach

Chapter 7: Relational analysis

273

7.1.2. Positioning project management communication in the field of organi-

zational communication

The vocabulary of integrated communication and strategic communication by Hallahan’s

(2004) contributes to the discussion of project managers integrating professional fields

in their project management communication but also seek to align project efforts with

the overall business strategy and business goals in order to motivate resources.

Accounts show that project managers are aware of overall organizational and corporate

communication strategies when communicating the purpose of a project, when com-

municating to motivate project team stakeholders and when communicating to influ-

ence upper level stakeholders with the aim of gaining support.

But of course, it would be stupid of you not to do so. Of course I think that way, but I also like

strategy, not only on project level, but also on department level, and how, how does the divi-

sion survive in a world like this and things like that. When I think about strategy, I think about

the project first, what is the benefit for the project, and then I consider whether or not it is to

the benefit of the division.

Source: B.1.2

The aspect of integrated and strategic communication contributes to understanding how

project managers link operational projects with the organizations overall strategy in the

way it is seen in the example how considerations of how the overall division strategy is

influenced by the project at hand; starting from the central focus and then expanding

and linking the benefits to the overall division. Project management communication can

therefore be seen as the interface between general management, operations manage-

ment, and technical management.

Communication is the ability to communicate and influence someone … create an attractive

path that people agree to follow. Create a vision and an attractive path. That is communica-

tion.

Source: A2.2.1

Overall, it is my responsibility to create value for the company.

Source: A1.2.2

The above statement illustrates a project manager who is aware of the overall picture in

creating “value for the company” and according to the first statement the project man-

ager asserts that he aims at creating “an attractive path that people agree to follow.

Create a vision”; aligning the benefit of being a part of the project and being a part of

the vision.


274

The next example illustrates how communicating a project’s needs to top level man-

agement also encompasses using strategic acts of influencing by connecting to what is

important to, in this case, the CEO:

… what may they contribute with, what are their criteria for success? And then you say “I

know that you are the CEO, and I know that you are extremely busy, now look at this. I can

see that you are a stakeholder in this (project) and I see that you are a very important stake-

holder in this … Okay, can I have half an hour, let me show you, I have guessed what it is that

you want, and what contribution you make and what your criteria for success are, let’s get

aligned – is this somewhat correct?” And they simply love it, they love it, and especially when

you ask “Why?” … “We cannot just do this for no reason”, “No…”, “Where is this taking you,

Mr. CEO? Why do you want to spend so much money on this?” And then it gets interesting. It

is in those few seconds where they say what it is all about.

Source: D.1.2

The example demonstrates several things, but first and foremost it illustrates how being

able to communicate your case, if nothing else, gets the attention of the one in ques-

tion. The project manager uses skills of persuasion presenting the rational case of the

project but also, by means of asking the right questions, presents information about the

most likely solutions and ideas in a way that appeal to fundamental human emotions. It

is about positioning an idea, approach, in a way that appeals to others. The project man-

ager masters the art of establishing trust as well as the science basing his arguments on

collected and analyzed information, demonstrating a solid understanding of human be-

havior, and well-developed communication skills.

And I got the meeting with him.… He is our number guy, he is the Chief of Finance.… So I knew

that I was to be clear cut on all the figures in my project and that he would ask about it in one

way or the other, and he did. Unfortunately, there were some numbers that I hadn’t checked

up on, but luckily it was not fatal or anything, but it just shows how sometimes you cannot

prepare enough … but it also proved that I had done the right thing in checking up on all the

numbers and statistics … and I made it. I want to say that if you are to talk to a number guy,

then of course it is numbers you put on the table …

Source: A2.1.2

The statement is another example demonstrating a project manager, who had done the

homework of knowing who he was talking to and how to present the case; aligning it

with the interests of the chief of finance.

The examples can also be understood through Dutton and Ashford’s (1993) notion of

‘issue selling’, which is defined as individuals’ behaviors that are directed towards affect-


275

ing others’ attention to and understanding of issues in that the project managers show

how their communicative behavior is directed towards affecting the CEO’s and CFO’s at-

tention and understanding of a project situation that has implications for organizational

performance. The project managers aim at directing the top manager’s attention by

providing and framing important information in order to gain the manager’s attention

and support.

It is seen in the examples how the project manager is focused on the expertise and in-

terest of the CFO and therefore directs the strategy of communication at providing the

CFO with numbers and figures of the project with the purpose of linking to the overall

corporate (communication) strategies, which Cornelissen (2006) defines as being the

management function offering a framework and a vocabulary for effective coordination

of all means of communications.

Bringing the communication perspective down to the operational level that Van Vuuren

(2006) argues for when specifying that the organizational level of communication is

more operational in that, as he says that communication is the means by which infor-

mation is shared to provide a fundamental understanding of the tasks that are to be per-

formed. The operational aspect in these statements is seen in the following examples in

the way communication is mentioned as a tool, a means of making things work, ensure

collaboration, influence and moves someone in a specific direction, writing and talking

to people:

… the tool that enables things to be aligned and that prepares us for new things. And it is

what basically connects my various initiatives, if you communicate right then things are

aligned. … As a project manager communication is my tool to make things work and to ensure

progression

Source: A1.1.1

… what ensures that the team around the project functions and collaborates; that we have

something in common because of communication.

Source: C.5.1

Communication is the ability to communicate and influence someone to move in a specific di-

rection that benefits my project. If you want to achieve something, communication is the tool,

a project manager needs. It is also the ability to focus, and aim, and send the right message

and create an attractive path that people agree to follow.

Source: A2.2.1


276


don’t do anything. … I write and I talk to people, I explain how things connect. … It is im-

portant to keep on communicating.

Source: C.2.1

Van Vuuren (2006) later distinguishes this task based communication with communica-

tion providing a fundamental understanding of the goals to which an organization is

striving

However, there is a call for a distinction between the passing of information and actual

communication as seen in the next example. Information is data that can be stored and

referred to:

… I will not even call it communication, it is more documentation. … There is a lot of documen-

tation, and it is obvious that some of the documentation serves to communicate a status:

“This is the status”, or it serves to lock down decisions … In addition, a lot of the project relat-

ed documentation, you can all it the project stem data. It does not have a lot to do with com-

munication, as I see it, it is a question of having a place to check up on information, to see if

things fit and connect. … It is a question of describing what has happened, what have we done

and have it locked down. I will not call that communication.

Source: A1.1.1

Project management communication provides an understanding of the tasks that are to

be performed as well as of the goals to which a project and an organization is striving.

I see communication as both the greasing of the machine, but sometimes it is the actual

sprocket-wheel, because without communication – NO project.

Source: A1.4.1

With this project management communication is positioned within the perspective of

organizational communication and thereby a valuable link between the field of organiza-

tional communication and project management is created.


277

7.1.3. The networking project manager

7.1.3.1. The project manager’s communicative networks dependent on both

formal and emergent communication action and behavior

Monge and Contractor’s (2003) definition of communication networks as being the pat-

terns of contact that are created by the flow of messages among communicators

through time and space will serve as the point of departure in the following demonstra-

tion of how a project manager’s competence in communication is illustrated by his or

her understanding and awareness of own and others’ communication networks. Find-

ings show that project managers operate within two distinct sets of communication

networks: the formal and the informal communication network.

7.1.3.2. Formal communication networks serving as a supportive tool for ef-

fectiveness

The formal communication network characterized by formal lines of communication and

formal procedures using formal and technical-based communication tools such as doc-

umentation, templates, contracts, power point presentations, reports and the like. The

communication network is therefore also characterized by, as stated by Monge and Con-

tractor (2003), the flow of messages that they describe as being data, information,

knowledge, images, symbols, and other symbolic forms that can move from one point in

a network to another. This view of communication matches Van Vuuren’s (2006) de-

scription of operational communication being shared information.

However, accounts about formal communication networks show that the focus is not on

the objective lines of formal communication as in the organizational chart and infor-

mation going from one place to another. What is in focus is how the formal communica-

tion network sometimes is preferable to the informal due to effectiveness. The next ex-

ample illustrates that formal procedures in some cases support communicative proce-

dures, which can be linked to Clegg and Courpasson’s (2004) argument that project

management includes a strong hierarchical dimension, vertically defining objectives and

responsibilities, which serve as an instrumental legitimation of project action. Project

management draws on traditions of well-established patterns that build on classical

theories of management.

I have the experience that the informal network has a lot of impact on how much or how little

support we can get, which is both good and bad. It is good when you are invited in, but in the

light of the organization it is always desirable, I mean there are certain things that the organi-


278

zation is able to solve just like that because the structure or the procedures support this kind

of problem-solution or decision-phase.

Source: A1.4.2

The account also reveals that informal networks are good if you are part of them. It is

not said that they are bad if you are not part of them, but more that you have no access

to their benefits if you are not part of them.

If you are told “Go talk to that guy”, and you go talk to him and tell him about your case, and

you find out that he was not the one you should talk to, you should have talked to someone

else, then it risks ending up taking too much time.

Source: A1.3.1

If you are working on a formal level, you have clear agreements, however, if you are working

on an informal level, you are more dealing with ‘favors’, where you cannot get upset, in the

case the work isn’t done by the day you had agreed on. It may drag a little and they have a

longer leash. Because you actually know very well that you are getting someone to do some-

thing that ought to have had a more formal documented agreement.

Source: A1.3.1

Using informal communication network can result in costing a lot of time, which is seen

in the two statements in that the project manager cannot use formal means of authority

and influence when getting things done by ‘favors’. This can be seen in the light of Bar-

nard’s (1968) aspect of authority of position in that when making use of informal com-

munication networks, even though it is done from the position of being a project man-

ager on a project and in favor of a project, it is still an unofficial act from the point of

view of the organization and therefore the project manager is not acting officially for an

effort of the organization, with the consequence, as seen in the example that the com-

munication is not authoritative: “Because you actually know very well that you … ought

to have had a more formal documented agreement”. In addition the statement: “It may

drag a little and they have a longer leash” shows that the decision as to whether the pro-

ject manager has authority lies with the person to whom the request is addressed. The

next example shows that project managers are aware of the balance of when to use

what kind of network:

If there is something specific, I can have a brief talk about it with someone over lunch. How-

ever, a focused discussion happens on a more serious level, not at lunch. We use each other

with consideration. Systematic collaboration.

Source: C.3.1


279

7.1.3.3. When formal communication network structures are ineffective or

break down

This is a point that illustrates the distinct difference between discussing formal commu-

nication networks from the perspective of formal lines, means and channels of commu-

nication and the transmission of information, knowledge, data etc. from one point or

person to another, and discussing formal communication networks from the perspective

of relations between people, and the sociocultural dimension of formal communication

networks. From this perspective it is not a question of objective tools and techniques

but a question of positions and specified and documented procedures of communicating

formally and officially (“for the record”). To illustrate the difference: imagine the first

understanding of formal communication networks. If there is a break down caused by

technical issues, missing information, misunderstandings of content or the like, commu-

nication breaks down, it stops until the problem is solved. This is not the case with the

relational understanding of formal communication networks. The formal procedures

may break down due to technical problems, but the individuals are still there – not de-

pendent on technicalities. And the communication will, as flowing water, find another

way around:

The informal connections, the informal networks, enable us to get through with things when

we have the need. It is rarely based on formal procedures and that is simply because people

are too busy. Yes, I can fill out a 400 page report, and say “read this, it will give you infor-

mation on all the aspects”, but nobody reads it. They may read a management summary, and

they end up by asking “what do you think?” and then it depends on, whether they trust your

opinion, and if they don’t you won’t get through with it.

Source: A1.1.1

This example illustrates the actual requirement of a formal procedure that, due to peo-

ple being too busy, is overruled by informal action still addressed to the same people.

… Yes, absolutely, because it works! You want to do a good job and make progress; therefore,

you use your network to get the resources that you need, when the formal ways don’t work.

… We know people and we have informal lines of contacts. We also have formal lines of con-

tact, but they are a bit unsteady due to restructuring of the organization, which means that

we are very dependent on knowing where to go, and who can solve this and that problem and

overall dependent on having a good relation to the people who can solve a problem.

Source: A1.1.1

The two examples illustrate the awareness of how formal networks may be ineffective

for different reasons and how it is then necessary to depend on your informal contacts


280

and the quality of the relation: “we are very dependent … on having a good relation to

the people who can solve a problem”. This is also emphasized in the previous example:

“then it depends on, whether they trust your opinion”.

7.1.3.4. Informal communication networks enabling progress

The next example further supports the necessity of informal communication networks in

that if the project manager wants things to get things done then they have to go beyond

formal procedures:

… nothing gets done if you don’t have the right contacts or networks. It is in this that commu-

nication is extremely important. The Ivory tower – and then down into the fields!

You can train yourself to network, but there will always be some people who are not crazy

about having a lot of informal contacts. They may be able to understand that “if I become

more outgoing, then I will also gain a lot”. You can also learn the hard way, like being relocat-

ed. Then you find out, the hard way that you don’t get anything if you don’t get up and get

talking to people.

Source: A2.1.1

Sometimes, as the next account shows, it is more efficient to keep things “off the rec-

ord”, and as can be seen in the following example, the formal connections are aware

that they are being kept out of the loop with the purpose of saving them from all the de-

tails – in the case everything turns out fine:

If you need something done down in production, then of course you try through the contacts

that you have, try to push them a little. Push a little work in front if possible, get a change of

priority. … and such things you don’t bring up, they don’t want to hear about how your net-

work is out in the organization. So of course you make use of your network to get to the re-

sults that are required, so that you avoid getting into the situation where you need to go to

the steering committee and ask for more time, more money or whatever it is that is neces-

sary.

Source: A1.3.2

Monge and Contractor’s (2003) arguments about ‘emergent’ communication networks

reflect the above statement in that they argue that the concept of emergence repre-

sents the belief that order appears out of randomness and McKelvey’s (1997) definition

of emergence as a random event that cannot be attributed to some specific deliberate

purposeful activity by some identified entity, which means that the act of trying

“through the contacts that you have” cannot be classified as a formal procedure, nor is it

something that the project manager knows he or she will do every time in the exact


281

same way. The communication action emerges in the moment the need for it is present,

and the steering committee, in this case, are not interested in investing time on knowing

all the details, as long as they see results.

My argument that project managers are aware of balancing the two communication

networks is also seen in that the formal procedures for the record are not ignored. This

was also seen in the analysis of the perception of communication where the balance be-

tween the technical and the sociocultural dimensions were emphasized. This is seen in

the next example that shows how the informal precedes the formal procedure:

If I have something minor that needs to be taken care of, I may go at once to the resource I

know can fix it and ask “do you have a couple of days to help me out with something?”, work

my way around the line manager at that point and around the steering committee …. If the

person says “yes, I do”, then I will go to the line manager and say “I have made this and this

deal, is that okay?”

Source: B.1.2

To wrap up this section I choose to give an example of an account that illustrates the

benefits of an informal communication network that emerged out of the project con-

text. The example also illustrates how the formal communication network turns out less

significant and useful than the informal, and also how the informal communication net-

work covered all the requirements for progress:

I had a project, where the chair of the steering committee was a senior vice president, the

project had been given the green light to start and he was willing to allocate budget and re-

sources etc. It turns out that the project initiative comes from one of the specialist who has

really been enthusiastic about this project. He had been designing, writing, carving, adjusting

and working on this project for a year and a half, from nothing - it was simply his baby - to a

big project. Even though he is three levels beneath the chair of the steering committee, he had

created such a large network in the organization, by working so intensely with this area, by

having been around talking to and asking people about it, and gathering information. It

turned out that his influence was much stronger, operational and useful for the project than

that of the chair of the steering committee. It was a very positive experience because the spe-

cialist’s network was not only a network among people “on the floor”, it was also among

management, and it was very operational. … But when it came to influence it was very signifi-

cant, how little we used the chair’s help to advance with things and how much we used the

specialist’s.

Source: A1.4.2


282

Figure 51 illustrates this example by indicating (with an orange circle) the expected for-

mal communication network, registered in the project stakeholder analysis versus the

actual underlying activated informal network (dotted red line to red circle) that emerged

with the specialist engaged in the project team.

Figure 51: Example from company A1 demonstrating expected formal communication network and actual underly-ing activated informal network emerged

7.1.3.5. The networking project manager has embedded advantages over the

non-networking colleague

Granovetter’s (1985) and Uzzi’s (1996) research on embeddedness support findings that

demonstrate the link between a project manager’s competence in networking and the

ability to achieve set goals. Granovetter and Uzzi both argue that embedded networks

achieve certain competitive advantages over arm’s-length relations. The embedded

networks can be projected onto the informal communication networks whereas the

arm’s-length relations reflect the formal communication networks. A networking project

manager is described in the following way by a line manager with many years of experi-

ence in working with project managers:


283

These people have certain characteristics. They are extremely intelligent, they are very fast in

getting the overview of a problem and very fast at getting to arguments for the direction they

think is to be taken, and it is most likely very sound arguments. They are competent people;

you have to be very competent in order to do this. It is people who are good at talking to peo-

ple, it is often extrovert people who do it. Introvert people have a hard time with these things.

Extroverts have a larger network, they work a lot to get all facts in place and they come pre-

pared. … They don’t perceive their job as an 8 to 4 job, they burn for their job. Their energy is

contagious.

They are politically really good. If they show up with a problem, you can be sure that they al-

ready have made sure that they have support before knocking on your door. So you know that

if you want to get through then it won’t help that you tell the project manager “I need to get

this cleared with the boss first”, because he has already done that. He has been by the boss’

office on his way to yours, because he is smart. The smartest thing to do is to say “let me think

about it” ….

Source: B.5.2

… If it is a networking person, well then the person will have been out talking to a lot of

sources, … and when you get to the meeting, the strong networking person will have aligned

with resources

Source: B.6.1

The above examples demonstrates how a project manager can be seen as a broker be-

tween networks in that the project manager accumulates resources (social capital),

which they have invested their time and effort with the aim of progress and successfully

fulfilling project requirements. The statements show how the project manager is well

prepared and how he or she has done a lot of pre-work by talking to people, has an

overview, and has arguments ready.

In the following, the good networking project manager is compared to the non-

networking project manager:

Some are extremely good at using their networks, finding resources and get to knowledge by

listening and just hearing about things. Some people are so good at it that they can come

home from the airport, and they have met someone, who by coincidence knew something

about something that they then can grab onto – these kind of people exist and then there are

the kind of people who sit in their office and never hear a thing. So there is a huge difference,

and there is also a huge difference in the way these people work. … I can say that some peo-

ple are really good at it, and some are really bad at it, and those who are bad at it have to

make allies with those who can do it in order to run a project.

Source: B.5.2


284

The project manager with networking competence engages in communication with

“someone” he or she meets by coincidence in an airport, grabs the opportunity of this

person knowing “something about something that they then can grab onto”; seizes the

opportunity of investing their social resources by linking directly into the other, creating

indirect ties to other people’s communication networks. Burt’s (1995, 2004) theory of

structural holes describes the broker, more familiar with alternative ways of thinking

and behaving. The broker’s ways of engaging in communicative action with others pro-

vides a vision of options otherwise not seen. This contributes to the understanding of

how project managers engage with others, trust in others. Likewise in the way they are

aware that if they engage here, it has an effect somewhere else, and they benefit from

that. Whereas, the less net-working project manager, as seen in the statement, is wise if

he or she acknowledges their own limitations in regards to networking, but then collab-

orates with someone who is good at networking such as someone from the project

team.

The following example illustrates a networking project manager navigating informal

networks and bridging structural holes in order to get to what was needed for the pro-

ject:

… If I have a specific problem that requires a solution … I will always ask around, I will ask the

people I know and get sent in some direction. … ask someone who knows someone … “Try

asking over in department X, there is a person, who may know”, so I go to him and he points

to a third person, who then points out the person who knew something about it. Yes I use my

network to get things going. Ask around and get sent on to some networks they know, yes

that is how it works. If I don’t know the solution, I start with the people I know and then you

build on from there and get hold of their networks and finally get to it.

Source: A1.2.2

The purpose of Uzzi’s research in 1996 was to advance the concept of embeddedness by

formulating a scheme that specified how embeddedness and network structure affect

economic behavior. According to Granovetter (1985) “Embeddedness refers to the pro-

cess by which social relations shape economic action. This research is linked to the em-

beddedness of informal communication network in order to understand and explain

how this embeddedness affects communicative action and behavior. The type of com-

munication network in which a project is embedded defines the opportunities potential-

ly available to the project manager and shapes his or her choices of communication

strategies. The project manager’s position and reputation in that structure and the types

of interpersonal relations the project manager maintains defines his or her access to


285

these opportunities. Ongoing social ties shape and change expectations and opportuni-

ties.

Accounts show how project managers socialize in a different way than when communi-

cation networks are merely formal and focused on business.

In Spain, at 10:30, I would go down to the café, where I worked, and order coffee, because

that is when everyone came to the café. …It was an important part of my job to go down

there at 10:30 and talk to people. Say “hey you promised me to answer this and that, when

will I hear something?”, and “how is it going” and you know, talk to people, meet people that

you may not have seen in a couple of months because you have been busy, but you know that

it is a good idea to keep contact, because they are there somewhere in the periphery and they

have an interest in what you are doing. Yes, and then also just get other forms of input other

than what you fiddle with all day, right?

Source: A2.1.2

Source A2.1.2 explains the function of the relaxed environment of a (busy Spanish mid-

morning) café, where you ask: “how is it going”, and the context of being busy, but you

know that it is a good idea to keep contact, because they are in the periphery. This point

addresses Gillard and Johansen’s (2004) aspect of open communication systems versus

closed communication systems. Uzzi’s (1996) continuum of interfirm networks, is illus-

trated in the above Spanish café where people meet randomly, demonstrating a inter-

firm network composed by a loose collection of employees from different organizations

meeting at the mid-morning café. The structure resembles prototypical markets that

tend to be impersonal, diffuse, and shifting in membership. Figure 52 illustrates how

such a loose communication networks extend beyond the expected project stakeholder

analysis network. The example from company A2 demonstrates the expected stakehold-

ers marked by the orange circle and the actual underlying activated informal communi-

cation network (the people at the Spanics café, among others).


286

Figure 52: Example from company A2 demonstrating expected formal communication network and actual underly-ing activated informal network

I believe that professional networks are of no use if some form of social relation is not present.

I nurture my networks, but I don’t nurture networks with people where I see that there is no

social relation as well. With customers you can keep on nurturing networks without social re-

lations. However even these networks function at their best if there is a social aspect tied to

them as well, and people care about each other, either professionally because you respect

what each does and at the same time get along personally. You can meet people in the corri-

dor and stop to chat, whereas with other people you don’t feel like stopping at all.

Source: B.5.1

I don’t think you can influence anyone politically if you don’t have the social aspect included. I

really don’t think you can. It must be very very difficult to go to someone with power as a

blank sheet of paper and ask for a favor.

Source: B.5.2

… and in reality, what is it that you can get through here? Where is it that you need to focus

and be aware of things concerning the formal and the informal relations? What is it that you

need to get through with the different people, and is it not the same thing with every project?

There is always change in context, change of situation, there is no fixed limit. … In some pro-


287

jects you can get most out of the formal network, in some it is the political network and some

the informal network.

Source: B.PD.1

The above examples demonstrate how the quality of personal relations shapes the pro-

ject managers access. When you have gained respect and people care about you, then

you are worth investing time on. However, being someone who people don’t want to

stop and talk to or being someone no one knows keeps the relation at “arms-length”.

Finally, considerations of an ever-changing context and situation are stated as relevant

in that the project manager cannot expect to get through with the same type of request

from the same person for each project.

As a final aspect of the various aspects of advantages and disadvantages concerning

formal communication networks, formal communication networks with social relations,

and informal communication networks there is Uzzi’s other extreme of the continuum,

networks that are composed of finite, close-knit groups of firms. Casciaro & Lobo (2005)

and Waldstrøm (2007) talk about the dangers of networks. They state that we are not

rational in choosing our relations and one would like to believe that we always choose to

communicate with the one who is most competent and knowledgeable about what we

seek. This, as they assert, is not the case. According to studies, we prioritize personality

over professional competence. Findings show that this is also a tendency if a project di-

rector is not actively aware of this, and as the next examples illustrate it has conse-

quences for the organization:

There are preferences from technicians towards project managers and the other way around.

Also to a degree that it sometimes becomes problematic, because it can be a challenge to

staff projects and then the networks must not become too tight. … Project managers when

possible, they name specific resources, and I see that when it is possible to sign up for pro-

jects, resources seek out specific project managers. So that kind of networking exists, but it is

not allowed in all situations. It must not however compromise the organization … and if we

don’t get all our resources working, then we don’t develop our employees well enough and

that is an important aspect as well.

Source: C.PD.1

You need to have qualified specialized resources, but you also would like to have resources

that you have had good experience with from previous projects. However, I also give new re-

sources a chance e.g. a new guy or a new trainee, but then I make sure to double cover my

back. You have a responsibility for development and therefore you cannot only take in over-

qualified resources. It is important and strategic that you engage someone who has the op-


288

portunity to develop during projects. The idea is to have them develop and gain knowledge

and experience from one project to the next. That way you also get more engaged employees.

Source: C.2.1.118

At this stage findings show how project managers benefit from both formal and informal

communication networks. As with the technical and the sociocultural dimension of

communication the formal and informal communication networks serve their distinct

yet inseparable purpose. It is seen that project managers are very aware of both net-

works and they are aware that they benefit from and navigate in both. In the following

section findings will serve to demonstrate at a level of awareness of stakeholders, their

position in relation to the project manager’s own position as well as a distinct awareness

of what impact relations have on opportunity.

7.1.4. Project management stakeholders

7.1.4.1. Key holders and key stakeholders – maintaining good relations

Findings in the context analysis demonstrated that the aspect of stakeholders goes be-

yond the formal stakeholder analysis when this analysis is done according to textbook

benchmarking. As Pinto (1996) states that project stakeholders are individuals or organi-

zations that are involved in or may be affected by project activities. The process of

stakeholder analysis is a helpful tool in that the analysis provides insight on potential ef-

fects the project actions may have, both intended and unintended, on various stake-

holder groups. Likewise, the analysis is useful when discussing the role of politics within

the project environment and how this can impact on the project development process.

Englund (2006) supports Pinto’s argument about the political influence on project pro-

gress by noting that a project requires a ‘political management plan’ in order to conduct

a systematic approach to power and politics. Englund asserts that the key element is to

prepare a stakeholder analysis.

Findings demonstrate that the stakeholder analysis is inadequate and that awareness

should be extended beyond the traditional stakeholder analysis. The following accounts

demonstrate two perspectives and attitudes towards the stakeholder analysis:

The way you prepare a stakeholder analysis in a way that you are sure to cover everything is

by asking WHO? There will be a person here and one there. Then you can ask this way: who

may influence the delivery and who may be influenced by the delivery, who may influence the

project and who may be influenced by the project? You ask those questions and you get a list

of 100, which may not be complete, but you will find out as you go, then it is just another

stakeholder. That is how it will always be. You will never get a complete list, you will learn as


289

you go, you will always discover someone, and that will be just an additional stakeholder. …

Everything is unknown at the beginning and that is why you make a structured analysis and

you find them, and it may not be complete, then you find more, that is how it will ALWAYS be

in ALL projects ALWAYS. … You don’t memorize the stakeholder analysis, you analyze your

way to who is there, and you get a picture and that picture is never perfect, it is never com-

plete. Someone will ALWAYS appear. What you can make sure of is to make sure that you

cover 90 to 95% of them all by doing a structured analysis this way. … Keep it alive, repeat the

process in a proactive way.

Source: D.1.2

It is my experience, from ‘Lessons learned’ from my last project, as a wrap up of the project it

shows the same as with all other projects that we must be better at communicating… well you

can always say that, it’s easy to say “we must be better at communicating.” We can always

say that, but it is just not that easy, even when you actually think you have done a pretty good

job at it, still you can always be better. I think it is really hard. … And then there is this ‘stake-

holder management’ or ‘stakeholder analysis’, where we need to find out who we need to talk

to. … I think it is really hard, simply really difficult, because we don’t always know who we are

to talk to and we continuously bring in new people.

Source: A1.2.2

The first quote demonstrates the opinion that if the stakeholder analysis is done struc-

tured, the right way, repeatedly, and proactively then you have a mapping that is ade-

quate and that serves as the best guidance to all your stakeholders, whether they influ-

ence or are influenced by the project. The second quote demonstrates the opinion that

despite the stakeholder analysis and stakeholder management it is still really difficult to

get communication right, even though you really do your best. Both are very correct

statements.

7.1.4.2. Reading the picture to get an overview over the chess game

Findings show that project managers are very strategic in their analysis of stakeholders

as the following statement demonstrates:

You find out who has the power and who want something in this company, who is able to do

something formally and informally. That’s the game. … It is nothing but power. The stake-

holder analysis is a power struggle

Source: D.1.2

This is where Hallahan et al’s (2007) emphasis on how the term strategic was first used

in the 1950’s becomes useful. The project manager’s intention of doing a structured

analysis of stakeholders matches the description of how organizations compete in the


290

marketplace, how they obtain competitive advantage, and gain market share. This can

be projected onto the account of stakeholder’s power struggles in relation to the pro-

ject, as it can be projected onto the project manager’s calculation of what may have im-

pact on the project and who the project may impact:

I would say that I make an effort at finding out how I am positioned, as a player on a board

game, how do I risk getting hit later on? I try to figure out, if I do like this and you do like that,

what must I then do not to get sidetracked two moves further ahead?

Source: B.6.1

I used a lot of time to “read the picture” to find out what people could help me get things go-

ing in the right direction, and I used a lot of time to train the people who were part of my pro-

ject team …

Source: A2.1.2

The statement shows the strategic consideration effort of planning ahead, aiming at

making things transparent. Without the negative associations to it the process reflects

the original aim of strategic planning, controlling the environment and maintain auton-

omy, as in the originating term strategic from warfare. The project manager can be seen

as the general when projected onto the Greek word strategia ‘generalship’, and

‘strategeo’ ‘general’ (Webster, 1996).

7.1.4.3. ‘Beware of Ghosts’ and be aware of quality

However, the next example illustrates the advantage of keeping a critical eye on things

and not being blinded by the structural and strategic planning of the stakeholder analy-

sis:

What I want to say is that you must be careful not to make up ghosts … You can come to

agreements with team members that this or that person won’t have any impact and then you

push them aside, and with others you sometimes stay a little unimpressed about things that

happen … I use whiteboards a lot, they are placed around my desk, and I use them to write

everything on. And if someone comes by and says “we have a problem here and here”, we put

it on the whiteboard, because then more people can join in … because we share an office, so if

other colleagues see it and comment on it, I think it is really nice to get input that way, there-

fore I use whiteboards a lot.

Source: A2.1.2

By using the whiteboard the project manager invites random input from colleagues

passing by and thereby also invites their critical eye and comments by which ghosts may


291

be avoided. The following statement illustrates a project manager being self-critical and

alert towards the convenient tool ‘the stakeholder analysis’:

It is just a tool, so to speak, but it is a good tool, when you sit in the role as a project manager,

it is a tool to monitor your environment. But it is never the only thing there is, you may have

been wrong in your analysis, you may have read the people that you were analyzing in wrong

way.

Source: B.4.1

Findings show distinct awareness of the quality of usefulness of relationships in the

communication networks. The following first statement illustrates the distinction be-

tween inexperienced new employees in an organization. They simply have not had the

time to get to know people yet. Versus the experienced people who know the networks

of who knows who and who knows what. The second statement illustrates the balance

between the experienced project manager, who may not have worked in the organiza-

tion for so long versus the inexperienced project manager who has been in the organiza-

tion for many years and therefore has a well-established network of relations:

I ask contacts in my network. You can either ask your boss if he has a suggestion or you will

have to ask the more experienced people in your network. You have to make sure that you

have someone who has worked in the company for many years, because they can point you in

the right direction. If your network only consists of new people, you are kind of lost.

Source: A1.3.2

Well I see it this way, they do everything right [experienced project manager colleagues], they

do everything the right way, but of course, it is right, it is the logical way of doing things, and

they avoid getting into trouble, because they know who to contact, they know what they need

to get cleared before they initiate procedures. I don’t know all this, so a lot becomes random

chat. I know that I need to call Bob, to see if everything is okay. “Bob, is everything okay?”,

“yes, everything is okay” – Good, then everything is okay. I also know that if I call some of the

technicians, then it is not good enough, but if Bob says, it is okay, then it is okay. I have

worked with him for ten years, and I know he is on top of things. And the other project man-

agers …, who have not been here all these years, they know some of them, but they don’t

know all these stakeholders. I also know who to call in the finance department, if I need to get

something through right now.

We always have time to help each other, so there is always someone who will say “you should

try and do it this way”, or “give me just a second, and I will send you a document”. We take

the time to help each other out. And that goes the other way around too. If they need a name

and a phone number on someone, then I can help. … I don’t have the experience to know


292

what to do, but I have ten years of relationship to the manager of the department where I

may have a problem.

Source: C.4.1

The latter example further demonstrates the aspect of the strength of weak ties in that

the project manager with the well-established network of relations is able to connect

individuals from separate networks who otherwise would not have been aware of each

other, making the connected project manager a strong weak tie. Figure 53 demonstrates

expected formal communication networks and actual underlying activated weak tie in-

formal network.

Figure 53: Example from company C demonstrating expected formal communication network and actual underlying activated weak tie informal network

Granovetter (1973) defines weak ties as a tool for linking micro-level interactions with

macro-level patterns. Due to the project manager’s attitude of “if they need a name and

a phone number on someone, then I can help.” relations emerge from the overlap of

networks. His “ten years of relationships” enables access to circles different from their

usual networks and thus access to new information.


293

7.1.4.4. Nurture relations – keep an eye on who makes what happen

Furthermore, as accounts have already demonstrated, the relations between people

make a difference in that relations create opportunities and, as seen above, access. It

has been demonstrated in the findings on formal versus informal communication net-

works that relations between people outlive structure and procedures. The following

statement demonstrates the importance of investing time in building personal relations:

… I have to prepare things, and I need to foresee, who will become important here … It is a

question of keeping close to the people who have an important role to play. You can also call

it ‘building up your personal network’ depending on whether you look at it isolated by project

or something. But yes… and that is also what makes it possible for me to get through with

some things, so first and foremost, I need people who are willing to listen to me. If you ha-

ven’t built up a relation and that position … when decision-making is required. What opinion

others have of you, it can be your attitude, it can be your behavior, results that you have

demonstrated earlier, that is what they build their opinion on. When I come around and say

that I think we should do this. But if you don’t have those things in place, then no matter

what, it will be up hill to get through with things, and maybe you cannot get through with

them, because you don’t have a… you haven’t built up a relation to the person, who is to

make the decision.

… this means that many of the people who are to make these decisions, if you haven’t had

time to build up a personal relation to them, they will base their opinion of you on what oth-

ers say about you, and the picture very fast becomes very muddy and unclear, and that is why

I am very aware of this, and I think my colleagues are too, because that is the way we navi-

gate. It is the informal connections, the informal network, when we, formally, have a re-

quirement, then we can get through with it.

Source: A1.1.1

The example shows what the consequences are of not having had the opportunity to

build up a position in relation to upper level management stakeholders: “if you don’t

have those things in place, then no matter what, it will be up hill to get through with

things” because: “they will base their opinion of you on what others say about you, and

the picture very fast becomes very muddy and unclear”. According to Fyrand (2005), the

role is connected to the position or the place an individual holds in a system and as the

example shows if this role has not been built up, the position of the project manager will

be low as well. However, looking at this through the lens of Fyrand’s considerations of

positions and roles in a system, the accounts also illustrate that expectations to a project

manager are determined by his or her relational position – not in the sense that it is

enough to have the social relation but also in the professional reputation.


294

If you have a good relation to them [upper level management], then of course it will be so

much easier to talk to them. It doesn’t necessarily have to be because they think you are a

sympathetic guy, but it helps, but I think it is more a professional assessment, and if you can-

not show any results, or haven’t demonstrated results to the people on that level, well then

you cannot, then you will not be a hot star in their eyes, because what they need is something

that can be weighed and measured … You cannot by formal lines of communication go to

them and say “this is what I think” because there is too little weight in your title, it isn’t

enough. … They are used to talking to vice presidents, senior vice presidents and the CEO etc.

… So this whole sense of urgency and this ‘availability’, of course, depends on how your repu-

tation is in the organization. So in that way, the formal power structure has impact on the

flexibility we have as project managers.

Source: A1.1.1

If you think that you can walk in and if you naively believe that everyone thinks that the pro-

ject you are in charge of is fantastic, then you are wrong … You will soon find out that you will

be sent out into the hall ways … It is a problem in the first place to get the chance to talk di-

rectly to upper level management. That is your first challenge. … So if you, I would say, you

are playing with fire, when you do something like that. … You risk getting shut out and your

project shut down. It may ruin your project, but it may also give it a boost.

Source: A1.2.2.

The statement illustrates that there are certain norms and regulations that concern the

interaction between the project manager and the upper level management system. The

statement shows that there are certain understandings of how social life and the profes-

sional community of on one hand the project manager and on the other the upper level

management is organized.

The example shows that formal power structures have impact on the flexibility of the

project manager, which from a first glance; the project manager cannot do anything

about. However, accounts show that there is a wide range of things that the project

manager can do in order to influence his or her opportunity for flexibility.

Yes, you can say that where I get things through best is where the windows are open wide.

For example with my boss, who I have known for many years and we know each other very

well and know each other’s point of views, and he has a lot of influence upwards, and I know

that. I can use that in my project work. … It is the same thing downwards. It’s the same on all

frontiers, all your points of contact, the more you open your window, so to speak, so that

people can look in and see who you are, and you can make yourself known, what your values

are, what your needs are, the easier it will be the day you need to have a serious talk about

something, some upcoming challenge. If they know you, you don’t need all the talk about who


295

you are and what you want, they know and you can cut the chase and get right down to the

core of things

Source: B.4.1

It is always a good idea to pay attention to and nurture the steering committee, and it is also

a good idea to nurture the relation with a key stakeholder whether it is the individual’s man-

ager or the person him or herself. It is a good idea to keep an eye on who makes what hap-

pen.

Source: C.5.2

So far, findings in this section show that relational connection can be understood from

the perspectives of:

Personal (sympathetic person) versus professional qualifications (competent per-

son) and it is an advantage if these two are combined

Duration of relationship that is, does upper level have an opinion of the project

manager or has upper level management not had the opportunity yet to form an

opinion of and a relation to the project manager

Duration of relationship as in new employee with limited relations versus an ex-

perienced employee with a large network of relations

Professional experience (project manager with many years of experience) versus

organizational experience (in this case project manager with little experience in

project management but many years of experience with the organization due to

many years of employment)

In relation to building up relations, accounts give examples of what action or behavior

on the part of the project manager works against good relationship building and exam-

ples of what encourages good relations:

… When you get into these fights with line managers from other departments, then you have

to escalate it up to you own boss by the line of commands, because there are some fights that

you just shouldn’t take. There are also those project managers who take these fights and who

do not care about the damages they do to their own reputation. Who just attack the manag-

ers and line managers, but my claim is that these project managers won’t last long, because it

has such great importance for what you want to achieve as a project manager. And if you are

not, if people don’t like you, in the first place, you have to be made of Teflon because you will

always be bombarded. You don’t get a lot of roses as a project manager, but if you under-

stand what fights to take and what fights not to get into, then you can get a long way.

Source: A2.2.1


296

… there are not that many resource managers here, so we meet each other all the time.

Therefore, it is important to maintain good relationships with them in case things get rough,

but also for later projects.

Source: A1.4.2

I have no problems with taking the necessary steps, but you have to be careful and base eve-

rything on facts, because we all … have a common responsibility to take care of each other,

and I need to be able to get along with them in the next project, or in a parallel project, where

I can ask a favor from someone tomorrow. … So if I burn my bridges on this. … You need to

consider things strategically for your own sake but without harming the project.

I would like to appear as a competent project manager to the ones with the authority to make

decisions in the organization., but also because I, … because we work with a lot of internal re-

sources and we need each other over and over again, and I believe that you are to be consid-

erate instead of bringing out the hammer every time.

Source: A1.4.2

… The longer you have been here, the more you know about who to stay friends with and who

you don’t want to get cross with. You also know who you can afford to have conflicts with and

then, when it is over, you can go out for coffee and say “Wow, that was really a disagreement

we had there hey!” But there are some people you don’t want to get cross with.

Source: C.4.2

At this point, accounts show awareness of the complexity of the project stakeholder

analysis and the need to keep a critical eye on it if it is to maintain its value to the pro-

ject. Accounts also show how the quality of relations with stakeholders of, but not lim-

ited to, the project has impact on the project manager’s position in the relational levels

and structures of the organization.

The next and final part of the relational analysis aims at demonstrating an even deeper

level of communicative behavior, focusing in on the individual; on how project manag-

ers’ accounts illustrate communicative actions, behavior, and implicit and/or explicit

choices of communication strategies that reveal strategic action that determines and

demonstrates the project manager’s communication competence.


297

7.1.5. Prerequisites for project progress

7.1.5.1. The manager with no formal position of power

Accounts demonstrate that project managers are in positions with no formal authority

and no formal decision power. They rely on their steering committee. However, they are

nevertheless the managers who are closest to the operation of projects. They are the

ones with their fingers on the pulse and therefore, they are, with the support of their

communication network to whom they in various degrees use, the ones who are most

likely to come up with suggestions for solutions to emerging issues. The literature on is-

sue selling contributes to enlightening the process of influence that takes place. The pro-

ject manager does not have decision power, but is able to influence the identification

phase of decision-making pre and during steering committee meetings. The project

manager is in the position of recognizing issues of which he or she is able to also recog-

nize actual opportunities, but also see and seek to avoid further problems or upcoming

crises by evoking decision activity through presenting calculated cause-effect relation-

ships for the decision situation.

Findings show that project managers seek out key stakeholders, who are not necessarily

one of high positions, and therefore naming them key holders is a more adequate name;

holders of knowledge, access to information through other people’s communication

networks and the like. The example below illustrates such a key holder:

If it is more of a political problem, then I will ask around, colleagues and others, my boss, and

if it is someone that I don’t really know, then I will ask how I can get access to this person in

order to talk to him or her, get a dialog. That would typically be my approach, get to the per-

son who holds the key, find out who they are and that is not necessarily a boss, Sometimes, it

is a person with a lot of knowledge and experience that people listen to.

Source: A2.1.2

I would say, first you need to know who to go to. I am not much for going directly to the upper

management level, I mean in some way it would be nice, … but then again that means that

you will not have any possibility of escalating it further and you may even diminish your own

influence, so it is about addressing the problem at the right level and not start too high and

not too low, because you may end up with a lot of extra work. It is first and foremost a ques-

tion of making sure that you get to the right person.

Source: A1.4.2

The last statement shows that it is not just a question of going directly to the upper level

management; they may not be the right person to contact. The statement draws the at-


298

tention to how consideration and preparation is worth investing time in, in order to im-

prove chances of going to the right person from the start.

As stated by HBS (2005), influence, unlike power, can produce an effect without the ap-

parent exertion of force, compulsion, or direct command, and can be exercised by peo-

ple who have no formal power. Project managers demonstrate understanding of how to

influence others: bosses, peers, and other stakeholders for the benefit of the project

and/or their own position and reputation.

When you want to make sure to get a certain resource, then it often happens behind the sce-

ne. I mean, if I need a resource to some specific problem, then I first try to figure out who is

capable of solving the problem, before I even start recruiting. You go down and find out who,

ask colleagues and everyone else in the department, “who can solve this kind of problem?”

And then you are guided to two or three people, you find out who they are, and then you go

to the line manager and ask for the resource. You try to influence the line manager to give you

the right resource. That’s how it works. And the communication is talk, hallway talk, so to

speak. It is typically not emails because you don’t want to risk being caught working your way

around like that. The official way is that you go to your line manager and ask for a resource.

Source: C.2.2

The example illustrates how the project manager exercises his network in order to gain

information on who is able to help solve a problem. Once the person is found he influ-

ences the line manager to provide the resource. It is also an example of accumulating

resources and seizing opportunities in the act of bridging structural holes between oth-

erwise separate networks in that the project manager goes.

7.1.5.2. Influence, a prerequisite for project progress

Barnes (2000) states that power is something you have, whereas influence is something

you do. HBS (2005) encourages us to think about influence as a two-way street: to influ-

ence effectively, a manager must be open to influence by others. They argue that open-

ness to influence from others, even from subordinates, has two important consequenc-

es. The example of the use of whiteboards, used in relation to input on stakeholder

analysis, is also an example that serves to illustrate this two-way street and openness to

influence from others. The project manager in question shows a visible gesture of trust

and respect and as HBS (2005, 37) states: “To gain trust and respect, you must extend it

to others.”

It has a positive influence when you know each other. You don’t necessarily have to know

each other for something good. You may have had your quarrels with a colleague in the past,


299

but then you know each other’s viewpoints on certain matters, and that is very very positive.

That you get clearly drawn lines so that you know who has what roles in this …. And knowing

each other beforehand, if you on top of that have clear lines, so that you trust each other,

then it has enormous influence. It is so much easier to work with people that you know.

Source: C.4.2

The example shows how openness towards each other and being able to draw clear lines

based on trust has a positive influence on their ability to collaborate and hence a posi-

tive influence on project progress.

HBS presents the aspect of sphere of influence: the domain in which one can effectively

exert influence. And as they argue, by strategic consideration and effort you can extend

your influence to other spheres relevant to your business. Using your communication

network and bridging the gap between high level management and the operational pro-

ject level is an act of linking two networks with the aim of influencing to action. The next

example illustrates how this action created progress in a situation of stagnation:

… There was a situation with one who was higher up in the hierarchy, who did not think we

should use time on stage gate. The project manager had a responsibility and so his strategy

was to get other managers to talk to him, and that worked. The project manager made con-

tact to the director of the department of security to get him to discuss the procedures. Then

the project manager called the manager in question and sent him emails and was backed up

by the director, and everything moved on just fine.

Source: A2.2.1

Influence also happens as an act of trust and collaboration in well-established informal

relations as demonstrated in the next example:

There is no doubt that the canteen is used for informal chat, where things are briefly dis-

cussed “we may have a challenge here with this project, will you help me take a look at that?”

And stuff like that. If there is something going on that needs to be escalated to higher levels

or drawn attention to, we take care of it informally and that often takes place in the canteen.

Source: C.7.1

Findings show how project managers are very active in creating influence by evoking de-

cision activity before formal steering committee meetings. Their reasoning is often that

they do so out of respect for the committee members as they do not want to catch them

off guard and demand a decision without having the chance to be prepared for what

was coming.


300

It is a smart thing to have prepped your steering committee members before they enter a

meeting. Well you cannot just slam two choices on the table and then they sit there facing the

others and are to make a decision about something important based on just that. You have to

have been by them before the meeting with the aim of explaining the problematic situation

just a little, if you want to succeed. If you have several stakeholders whose opinion is im-

portant to this then you have to get them prepared, because they don’t just show up to a

meeting to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and then leave. Nothing good will come out of that; you will not

get the result you had hoped for. You need to come prepared. The strategic things happen in

connection to these meetings. But it can also be about being strategic in the way you run your

project. Some people you begin to prep about “this is happening, I need you to know that this

is what you can expect to happen” At the same time, somewhere else, you say “here I don’t

think they are ready, they just aren’t ready, is there something we can do?” In this way, they

experience pressure from two sides.

Source: A1.3.2

In line with the literature on issue selling, and in the project management context the

situation of ‘suggestions for solution selling’, the success of the process may depend on

consideration of whether to influence solo or in alliance with others where the sugges-

tion is supported by linking it to other project manager’s related situations.

I could always go to our CEO, I could go and have a talk with him about it, but … if you are to

follow formal procedures, then it is the steering committee’s responsibility to take to higher

levels, in case they cannot make a decision themselves. So … I can and will, as the person I am,

go and talk to our CEO if necessary. … but I will also make allies with other project managers

if that is what I believe will cut the deal.

Source: B.1.2

Creating allies comes in various shapes and forms. Findings show that project managers

may be well prepared, but the alliance may also happen within few minutes as shown in

the next example:

They will come to me and say “I think this is a good idea, don’t you think? Why don’t we go

present it to the boss?” So there are two of us stepping into his office, and already before we

start he has a hard time.

The rules of the game are the same whether you are under time pressure or not. What makes

the difference is whether you have had the time to prepare yourself. That is the game. You

can be under extreme time pressure and then in the hallway on your way to the meeting, you

manage to make an alliance, before you sit down at the steering committee meeting, even if

you have only had ten steps together with the guy on your way to the meeting room. But

those are the rules of the game.


301

Source: B.5.2

Alliances may also be an act of expressing an alliance of support to emphasize the au-

thority of power that lies in that alliance. The following statement also illustrates how

the difference between the project manager and the line manager stand out in a situa-

tion as described in the statement:

The project manager’s period of management is within a limited timeframe, and therefore we

can take on conflict as we go, where we may not agree on something. … We ask for support

from the upper levels of management, and that support we can use directly to hit other peo-

ple in the head when the going gets tough. You cannot do that as a manager. As a manager

you don’t have a steering committee that you can use to hit down on others. You cannot put

up either/or situations. Take any situation as an example and you will have lost the game if

you do that. “now you HAVE to do like I say or else…” “or else what?”, “or else you will fire me

or what will happen?”. You have lost; you might as well fire the guy, because you have al-

ready lost the game. But you can do that as a project manager. You can say “Now you have to

do what I tell you to do, or else…!”, “or else what?”, “well, or else I will have to go to your line

manager because…” It is extremely uncomfortable. … But you cannot be friends with everyone

all the time.

Source: C.4.1

A final example of alliance is from the account below showing how a project manager

acknowledges his or her insufficiency in selling a suggestion and therefore asks his su-

pervisor to present it at the meeting, knowing that his competences and weight of posi-

tion will persuade the committee members of the validity of the suggestion:

Another way that I go about, if I have something important that I need to get through … Then

I don’t always present it myself. Sometimes it may be worth the effort to get someone who is

better at presenting it. … I will get my supervisor to do it. I will pass by his office and prep the

soil and say “Simon, when we get our meeting on Thursday, then we also need to get this sub-

ject on the agenda, because we need to discuss this and that. This thing happened the other

day, and it is not so good”, “well okay” Simon then says, “I may ask you about your opinion on

it”, “well that’s fine, no problem”. And when we get to the meeting, I will present it by saying

“we have a challenge here, and Simon do you have a comment on that?”. We have kind of set

up a hidden agenda, because we have handled the issue internally between the two of us …

but he is just, he has some relations and some strings he can pull in relation to the other steer-

ing committee members, plus it says CEO on his card … that’s the way we do it.

Source: C.4.2

Persuasion, according to HBS (2005) is closely related to influence, but is different in that

it isn’t a force. It is a process through which one aims to change or reinforce the atti-


302

tudes, opinions, or behaviors of others. Selling ideas, or selling suggestions based on

well prepared arguments is what the next example illustrates:

I am a gate keeper in a way, and if I am to present two alternatives to the steering commit-

tee, then the one alternative may be … obviously is more attractive than the other one; or I

may even say “either we do it like this or we close down the project, what do you think?” That

is playing a little hard ball, but yes, you can do it that way. It is not because I want to manipu-

late people, but sometimes there is just one way, and if no one acknowledges that way then

the alternative is to stop the project. Then that is what they face. So yes in one way you can

call it manipulation, I don’t know, but guide them yes. I think it is a bit harsh to call it manipu-

lation, but you are the gate keeper, and you have to say what you believe is important to cre-

ate progress, and that will determine my decisions …

Source: A1.2.2

Persuasion, according to HBS, is a skill that is essential for success in all relationships –

personal and business alike. Persuasion is not only a matter of presenting a rational case

but also about presenting information and ideas in ways that appeal to fundamental

human emotions. It is about positioning an idea, approach, or solution in a way that ap-

peals to others. It is seen in the accounts where the project managers demonstrate the

competence of presenting facts about reality and thereby influencing people (often up-

per level management or resource owners) to decision-making in favor of a project.

7.1.5.3. Strategic action at micro-level

The approach of strategy as practice is seen in strategic action at the micro-level of pro-

ject management communicative activity. Using Orlikowski’s (2010) lens on practice as a

perspective provides a basis for integrating the observed doings and saying of project

managers and how these strategic actions are both shaped and shape structural condi-

tions and consequences of project management communication. Tsoukas (2010) ‘practi-

cal’ (based on tacit understanding) and ‘deliberate’ (based on explicit awareness) are

observed in accounts as strategy doing. Accounts demonstrate that project managers

are not deliberately making strategy in their communicative considerations and choices

of communicative actions, behaviors and strategies, they are doing strategy.

If one of my team members had previously worked with a very technical skilled person some

other place, I could ask him to go talk to this person, I would say “listen, why don’t you go and

take this guy for a cup of coffee, ask him how things are going etc.”

Source: A2.1.2

I make sure to get to know the top management’s secretaries, and then, because I do not

make contact unless it is absolutely necessary, and they know that. I then contact her person-


303

ally and I send an email where I explained that I needed half an hour with the CEO because

there were some things in my project that just weren’t moving along, and I did not have the

power to do anything about it. I was very open about it. And I got the meeting with him.

Source: A2.1.2

It is a super activity to go in and take some time to say “let me do some of the line depart-

ment’s homework”, because they won’t get it done themselves before this is done, and my

project won’t become a success before that is done. So if you notice it, and invest some energy

in it then you sometimes gain credit for it as well “wow, there was something really good

about this project manager!” and then you get the opportunity for something in return for ex-

ample getting goodwill in relation to resource acquisition. … And they see that they can use

you as a leveler to get what they want.

Source: D.1.2

The three examples illustrate that strategic action is low practical activity, yet with a

huge impact on the project manager’s ability to influence. The communicative action of

having coffee with a former colleague, having good relations with the CEO’s secretary or

helping out in the line department – all strategic action on micro-level. As these are ret-

rospective accounts the actions move from being a non-deliberate action as the practical

coping with the situation to the explicit awareness that the project manager pays atten-

tion to what they did in the situation. The project manager has become aware of his or

her activity, and of what he or she was trying to accomplish.

The next three accounts show very deliberate considerations of strategic action:

I will come up with two to three suggestions that I see as possible solutions to the problem,

and I will present it to the steering committee. In advance, I have probably probed the terrain

with the steering committee members, where I have been to see what his opinion about these

things and can he contribute positively to, or come up with some perspective on my sugges-

tion, in order for me to be able to bring up the best suggestion for a solution to the steering

committee.

Source: B.1.2.

In this first example the strategic communicative actions lies in the act of probing the

terrain to obtain knowledge of a stakeholder’s opinion that he can then use to shape his

chances when arguing for his suggestions. Then next example illustrates first of all the

action of calculating reality in relation to the suggestion that the project manager would

like to get through and second the deliberate action of not putting anything up for dis-

cussion:


304

If we have a problem, I will come up with two or three suggestions for solutions. “This is how

we can get out of this trouble, which one do you choose?” And it is my job to calculate the

suggestions. And I can come up with two that are so ridiculous that I know they won’t choose

those and then the one that I would like to get through. As long as it is not too obvious, and as

long as you don’t leave it up for discussion. I will say “how would you like it? Here are some

examples of how you could do it.” And typically they will look them over and be very satisfied

that it is them making the decision, and they will most likely choose the one you want. So it is

me who comes up with the hidden agenda if anyone.

Source: C.4.1

This last example can be associated with the story “Peter and the Wolf” in that it illus-

trates the explicit consideration of not “crying WOLF too often”, but being strategic

about when it is necessary:

And if it gets really bad, you almost want to go and inform upper management about it - off

the record. … But again, you don’t want to come running with problems all the time … It is fine

to have managed two of the problems on your own without having to escalate them, whereas

the third one you may have to flag.

Source: C.5.2

7.1.5.4. Calculating consequences and making reality visible

Posner (1987) concluded that while successful project managers were viewed as good

problem solvers, what really differentiated them was their problem-finding ability. He

states that due to their exceptional communication skills, goal clarity and planning, ef-

fective project managers were aware of issues before they became problems.

I will always make sure to have been around them, I don’t know, it may be wrong, but I would

like to know the ones who are to deliver the resources, if they are engaged and know more

about the project, then they have an opinion about it. And that is why it is important for me to

have those who have resources as part of the steering committee, as it makes it so much eas-

ier, because they are engaged and they see that they are right, we have a problem here, we

better help out, we better do something.

Source: A1.3.2

The example shows a proactive project manager who builds relations and actively links

his communication network to that of future resource owners and by this engagement

creating an openness around potential problems, hence a more effective problem-

finding approach.


305

The next example likewise demonstrates the proactive behavior of calculating conse-

quences of a decision and communicating reality by making “it visible”:

In that case I make the decision visible, so that it will not be kept away and be this latent thing

that grows in the company and risks becoming a larger issue later on. I receive a decision, and

I make it visible, for example about an employee being prioritized over another for a project

or for something else.

Source: B.4.1

Calculating consequences of a request is also a way of demonstrating reality to people of

higher influence. However, as the example demonstrates, the skill of calculation is also a

card of influence:

And you learn from that, which buttons to press and always say “I can do that but I have to go

home and make the calculations”. Then you return with a new schedule and then they look at

each other and agree that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea, and that we will proceed as orig-

inally agreed upon. And we keep that in mind.

Source: C.4.1.

7.1.5.5. Taking on responsibility in project management is having the cour-

age and integrity to tell the truth

Project manager’s deliberate initiatives of influencing stakeholders stem from a driving

factor of creating value for the project, for the organization and for their own position.

Dutton and Ashford (1993) present the aspect of the significance of issue selling. As with

issue selling, the project manager’s competence and position has significance to both

the individual and to the organization according to both an instrumental and a symbolic

logic. The instrumental-organizational perspective is when the project manager’s influ-

ence initiates and constrains processes and outcomes, as well as shapes organizational

adaption. The symbolic-organizational perspective pertains to when the project manag-

er’s influence confirms or disconfirms collective meaning, or creates or dissolves organi-

zational reputation. The instrumental-individual perspective is about how this influence

has career consequences in that obtaining top management’s attention for decision-

making facilitates instrumental action on project issues and thereby enables project

progress. The symbolic-individual perspective can be illustrated by referring back to the

example of the project manager’s account of project managers not being selective in

what power struggles to take on with negative consequences, as this is about the indi-

viduals attachment to influence what affects their self-concept and/or self-esteem. Top

management’s opinion of the project manager and thereby trust in the project manager


306

positions the individual in their awareness. The significance of strategic action is illus-

trated in the following example:

If you don’t think strategically in “if I get hold of this resource, then we can make in two times

faster and then I will gain more time in the project and that means…” And so it goes, with

how, and what it means right. Of course you do that and at the end of the day one must ad-

mit that your salary depends on it if you are paid by profit. It makes a difference to me, not

that I only work for the money, but more to show that you fulfill the expectations and obliga-

tions that you have signed your name to. So yes, I have considered a lot of the suggestions

that I come up with from a strategic perspective – what impact will they have on my project

and on me? Absolutely. I believe we all do. Not that everyone will admit to it, but consciously

or unconsciously there are certain choices that are made.

Source: B.1.2

However, as stated by Dutton and Ashford (1993) issue selling is the individuals’ behav-

ior directed towards affecting others’ attention to and understanding of issues. The pro-

ject manager’s initiatives of influence may be in relation to projects dealing with events,

developments and trends that have implications for organizational performance. Find-

ings show that the overall goal, the overall driving factor is creating value for the organi-

zation:

Overall, it is my responsibility to create value for the company.

Source: A1.2.2

The success of the project manager is also the success of top management; therefore, it is rel-

evant all the way up. There are project managers on all different levels.

Source: B.2.1

These short statements show the link between the success of a project at operational

level and the overall business strategy level. However, findings show that in order to

achieve this success it is not enough to run a project as prescribed in project manage-

ment textbooks.

PMI prescribes exactly what it is that you are to do, not so much about why or how or what

you gain from doing it. So even in the regulated system things are open for interpretation.

And if you don’t have a complicated situation, then you can run a fine project that way, but it

still requires that you have people who want to participate.

Source: D.2.1.

If everyone learns the rules, then accidents won’t happen…., no that’s not how life works. It is

so much more complicated, I mean, we are dealing with people, it is not about systems, it is


307

not about rules, it is about how we are as human beings, how we are together, how we are

together socially, what makes us want to stay instead of just ‘sign here’ and ‘here is the list,

do this and that’, then no one wants to stay, then it is no fun. I don’t think so, anyway.

Source: D.1.1.

It has been demonstrated several times now that the project manager only has a run-

ning project if he or she is able to make people want to participate and contribute. Also,

the following account illustrates why the project manager is dependent on creating an

attractive path and providing direction by positioning the project:

Projects often fail because you have not aligned expectations of what is required from re-

sources and signaled how this project fits in with the overall strategy. What is the business

case and what is the responsibility of the project manager and the project sponsor.

Source: A2.1.1.

Findings show that to get people motivated to follow the project manager, the project

manager must be able to take on the role of a leader. And being a leader in project

management, according to findings, requires the competence of switching between

leadership roles expected of the profession ‘project manager’ such as: keeping the over-

view, clear the road for the people doing the work of the project requirements, be the

facilitator, communicator, mediator for all project stakeholders, expect the unexpected

and lead your project and your project team to the designated goal anyway.

Referring back to Quinn’s (2007) framework (Figure 20, page 108) specifying the com-

peting roles and expectations experienced by a manager, what is asked of a project

manager due to the combination of the technical and the sociocultural dimension of the

profession, is extremely complex.

However, keeping to the relational approach, findings show that because it all comes

down to dealing with people and the project manager’s ability to navigate his or her

communication network(s) four fundamental aspects dominate the picture that make up

the essence of project management communication:

Responsibility

Courage

Integrity

Truth

The project manager who is able to communicate the above gains: trust. Barnard (1968)

states that some people have superior ability; that their knowledge and understanding


308

regardless of position command respect. This is the authority of leadership, and Barnard

asserts that the determination of authority remains with the individual. It is the stake-

holders who determine whether the project manager has the authority of leadership. As

a project leader, if you cannot communicate the above, you may know of all the roles of

leadership in the world and they won’t do you any good.

It is project leadership, some people think that it is the same as project management, but it

isn’t. … Project leadership is leading a project, you set the frames and the direction, you set

the roles and you set the game in being the leader. It is about being a good leader – not just

to take some rules and methods and fill them out in due time.

Source: D.1.2

The statement suggests that it is about being a good project leader, and take on that

role. According to Barnard, if the project manager shows unworthiness, ignorance of

conditions, failure to communicate what ought to be said, or if leadership fails to recog-

nize implicitly its dependence upon the character of the relationship of the individual to

the organization, then the authority leadership disappears.

The ones who gain a lot are those who make a huge effort in their projects, those who are re-

spected by their resources, it is those who dare delegate responsibility out into the organiza-

tion and challenge their resources. Let them do it their way and let them make the mistakes

that people make. It isn’t wrong to make mistakes. In reality it is developing to make mistakes

right?

Source: B.PD.2

It is seen in the example how some project managers trust resources in that they dele-

gating responsibility to them and thereby challenging them with the result of earning

their respect. The example demonstrates Barnes’ (2000) argument that influence is

something you do, and the example is likewise an illustration of HBS’s (2005) metaphor

of the two-way street: a manager must be open to influence by others; demonstrating

the gesture of trust and respect. The project manager gains trust and respect, by extend-

ing it to others. Delegating responsibility to others also means that the project manager

connects his own communication network to the networks of his resources, thereby

tapping into information and insights about the operational environment. People who

resist influence close themselves off from signals about that environment and risk being

blindsided by unfolding events.

I have always said that I wish people were a bit more like me: “be lazy enough, so that what

you can do today, you train others to be able to do tomorrow, because then you can allow

yourself to throw your interest and attention at something new and move on.” But also, the


309

aspect of taking on responsibility and involving others who can contribute with something

that this person can do faster, better and more efficient than you. So, use your networks, use

other people to get things done, and that is where you demonstrate that you dare take on re-

sponsibility; that you don’t just sit with everything yourself. … My reflection about this is that

you can get all the responsibility that you yourself dare take on.

Source: B.PD.2

I don’t feel that the project managers take on enough responsibility and say “this is my re-

sponsibility, I will figure it out.” … The difference between getting and taking responsibility is

huge. … In the project management book there is a star at the point where the project man-

ager takes over the project. At that point he is to estimate “do I want to take over this pro-

ject? Can I sign my name to the budget, and can I vouch for the delivery and the time frame?”

… And it is my opinion that at this point he takes on the responsibility …

Source: B.7.1

The statements show that there is a difference in being given responsibility and in taking

responsibility. The project manager who dares take on responsibility, as stated in the

first example also has the communicative behavior that reflects integrity and courage.

Daring to take on responsibility reflects courage and self-confidence that makes the per-

son trustworthy. The second example illustrates the lack of initiative and courage to take

on responsibility; this lack of attitude in project managers and how this reflects back on

(in this case) a line manager’s lack of trust in some project managers.

It is a responsibility that is to be taken, and it is important that the project manager takes on

that responsibility. You have to show that you are on top of things. Communicate that you are

on top of things.

Source: B.2.1

Being on top of things and communicating that you have taken the responsibility is seen

in the statements of the expectations of the profession. The first two statements below

are from two line managers:

… to keep the overview of the project during the whole process … also the economic overview,

and keep focus on the output, no matter what it I…

Source: B.6.1

A good project manager, as I see it, is someone who knows what is sold to the customer and

who takes on a huge commercial responsibility towards the customer. Makes sure that we de-

liver what we sold, ensures that we give and take according to changes in the project, so that

we always have an updated list … Has a clear cut control, when changes happen … that they

take on the responsibility for all that.


310

Source: B.7.1

The next example is how these expectations are perceived from the perspective of a

project manager:

One of the differences is that it is expected of us that we are proactive at all times, where a

line manager can be more observant and wait for requests (from us)

Source: A1.4.1

However statements also show that responsibility is also a responsibility towards your-

self in respecting your own limits and a respect for the expertise of others. Acknowledg-

ing your limits is also an act of integrity demonstrating courage to look towards yourself

in self-evaluation.

7.1.5.6. Responsibility in acknowledging your weakness and trusting in oth-

ers

Findings show, as it has been seen earlier, that project managers also see it as their re-

sponsibility to contribute to organizational development by training new employees, col-

laborating with line managers in developing employees and accepting to use different

resources over resource stars. This is also seen in how they communicate their responsi-

bility in delegating tasks, using the expertise of others and in being open about own limi-

tation and weaknesses.

… I am not a technician, and therefore I must be very careful not to get caught up in a discus-

sion about something very technical with technicians. Because, oh my, to get into such discus-

sions and very fast go blank that is really suicidal! Then it is much better to acknowledge that

you don’t know anything about it, and then use the resources you have and let them grow

with the assignment, and I will grow too, by being able to let go … Accept what strengths and

weaknesses you have, and have others take care of the gaps.

Source: A2.1.2

A statement from a project director confirms the benefits of self-acknowledgment and

encourages more training in self-development.

I have not yet run any specific training courses on this area, of the project manager getting to

know him or herself, but I found out that it was necessary to include this at some point. We

need to have this aspect included, the project manager’s self-acknowledgment. Where are

they to develop personally? Or acknowledging that you may have to accept that there are

some things that you cannot do, or don’t want to do, or cannot manage to do.

Source: B.PD.2.


311

There is always time for reflection if the individual wants it. … But I think it is used as an ex-

cuse. Because with reflection you move inwards in yourself, and take a look at things that

may not have been as planned. Some people don’t find it agreeable to sit and spend time on

self-evaluation.

Source: B.PD.2.

The statement was expressed by a person now holding the position of ‘project director’

with responsibility over a lot of project managers. It is a person with many years of both

life and project management experience. This provides further support for the argument

that experienced project managers possess confidence in their experience and have

naturally built up integrity.

People learn their profession, vouch for it, and take on responsibility and thereby gain integri-

ty

Source: D.1.2

7.1.5.7. Project management communication comprises knowing your pro-

fession, and having the integrity to communicate the truth

Project managers are in positions where they have a choice of whether they are merely

‘given’ responsibility or they chose to ‘take’ responsibility. Accounts have shown that it

depends on whether the person has an introvert or an extrovert personality, whether

the person is a networking or non-networking person and it depends on whether the

person is aware of the benefits of the communication networks that makes up the indi-

viduals own and the networks of others and how the individual can act as a broker to

seize opportunities cross structural holes. Whatever personality the project manager

has, responsibility is about having the courage to manage, calculate and communicate

reality with integrity, it is the choice of the project manager, which is seen in the next

statement:

Integrity is about responsibility … It is you who has the responsibility of who you want to be. It

is not your parents, it is not your upbringing, it is not what you have been through and ex-

posed to, it is not all the thoughts you have had. It is the person that you decide you want to

be this very moment, right now.

It is about who you are, it is about who you want to be. Do you want to be the submissive

servant or do you want to be the guy who is in control and on top of things and do you want

to be a good human being, who makes mistakes and everything? Do you want to be in integri-

ty with what you do? Which does not mean that everything is to be square and right, but that

things are done properly. A lot of things tumble down on you, I let it fall because there are

more important things, so I have to prioritize … Integrity is about wanting to do things proper-


312

ly and wanting to take responsibility. Wanting the responsibility and not just saying “oh well,

somebody gave me the responsibility”. … And that is what it is about, as a project leader you

are to stepping forward, step out of the darkness and take responsibility that something

might happen without you having any idea of what it may be.

Source: D.1.2

To meet the expectations of creating success and value for the organization requires

communicating the truth. It has already been demonstrated how project managers cal-

culate consequences and communicate reality in order to make consequences of deci-

sions from upper level management visible. Statements illustrate that communicating

the truth requires courage and integrity. The next example illustrates the consequence

of not daring to tell the truth:

The [project] train would slow down more and more, to be understood in the way that in large

projects, one part of the project is waiting for, a second part to announce that they will not be

able to meet their deadline, because neither can the first. And the second part is waiting for a

third part to announce that they cannot make it to the deadline, so it becomes a limbo of

waiting for who will throw the bomb.

… they don’t dare, they are afraid, don’t have the courage but they are just unlucky and they

have to tell it as it is, that they won’t make the deadline and then Ahhhhh, what a relief! Fi-

nally, someone told the truth. I think it is about the same thing; you don’t always tell it as it is.

You don’t need to at all times, there are a lot of details and problems that you don’t have to

talk about, things are not like beads on a string, that is not how the real world functions.

Source: D.2.2

The project stagnates and valuable time is lost. New calculations may be required. The

next example is another illustration of wasted time. However, it also illustrates that tell-

ing the truth does not mean that all project managers at all times must tell every little

detail. Communication competence is also about filtering, and communicating what is

necessary to different stakeholders – it is a balance, because the world is, as stated, not

a string of beads.

I tell it like it is, I don’t care … This is the way it is. I just tell them that this is reality. Oh, but

they don’t want to accept that. Well, but I can’t make the world turn the other way round. I

wonder if he thinks I can make the world turn the other way round by shouting in my face. I

am professional enough to know that he can shout just as much as he wants to, I don’t care.

Source: D.1.2.

The battle has to be taken from below. It cannot be taken from the top, it has to be taken

from the bottom, where they need to say but this is how it really looks like – The world looks


313

like this. This is what reality looks like, and somebody must have the courage to step up and

dare tell it like it is.

Source: D.2.2.

7.1.5.8. Measurable small successes, building up trust and gaining access

According to Matta and Ashkenas (2003) managing risk is not only a question of manag-

ing the predictable and identified risks documented in the project’s risk analysis (which

has its overlaps with the formal stakeholder analysis that is certain stakeholders may be

potential opponents to the project). They argue that managing risks apart from the for-

mal analysis, it is also a question of managing what they call white space risks, which are

required activities that cannot be identified in advance and therefore, leave gaps in the

project plan. Matta and Ashkenas’ research show that the key is to inject a series of mini

projects into the plan as rapid-result initiatives. The rapid-result initiatives produce

measurable results and become models for the next mini project, where project plan-

ners have a chance to test whether the activities will add up to the intended result or

estimate whether there is a need to alter the plans. The same mechanisms are seen in

the small successes initiatives seen in the following statements:

… It is easier to get working on that reporting and get it done, because it is visible: is it there

or isn’t it there? … and it is, to some degree, a little success, a little delivery, and often it is ex-

actly that which is visible and noticed, from upper levels, is it there or not. … It is about trust.

And trust you will get by delivering what you have agreed on, meaning first you prove that

you are professionally competent.

Source: D.2.2

It is a super activity to go in and take some time to say “let me do some of the line depart-

ment’s homework”, because they won’t get it done themselves before this is done, and my

project won’t become a success before that is done. So if you notice it, and invest some energy

in it then you sometimes gain credit for it as well “wow, there was something really good

about this project manager!” and then you get the opportunity to get something in return for

example to get goodwill in relation to resource acquisition. … And they see that they can use

you as a leveler to get what they want.

Source: D.1.2

Small successes entail trust and prove that the project manager is professionally compe-

tent, and as seen in the last example it builds credit and goodwill with relations within

the organization.


314

So far the findings show distinct connections between the aspects of responsibility,

courage, expectations, and reputation. Findings show that the leadership role is linked

to integrity, originating from the courage to take on responsibility. Definitions from the

literature as well as from interview accounts show that the overall responsibility of the

project manager is to create value for the overall organization. The project manager is

expected to have the complete overview and communicate the link between the project

and the overall business strategy.

Figure 54: Interdependencies among fundamental aspects of project management communication (Original)

Figure 54 illustrates the interdependencies between the four main aspects of responsi-

bility, courage, integrity and truth. It takes courage to take on responsibility; taking on

responsibility to fulfill expectations, being able to link and drive a project’s operational

strategy to overall business strategy and value creation requires the ability to communi-

cate the truth about reality, which again requires courage and integrity. Having this abil-

ity, this competence or lacking this competence determines the communicative actions,

behaviors and choice of communication strategies in that it reflects the project manag-

er’s personality.

7.2. Summary

The aim of the relational analysis is to answer research question four, ‘In What ways do

project managers explain or reveal their use of communication strategies.’ Findings

show that communicative consideration and action is embedded and reflected in all the

contextual, professional and personal management and leadership behavior of the pro-

ject managers. This use of communication strategies is seen in their accounts of how

they work around structure and formal procedures in order to get decisions through; it

is seen in their considerations of how to contact key stakeholders to get support in order

to proceed with a project. Furthermore, communication strategies are reflections about

what they consider to be good project management or leadership. It is in every concern


315

for their project team members and how to motivate them and how to create the best

conditions for every stakeholder involved to want to participate and in every calculation

of how, at the end of the day, to get to a successful result, both as in having delivered

what was expected but also as in having done a good job as a project manager for later

reference and positioning.

On an overall level, in both first and second round of interviews across organizations,

statements show how project management communication is positioned within the

frames of organizational communication. Accounts show how project managers are

aware of and integrate overall organizational strategies to motivate stakeholders by link-

ing project management operational success to overall business goals.

From the query on network awareness across all interview questions and across all or-

ganizations, project managers demonstrate how they deliberately benefit from both

formal and informal networks. Findings show formal networks serve as a supporting tool

for efficiency. Findings also show that the formal communication networks are not to be

understood as technical techniques and channels of communication but formal relations

and “for the record” communication requirements. However, parallel to and also when,

for some reason formal communication networks break down or turn out insufficient

informal communication networks dominate and enable project progress. Accounts re-

veal how huge amounts of resources emerge in informal communication networks, illus-

trating and confirming the large unregistered group of stakeholders that go beyond

textbook definitions.

As with the findings concerning informal communication networks enabling progress

due to stakeholders beyond the project, so do findings at this stakeholder level confirm

this group in that accounts show that key stakeholders may not always be the key hold-

ers to solutions and therefore, building and maintaining good relations is an effort worth

investing in.

Furthermore, focusing onto the personal relational level, statements reveal that main-

taining relations can be perceived from the perspectives of: personal versus professional

qualifications; duration of relationships concerning both the ability of forming opinions

of an individual and concerning whether the individual is a newly or longtime employee

in the organization, and finally from a professional experience versus an organizational

experience perspective.

At the individual project manager level, findings show how project managers, despite

the lack of decision power, influence key stakeholders to decision activity by providing


316

them with well prepared and calculated input. Findings show deliberate strategic behav-

ior of how project managers’ competence in persuading, influencing, and communi-

cating reality is a prerequisite for project progress.

Accounts further reveal how communicative action is determined by the project manag-

er’s ability to link: 1) creating value for the project to 2) creating value for the organiza-

tion. Project managers show awareness of creating beneficial positions and outcomes

for their own advantage as well as for organizational advantage.

Statements from both interviews across all organizations also reveal an emphasis on the

advantage and necessity of having integrity and the courage to communicate the truth

about reality personally to powerful stakeholders and to resources. Findings in the re-

quested queries on influence, strategic moves, and network awareness show distinct

connections between the expectations of the project manager to have the complete

overview, communicate the link between the project and the overall business strategy,

and the aspects of responsibility, courage, integrity, and truth. The leadership role is

linked to integrity, originating from the courage to take on responsibility. Having this

ability, this competence or lacking hereof determines the communicative actions, behav-

iors, and choice of communication strategies in that it reflects the project manager’s

personality.

The following chapter discusses the substantive findings from the four analyses, and

highlights theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

8. Conclusion and implications

8.1. Findings

The main purpose of this study was to examine why project managers perceive commu-

nication to be the most important aspect of project management and what influences

their communication choices, communication actions and communicative behaviors.

Four research questions have been examined in order to address the overall research

question. This last chapter will discuss the substantive findings from the four analyses as

well as the theoretical and practical implications. Finally, section 8.3 will highlight the

limitations of this study and recommend possible directions for future research.

8.1.1. RQ 1: What are the prominent themes of communicative action and

considerations in project managers’ accounts for communication prac-

tices?

The thematic analysis shows that the prominent themes in the project managers’ ac-

counts and descriptions of communication practices center around three main areas:

the personality of the project manager, the context within which the project manager

works and the overall prerequisites for communication that are available to the project

manager. The accounts and descriptions discuss and illustrate aspects influencing, con-

textualizing, framing, and shaping communicative behavior, actions, choices, as well as

communicative flexibility and possibilities.

The global thematic network ‘Project manager’ reveals themes illustrating what, in rela-

tion to the person, the project manager has influence on and what is influenced by his or

her considerations and choices of communication behavior, action and strategies. The

global theme pertains to accounts of personal values and principles: to have integrity, to

be empathic, believe in something and fight for it, step into character as a person and

have an attitude, accounts of professional skills, roles and competencies related to the

job requirements such as keeping an overview, making way for the project, ensuring


but likewise accounts for how project managers play a central role in giving project team

members opportunities for development within the frames of a specific project. The

project managers’ communicative action, behavior and strategies related to types of


necting people to obtain for example information or access to key people with decision-

making power.

Chapter 8: Conclusions and Implications

318

The global thematic network ‘Context’ demonstrates the salient issues of how the pro-

jects stakeholder analysis is used and the challenges connected to it, and how some

stakeholders relate not to the project but to the project manager. The role of the steer-

ing committee, how to approach the committee members to get things through and to

initiate action make up an aspect of this network. Data shows that there is a distinct bal-

ance between on the one hand responsibilities and tasks in documentation, reporting,

following procedures, and on the other hand taking on various leadership roles. It is

seen that project management stakeholders are a very central part of determining the

context for the project and the project manager, and a lot of consideration and strate-

gies require an understanding, accepting, accommodating and negotiating stakeholders’

perception of what is realistic and what is not realistic.

The global thematic network ‘Communication’ demonstrates perceptions of communi-

cation ranging from communication being ever present, something that we humans just

do, to accounts of awareness about how communication is a means of shaping and lead-

ing to success, and further to accounts drawing the attention to pitfalls in both formal

and informal communication such as aspects of time, agreements, and to what degree

the project manager knows the person he or she is communicating with. Findings like-

wise reveal understandings of how project management tools for documentation can be

perceived positively as providing the capability for locking down communication into in-

formation and data, as procedures for formal reporting and measuring. Themes con-

cerning project progress demonstrate communicative action and behavior that create

progress in projects by the project managers’ way to make way and clear the road for

the project members to be able to do their job in order for the project to reach its goal.

Finally, themes encompassing aspects of communication related to challenges, change

and conflict, are distinct, for example conflict is not seen as a problem but as something

constructive and positive, something that opens up for the opportunities.

8.1.2. RQ 2: How do project managers’ understand the role of communication

in project management?

Interview responses, across all organizations, to the question ‘what does communication

mean to you and why is it important?’ show that communication is perceived as being

the most difficult task of project management but at the same time it is seen as a pre-

requisite for progress, in that it is seen as the project manager’s tool to: make things

work, get things aligned, connect initiatives, and to motivate, engage and create collabo-

ration among stakeholders. Project managers perceive the communication requirements


319

with stakeholders as challenging due to the stakeholders’ huge difference in attitudes

towards the role of communication.

Findings show that project managers perceive communication as being a tool for infor-

mation exchange, reporting, documentation, and quality measurement. Documented

communication enables standardization that can be evaluated, measured, and im-

proved. Communication is therefore a means for the project manager to monitor and

control the performance and the success of the project and of own achievements.

Communication in the sense of documentation is both seen as a burden and as a fantas-

tic tool. Project managers disapprove of how time consuming documentation require-

ments are, but they acknowledge the value of the advantages that come with it such as

in being able to lock down decisions in documentation for future reference. They per-

ceive communication as a tool to handle challenges such as expectations of an ideal

world from management by considering, calculating and communicating explicitly the

consequences of these expectations.

Project managers’ accounts of how they understand the role of communication reflect

the models of communication presented in project management textbooks and thereby

also the dimensional approach of technical and/or sociocultural. There is a distinct and

dominant representation of the early models in the description of how communication

is a tool that serves the purpose of getting a message across in order to achieve action,

with the ultimate aim of fulfilling the project goal. However, the models integrating the

sociocultural dimension are also represented.

Based on the insight from the literature review, there appears to be a correlation be-

tween the dominating technical approach in the project management literature and the

observed perception of communication. This argument is based on the observation of

how project managers with less experience tend to lean against the “objective” tool

based communication practices relying on standardized procedures and glorified check-

lists. This technical focus in the approach to communication correlates with the available

literature on project management used in project management training. By comparing

project managers with more experience to those with less, results showed that the more

experience the project manager gains, the more confident they describe their relying on

their sociocultural communication practices. It appears that experienced project manag-

ers acknowledge the indispensable need for the technical aspects of project manage-

ment communication in order to maintain structure and to keep the overview of the

project. However, the experienced project managers demonstrate through their re-

sponses that the crucial resource of project management are people and the relation to


320

and interaction with every individual that in some direct or indirect way is linked to the

project. This argument is supported by the observations of the perceptions of communi-

cation showing that a company like company A1 with project managers with only 1-5

years of experience lean towards the technical dimension, and the company A2, B and D

with 5-15 years of experience lean towards a more equal balance between the technical

and the sociocultural dimension. Company C differs in that it has project managers with

1 to 10 years of experience, and the perception of communication leans primarily to-

wards the sociocultural dimension. As mentioned earlier, this may be explained from a

cultural perspective.

Interview responses from across the organizations demonstrate a positive and construc-

tive attitude towards conflict in that conflict is not perceived as a problem but as some-

thing constructive and positive, something that opens up for the opportunities. In addi-

tion, the project managers describe themselves as capable of taking on a neutral posi-

tion in approaching a conflict.

8.1.3. RQ 3: What is the context framing project managers’ communication

practice?

The purpose of this third analysis was to define and map stakeholders and the project

management context, where the context is defined the frames within which the project

manager works as in working conditions, procedural and organizational expectations,

restrictions, regulations, requirements, and political frames.

The study demonstrated that the benchmarking list of stakeholders from the literature is

not able to capture all the stakeholders mentioned by the interviewees. There is a dis-

tinct focus on internal stakeholders in project managers’ accounts which differs from the

benchmarking list found in the textbooks that shows a balanced focus of internal and

external stakeholders. Furthermore, the list of stakeholders mentioned in interviews

who do not fit any category suggests that there will always be the unknown, unexpected

and surprising stakeholders to consider and be prepared for in project management

communication. Project managers’ accounts reveal a small group of stakeholders who

don’t seem to fit any category from the literature, which illustrates the complexity of

relations influencing and being influenced by project management communication.

Accounts from across all questions and across organizations, but found in the query on

‘frames’ demonstrate that project managers talk about project related, organizational

and political requirements and expectations as framing aspects such as: reality referring

to the reality of some specific situation at any level or in any category; values as in val-


321

ues in relation to the project context, values in relation to upper level managers, or val-

ues in relation to the overall company; goals as in goals of the organization, the custom-

er, the project sponsor, project owner; rules of the game, procedures, reporting, 20 pro-

jects (waiting) in line, the contract, and methods - all aspects accounted for in connec-

tion to what is expected of the project manager, and within what frames his or her

works. Project managers’ accounts show awareness of the frames within which they

work, and that they are aware of both their limitations in influencing the frames as well

as their ability to shape the frames if they are proactive about it. In the interview ac-

counts project managers express that it is up to the project manager to set the frames

for what is expected from the steering committee, defining the understanding of their

role and actions. However, project managers indicate awareness that there are things

that cannot be changed, and yet accounts reveal that it is possible to work around them

if you know who to talk to. In the accounts project managers demonstrate awareness

that they stand without the authority, without the power to make a decision or change

priorities in the favor of a given project, however, by communicating their needs to the

right stakeholders and thereby influencing the frames, they create progress.

Another aspect defining the context described by project managers across the organiza-

tions is the aspect of taking on responsibility for the contract. Taking on the responsibil-

ity of the frames, being very explicit about what those frames are and thereby aligning

that foundation to the expectations, in other words: being very explicit about communi-

cating reality.

8.1.4. RQ 4: In what ways do project managers’ explain or reveal their use of

communication strategies?

From the queries on ‘influence’, ‘strategic moves’, and ‘network awareness’ project

managers’ interview responses across all questions and across organizations show that

formal networks serve as a supporting tool for efficiency. Formal communication net-

works are not described by project managers as technical techniques and channels of

communication but as formal relations and “for the record” communication require-

ments. However, when formal communication networks break down or turn out, insuffi-

cient, project managers describe how informal communication networks dominate and

enable project progress. Accounts reveal how huge amounts of resources emerge in in-

formal communication networks, illustrating and confirming the large unregistered

group of stakeholders that go beyond textbook definitions. Project managers state that

networking project managers have embedded advantages over less networking col-


322

leagues. However, project managers’ accounts also express awareness of creating allies

in order to supplement each other.

The queries on influence, strategic moves, and network awareness show project manag-

er accounts expressing that informal communication networks enable progress due to

the project managers’ connections and interactions with stakeholders beyond the pro-

ject. Descriptions of these network interactions demonstrate awareness that key stake-

holders are not always the key holders to solutions and therefore, the project managers

acknowledge in their accounts that building and maintaining good relations in general

and internally in the organization is an effort worth investing in. The project managers’

accounts show awareness of the characteristics of the benefit of a relationship in that

relations can be perceived from the perspectives of: personal versus professional qualifi-

cations; duration of relationships concerning both the ability of forming opinions of an

individual and concerning whether the individual is a newly or longtime employee in the

organization, and finally from a professional experience versus an organizational experi-

ence perspective. Based on the character of a relation and the specific situation, project

managers explain how they, despite the lack of decision power, influence key stakehold-

ers to decision activity by providing them with well prepared and calculated input. The

accounts show deliberate strategic behavior of how the project managers’ competence

in persuading, influencing, and communicating reality is a prerequisite for project pro-

gress.

In the interview accounts project managers further demonstrate how they determine

communicative action depending on their ability to and intentions of linking: 1) creating

value for the project to 2) creating value for the organization. Project managers show

awareness of creating beneficial positions and outcomes both to their own advantage as

well as to the advantage of the organization.

In addition, project managers show consideration of integrity when making choices of

communicative action in relation to communicating the truth about the reality of a situ-

ation to powerful stakeholders and to other resources. Their accounts show a distinct

connection between the expectations of the project manager and the aspects of respon-

sibility, courage, integrity, and truth. The leadership role is linked to integrity, originating

from the courage to take on responsibility. Having this ability, this competence or lack-

ing hereof determines the communicative actions, behaviors, and choice of communica-

tion strategies in that it reflects the project manager’s personality.


323

8.2. Discussion and implications

Interview responses across all questions and across organizations show that communica-

tive action, choices and strategic considerations lie in the relational communication

networks of the project manager. Project managers’ accounts and descriptions of com-

municative considerations demonstrate communicative action in the project manager’s

practice of moving the project forward, creating progress.

This study has three key findings, which are critical for expanding our understanding of

project management communication:

1. The intertwined character of the technical and sociocultural aspects of project

management communication

2. The vocabulary grounded in literature, for describing project management com-

munication and enabling an extended understanding of communication in re-

spect to the project environment.

3. The expanded understanding of the stakeholder analysis and communication

network awareness.

In the following the implications for project management practices, project manage-

ment textbooks, and for the field of organizational communication will be described.

8.2.1. Implications for project management practices

For project management practitioners and for project management training the implica-

tions of these three key findings are an extended awareness of how to approach and

understand project management communication. The young project managers are of-

fered a framework for being able to understand and learn from the experienced project

managers and not just rely on the technical dimensions.

8.2.1.1. Project management practices and the technical/sociocultural di-

mensions of project management communication

In interview responses discussing communication network awareness project managers

demonstrate the explicit use of communication networks with the characteristics of be-

ing based on:

1. Formal professional relations (as in colleagues, supervisor, project director etc.)

based on informal, often emergent communication


324

2. Informal (and formal) power/political relations (as in upper level management,

the CEO, CFO, and maybe even external client upper level management) based

on formal communication.

3. Formal technical dimension project related relational networks based on formal

technical dimension requirements for project communication.

4. Informal social relations based on informal communication.

Figure 55 illustrates these four communication networks:

1. The ‘technical project communication’ network is based on formal objective

communication requirements of project management primarily at the core pro-

ject level

2. The ‘professional relation’ communication network pertains to professional in-

teraction with stakeholders such as project manager colleagues in a formal pro-

ject context for example asking advice, requesting information etc. All with a

purpose related to a project. However, it is non-scheduled communication, in-

formal, emergent canteen, or coffee-machine talk. Since this is not directly relat-

ed to a project, the communication network of professional relations is charac-

terized more by being part of the system of extended participants and potentially

the system of corporate and community level (Figure 28, page 161)

3. The communication network of ‘social relations’ pertains to personal informal re-

lations and informal communication that can exist at all levels crossing profes-

sions and positions

4. The ‘power/political relations’ communication network pertains to the informal

relationships between project managers and influential key holders and/or key

stakeholders. This is not a network used in direct relation to a project, it is a

communication network related to the project manager. It is defined by long

term perspectives in that the use of it builds on opinion and mutual trust, as it is

seen in the accounts of positive communicative influence on upper level man-

agement.


325

Figure 55: Four characteristics of communication networks in project management communication based on(Original)

Clegg and Courpasson (2004) state that hierarchical power tends to depend on bureau-

cratic legitimacy embedded in routines and rules while project authority typically re-

quires creativity and innovation in the accomplishment of objectives, rather than adher-

ence to strict rules. Connecting this statement to the four communication networks, the

project manager, as argued by Clegg and Courpasson, can be considered a hybrid be-

tween the centralized enactment of rules and procedures and a capacity to create pro-

gress and communicate reality.

8.2.1.2. Project management practices and the extended vocabulary of pro-

ject management communication

The implications of the vocabulary derived from the literature review for project man-

agement practices is that it provides an extended terminology to discuss project man-

agement communication in terms of the sociocultural dimension from a relational ap-

proach. The vocabulary enables project managers to discuss and understand project

management practices from the perspectives of communication network awareness.

8.2.1.3. Project management practices and the extended awareness of com-

munication networks in project management communication

The networking project manager describes communication practices of balancing organ-

izational processes to manage stakeholders and personal competence of influence to

manage progress. Project managers’ responses to questions relating to the stakeholder

analysis reveal that the stakeholder analysis is a delicate subject, which is explained by


326

stating that it is one of many highly valued tools, but it requires continuous updating to

serve its rightful purpose. Specifically, interview accounts from the queries related to the

context and the relational analysis demonstrate that the structure, functions, and inter-

action between project managers and stakeholders exist on different levels, within and

across different formal, informal, emergent, and social communication networks.

Project managers’ demonstrate deliberate awareness of how they benefit from their

awareness of and ability to navigate formal and informal communication networks in

relation to stakeholder dimensions of interests and/or power. Their accounts reveal that

they are aware of the communication requirements in relation to the embedded rela-

tionships that characterize relations to key holders and key stakeholders linked to the

project manager. Accounts demonstrate a distinct presence of well-considered informal

communicative behavior and action leading up to formal communicative procedures

such as steering committee meetings, reporting, and the elaboration of documentations,

which lead to the suggestion of two separate stakeholder analysis.

In the accounts discussing the project stakeholder analysis, project managers

acknowledge the project management tool-based stakeholder analysis mapping out the

stakeholders in relation to a project. The project managers’ description of the challenges

of the stakeholder analysis reveals informal communicative behavior and strategic

communicative action of influencing that demonstrate two distinct and again to some

extent inseparable stakeholder analysis. Therefore the data shows that it is valid to talk

about another stakeholder analysis, one that is related to the project manager as an in-

dividual. This stakeholder analysis is not restricted by timeframes and project directives,

but is characterized by high levels of awareness of communication links, relational bridg-

ing, and reciprocal communicative exchange. Like Kampf (2013) argues for de-centering

the project, this is likewise suggested here in the expanded understanding of a stake-

holder analysis and centering on the egocentric communication network of the project

manager. This argument is based on earlier presented statements as:

I make an effort at finding out how I am positioned

people care about each other, either professionally because you respect what

each other do and at the same time get along personally

it is important to maintain good relationships with them in case things get rough,

but also for later projects

the more you open your window, so to speak, so that people can look in and see

who you are, and you can make yourself known, what your values are, what your

needs are


327

but I have ten years of relationship to the manager of the department where I

may have a problem

It is a question of keeping close to the people who have an important role to

play. You can also call it ‘building up your personal network’ depending on

whether you look at it isolated by project or something. But yes… and that is also

what makes it possible for me to get through with some things, so first and

foremost, I need people who are willing to listen to me

the more you know about who to stay friends with and who you don’t want to

get cross with. You also know who you can afford to have conflicts with and then,

when it is over, you can go out for coffee

Project managers’ accounts about the stakeholder analysis, as demonstrated, support

the argument of extending the understanding. The extended vocabulary contributes to

project management practices in that it provides a terminology to discuss the challenges

of the stakeholder analysis and expand the understanding of its role and function both in

relation to projects and in relation to the project manager’s professional development

and opportunities.

Monge and Contractor’s (2003) mentioning of emergent communication networks like-

wise support the argument of the project manager’s stakeholder analysis in that it is

more likely that relations emerge over time, both passively and actively, in a personal

stakeholder analysis than in that of a highly monitored project stakeholder analysis. As

Kadushin and Brimm (1990) point to the shadow networks, the informal communication

networks, symbolizing the way things ‘really get done around here’, the social interac-

tion networks, and the career networks. Kadushin and Brimm argue that these networks

frequently work at cross-purposes, thereby restricting rather than promoting the organi-

zation’s interests. In the context of project management communication, project man-

agers describe how they benefit from being able to navigate across these networks. This

idea of different networks is taken to an extended level of communication networks in

relation to project management communication, which contributes to the understand-

ing of communication networks in project management practices.

8.2.2. Implications for project management textbooks

The extended vocabulary contributes to project management textbooks in that they

provide new ways of approaching, understanding, describing and discussing project

management communication. Subjects that were not related to communication may

with this vocabulary and extended understanding of the technical and sociocultural di-


328

mensions, and the stakeholder analysis and network awareness be integrated and con-

tribute to developing subjects from the perspective of communication.

8.2.3. Implications for the field of organizational communication

The implications relate mostly to the first key finding about the technical and sociocul-

tural dimensions because organizational communication is sociocultural in nature. Thus,

taking into account this nature of organizational communication, we can use these find-

ings and argue for paying attention to communication in project settings as well as in-

cluding more balanced emphasis on both technical and sociocultural aspects of commu-

nication.

8.2.3.1. Organizational communication and the technical/sociocultural di-

mensions of project management communication

Calculating and communicating project reality requires integrity and the courage to take

responsibility. From the interviews across all questions and across organizations, project

managers describe how they are challenged by taking responsibility of not just a project,

in that project “package” is included the act of stepping into the darkness in the antici-

pation of the unknown. Project managers describes themselves as having roles as the

facilitator, motivator and communicator, but also the one giving the orders, making

things happen, and being the strict guy. Taking Quinn et al’s (2007) competing value

framework it is again demonstrated how both the technical dimension and the sociocul-

tural is present in project management.

Project managers’ accounts reveal how they are aware of the strategic considerations

and calculations they make in order to proceed with a project, in order to solve emerg-

ing issues and in order to be proactive about potential issues. Accounts about network-

ing abilities show deliberate awareness of strategic behavior, as in what Dutton et al

(2001) call strategic moves. They define ‘moves’ as: the behaviors that constitute an in-

teraction. Where Clegg and Courpasson discuss the aspect of calculative control in rela-

tion to upper level management’s search for efficiency, here we are seeing calculative

strategic moves in the search for project or personal progress. In a communication per-

spective, these moves can be seen as strategic communicative action and behavior. Pro-

ject managers account for these skills in estimating and calculating consequences and in

their ability to communicate these consequences and thereby stimulate action. It relates

to what Dutton and Ashford (1993) define as issue selling in that it pertains to having the

experience, the knowledge, and the personality to influence and evoke decision activity

in favor of for example a critical situation in a project.


329

However, project managers assert in their accounts that communicating reality means

telling the truth, and telling the truth requires courage. Not only in relation to facing su-

periors and having them face reality in relation to some desired, but unrealistic, project,

but also daring to communicate the truth about delays in delivery to other dependent

stakeholders. The aspect of courage is also demonstrated in project managers’ accounts

talking about the perspective of knowing each other for better and for worse based on

well-established relations. Relationships, emphasized in accounts by project managers,

where values and opinions are known and despite this or maybe even due to this

awareness, mutual respect and trust is gained.

It is also here that project managers make distinctions between the notion of being a

project manager and being a project leader. Being a project manager adheres to the

technical dimension of control, coordinating and monitoring (to use the terminology

from Quinn et al’s framework). Being a leader means stepping into character as a human

being, creating an attractive path that people want to follow, having people who want to

listen to you, and having and being able to maintain integrity.

In interview answers relating to the personal character and to integrity, project man-

agement argue that it is about being a leader, communicating that you are the leader,

and to do that it is seen that the project manager must dare look to themself. Project

managers mention the value of investing in time for reflection with the aim of evaluating

a given project but also with the aim of self-evaluation. A distinct desire for scheduling

time for reflection is observed, but the accounts likewise reveal that upper level manag-

ers often only see the project situation as operational in a context of performance and

measurable outcomes. Therefore, project managers describe how they often find them-

selves faced with key stakeholders with no support for or willingness to invest in time for

reflection; a lack of understanding that reflection is what creates synergy in projects.

This can be seen as another overlap between the technical and the sociocultural dimen-

sion.

Interview responses across questions and across organizations demonstrate that project

management communication comprises the technical and the sociocultural dimension.

Project management communication can be understood as one, but the two dimensions

are distinct yet inseparable. This duality challenges the requirements in depicting the

complexity of project management communication. However, project managers’ ac-

counts demonstrate a complexity in the detail of the mapping of what project manage-

ment communication is, yet at the same time reveal simplicity, and this simplicity is

what the suggestion for a model is based on. The proposed model is to be understood as


330

an illustration to guide reflection, consideration, and awareness of the duality in project

management communication.

The technical dimension is to be perceived and understood as the toolbox of communi-

cation. The technical dimension is the direct management of project communication(s);

this is communication related directly to the project. The sociocultural dimension is the

project leader communication, which can be seen as communication related indirectly

to projects, however, directly to the project manager. Project management communica-

tion consists of objective tools and a subjective person.

Figure 56 illustrates the intra-project and intra-organizational communication model for

project managers. The blue straight arrow symbolizes the direct communication related

directly to the project. The green spiralling line symbolizes the indirect communication,

the communication in between, ever present, influencing with positive or negative stim-

ulation, making way, mobilizing to progress (or stagnation). I argue that project man-

agement communication lies within the relations of a project manager’s communication

networks.

Figure 56: Internal communication model, guiding reflection on and consideration of the distinctness and the sim-plicity in the duality of project management communication (Original)

Project management communication comprises knowing the profession and having the

integrity and the courage to communicate the truth about reality. Being able to com-

municate the true picture of reality requires time for reflection, competence in estima-

tion and calculation of consequences and the courage to take on the responsibility of

dealing with and communicating the scenario. The complexity in this model lies within

the entire scope of project related requirements, and the simplicity lies within the atti-


331

tude of the individual project manager. Thus, the model offers an example of sociocul-

tural and technical aspects of project management communication.

8.2.3.2. Organizational communication and the extended vocabulary of pro-

ject management communication

The vocabulary for project management communication comes in part from the field of

organizational communication. Given that these nuanced aspects of communication are

also found in projects, the interview results point towards a need for including project

management communication as part of organizational communication. Because organi-

zations are increasingly using projects to organize and communicate work, the overlap

between organizational communication, and how project management understand their

own communication offers a rich direction for future research.

8.2.3.3. Organizational communication and the extended awareness of the

stakeholder analysis and of communication networks in project

management communication

The extended awareness of the stakeholder analysis and of communication networks

develop the understanding of communication patterns and structures. Thus, an implica-

tion is an extended understanding of the project managers’ actual communicative ac-

tions, behaviors, and choice of communication strategies. Furthermore, it contributes to

expanding the understanding of stakeholder models.


332

8.3. Limitations of study and future directions

This research has looked at project management communication from the sociocultural

dimension based on a relational approach. As demonstrated throughout this study, pro-

ject management communication comprises both the technical dimension and the soci-

ocultural dimension, meaning that this research is partial in that respect.

Further directions for research therefore invite exploration of the dimensions in relation

to each other. In addition, further research on the organizational cultural impact on pro-

ject management communication will enable comparison of organizational cultures in

terms of different industries as well as geographical and national cultures. Another sug-

gestion for research is developing the vocabulary further for understanding and shaping

communication in projects.

9. References

Argenti, Paul A. (2003). Corporate Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill

Argyris, C. (1965). Exploration in interpersonal compentence. International Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science 1: 58-83

Attride-Stirling, Jennifer (2001). Thematic networks: an analytical tool for qualitative re-

search, Qualitative Research 2001 1: 385-405

Back, Edward W. and Karen A. Moreau (2001). Information Management Strategies for

Project Management. Project Management Institute, Volume 32, Number 1, 2001,

pp.10-19.

Baker, Bud (2007). Power Points, PM Network, March 2007/Volume 21 No. 3

Barnard, Chester (1968). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard university

Press.

Barnes, Kim (2000). Exercising Influence: A guide for Making Things Happen at Work, at

Home, and in Your Community. Brkeley, CA: Barnes & Conti

Belbin, R.M. (1993). Team Roles at Work, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann (1966). The social construction of reality – a trea-

tise in the sociology of knowledge, New York: Anchor Books

Berkun, Scott (2008). Making Things Happen – Mastering Project Management, Sebas-

topol: O’Reilly

Biernacki, Patrick and Dan Waldorf (1981), Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques

of Chain Referral Sampling, Sociological Methods & Research, November 1981 10: 141-

163

Binder, Jean (2007). Global Project Management – Communication, Collaboration and

Management across boarders. Surrey: Gower Publishing Ltd.

Blundel, Richard (2004). Effective Organisational Communication – Perspectives, princi-

ples and practices, 2nd edition, Essex: Prentice Hall – Financial Times

Bochner and Kelly (1974). Interpersonal competence: rationale, philosophy, and imple-

mentation of conceptual framework. Speech Teacher, 23: 279-301

Chapter 9: References

334

Boddy, David (2002). Managing Projects – Building and Leading the Team, Essex: Pren-

tice Hall – Financial Times

Booth et al. (2003), The Craft of Research, 2nd edition, Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press

Brante, Thomas (2010). Perpectival Realism, Representational Models, and Social Sci-

ences, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 40 (1) pp.107-117

Brill et al (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project

manager: A web-based Delphi study, ETR&D, vol. 54, No 2, p. 115-140

Bronfenbrenner, Urie (1979), The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature

and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Bucero, Alfonso (2007). Set it up, PM Network, March 2007/Volume 21 No. 3

Burt, Ronald S. (1995). Structural Holes – The Social Structure of Competition, Massachu-

setts: Harvard University Press

Burt, Roland S. (2000). The Network Structure of Social Capital, Organizational Behav-

iour, Volume 22, pp.345-423

Burt, Roland S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas, American Journal of Sociology,

Volume 110, No. 2: pp. 349-399

Burt, Ronald S. (2007). Brokerage & Closure – An introduction to Social Capital, New

York: Oxford

Bø, I. (1989). Barnet og de andre. Nettverk som pedagogisk ressurs. In Fyrand (2005). So-

cialt nettverk – Teori og praksis. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Cabanis-Brewin (2006). AMA Handbook of Project Management, New York: American

Management Association

Casciaro, T. and M. S. Lobo (2005). Affective Microfoundations of Instrumental Ties in

Organizations. Working Paper.

Casciaro, T. and M. S. Lobo (2005). Competent Jerks, Lovable, Fools, and the Formation

of Social Networks, Harvard Business Review,Vol. June, pp. 92-99


335

Chain, Noy (2008) Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in

Qualitative research, International Journal Social Research Methodology, Vol.11, No 4,

pp. 327-344

Cheney, George et al. (2004). Organizational Communication in an Age of Globalization –

issues, reflections, practices. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc.

Cheng, Eddie W.L, Heng Li, Peter E.D. Love and Zahir Irani (2001). Network Communica-

tion in the Construction Industry. Corporate Communication, Volume 6, number 2, 2001,

pp.61-70.

Chiocchio, François (2007). Project Team Performance: A study of electronic task and

coordination communication, Project Management Institute, Vol.38, No. 1, 97-109

Christensen, Lars Thøger & Mette Morsing (2005). Bagom Corporate Communication.

København: Samfundslitteratur.

Clarke, Adele E. (2005). Situational Analysis – Grounded Theory After the Postmodern

Turn, London: Sage

Clegg, Stewart and David Courpasson (2004). Political Hybrids: Tocquevillean Views on

Project Organizations, Journal of Management studies, 41:4

Connector A/S (2007). Concept – The Art of Project Management. Nærum: Connector a/s

Cooke-Davis, Terry (2007) Project Success, in Morris, Peter W. G. & Jeffrey K. Pinto

(2007;pp.226-249) Project, Program & Portfolio Management, New Jersey: John Wiley &

Sons

Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research, 3rd edition,

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cornelissen, Joep (2006). Corporate Communication – Theory and Practice. London: Sage

Publications.

Cova, Bernard and Robert Salle (2007). Introduction to the IMM special Issue on ‘Project

Marketing and the Marketing of Solutions’ – A comprehensive approach to project mar-

keting and the marketing of solutions. Industrial Marketing Management, 36,138-146

Covey, Stephen R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people – powerful lessons in

personal change, New York: Fireside


336

Crawford, Lynn et al. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal em-

phases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, Volume 24,

2006, pp.175-184

Creswell, John W. (2003). Research Design – Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Meth-

ods Approach, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Creswell, John W and Vicki L Plano Clark (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Meth-

ods Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cross, R. and Andrew Parker (2004), The Hidden Power of Social Networks – Understand-

ing How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations, Boston: Harvard Business School Pub-

lishing Corporation

Crotty, M (1998), The Foundation of Social Research: Meaning and Prspective in the Re-

search Process; London: Sage Publications

Danish Project Management Association (2009) NCB Chapter on Assessment of Leader-

ship Behaviour. http://www.danskprojektledelse.dk/index.php?id=3&L=1

Deetz, Stanley (2001) in Jablin and Putnam (2001). The New Handbook of Organiza-

tional Communication – Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Thousand Oaks,

Sage

Dinsmore, Paul C. and Jeannette Cabanis-Brewin (2006). AMA Handbook of Project

Management, New York: American Management Association

Dutton, E. Jane and Susan J. Ashford (1993). Selling issues to top management, Academy

of Management Review, Vol. 18, No 3, pp.397-428

Dutton, E. Jane et al. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 716-736

Einsiedel, Albert Jr. (1987) ‘Profile of Effective Project Managers’, Project Management

Journal, 18, no. 5

Englund, Randall L. (2006). Dealing with power and politics in project management, AMA

Handbook of Project Management, pp.348-362.

Flood, Anne (2010) Understanding phenomenology, Nurse Researcher, 17, 2

Freeman, R. Edward (2011). Strategic Management – A Stakeholder Approach, Boston:

Pitman


337

Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study of the sociol-

ogy of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

Frigenti et al (2002). Characteristics of a business leader, Accountancy SA, p.19

Fyrand, Live (2005). Socialt nettverk – teori og praksis, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget

Gabarro, John J. & John P. Kotter (1981) Managing your boss, McKinsey Quarterly, Issue

2, p21-34, 14p

Gale, Sarah Fister (2007). Bridging the Gap, PM Network, March 2007/Volume 21 No. 3

Gardiner, Paul D. (2005). Project Management – A strategic planning approach, Hamp-

shire: Palgrave Macmillan

Gass, Robert H. and John S. Seiter (2007). Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance

Gaining, Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gayeski, D. (1993). Corporate Communications Management: The Renaissance Commu-

nicator in Information-Age Organisations, Boston: Focal Press/Heinneman

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.

Cambridge: Polity Press

Giere, R. (2006) Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Gillard, Sharlett and Jane Johansen (2004). Project management communication: a sys-

tems approach, Journal of Information Science, 30 (1), pp. 23-29

Gillham, Bill (2005). Research Interviewing – the range of techniques. New York: Open

University Press

Globerson and Zwikael, (2002). The Impact of the Project Manager on Project Man-

agement Planning Processes, Project Management Institute, Vol 33, No.3, 58-64

Goczol J. and Scoubeau C (2003). Corporate communication and strategy in the field of

projects, Corporate Communications, Volume 8 No. 1, 60-66

Golsorkhi et al (2010), Cambridge handbook of Strategy as Practice, Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press

Gray, Clifford F. and Erik W. Larson (2006). Project Management – The Managerial Pro-

cess, 3rd Edition & International edition, New York: McGraw-Hill


338

Granovetter, Mark (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties, The American Journal of Sociolo-

gy, Vol 78, No. 6, 1360-1380

Granovetter, Mark (1985), Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Em-

beddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, No 3, pp 481-510

Griffin, D.(2002). The Emergence of Leadership: Linking Self-organization and Ethics,

London: Routledge

Grunig, James E. & Todd T. Hunt (1984). Managing Public Relations. Florida: Harcourt

Brace Jovanovich.

Grunig, James E. (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Man-

agement. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Gullestad, M (1985). Livsstil og likhet. In Fyrand (2005). Socialt nettverk – Teori og prak-

sis. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Halkier, Bente (2008). Fokus grupper. Frederiksberg C: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur

Hallahan et al. (2007), Defining Strategic Communication, International journal of strate-

gic communication, l (1), 3-35, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

Hallahan, K. (2004). Communication management. In R.L. Heath, Encyclopedia of Public

Relations, Vol.1, pp. 161-164. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hanneman, r., and Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Retrieved

May 27, 2012, from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/

Harary, Norman and Cartwright (1965). Structural Models. New York: Wiley

HBS (2005). Power, Influence and Persuasion, Harvard Business Essentials, Boston: Har-

vard Business School Publishing Corporation

Henderson, L.S. (1986). Unraveling the meaning of managerial communication: A con-

ceptual explication and model for guiding future research. In J.A. Pearce II & R. B. Robin-

son, Jr. (Eds.), Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings 1986 (pp. 219-223),

Chicago, IL: Academy of Management. (Received Best Competitive Paper Award from

Organizational Communication Division)

Henderson, L.S. (1987). The contextual nature of interpersonal communication in man-

agement theory and research. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, (1), 7-31.

http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/


339

Henderson, L.S. & Willer, L. (1987). An application of perspectivism to organizational

communication research. In F. Hoy (Ed.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceed-

ings 1987 (pp. 225 – 229), New Orleans, LA: Academy of Management. (Received Best

Competitive Paper Award from Organizational Communication Division)

Henderson, Linda S. (2004). Encoding and decoding communication competencies in

project management – an exploratory study. International Journal of Project Manage-

ment, Volume 22, 2004, pp.469-476.

Henderson, Linda S. (2008). The Impact of Project Managers’ Communication Compe-

tencies: Validation and Extension of a Research Model for Virtuality, Satisfaction, and

Productivity on Project Teams, Project Management Journal, Vol 39, No. 2, 48-59

Herkt, Melissa (2007). What is in it for us? PM Network, March 2007/Volume 21 No. 3

Hildebrand, Carol (2007). Cross Cultural Collaboration, PM Network, March

2007/Volume 21 No. 3

Jablin, Frederic M. and Linda L. Putnam (2001). The New Handbook of Organizational

Communication – Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Thousand Oaks, Sage

Jablin, Frederic M. and Patricia M Sais (2001). Communication Competence. In Jablin and

Putnam (2001). The New Handbook of Organizational Communication – Advances in

Theory, Research, and Methods, Thousand Oaks, Sage

Jedd, Marcia (2007). The Evolution begins – A new breed of project managers can talk

Project AND Business strategy, PM Network, June 2007/Volume 21 No. 6

Johansen, Jane and Sharlett Gillard (2004). Information resources project management

communication: personal and environmental barriers, Journal of Information Science, 31

(2), pp. 91-98

Johnson et al. (2007). Strategy as Practice – Research Directions and Resources. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press

Jonasson, Hans. http://www.jtcunlimited.com/article02.htm, retrieved: 2012-12.03

Kadushin and Brimm (1990). Why networking fails: Double binds and the limitations of

shadow networks. Paper presented at the tenth annual International Sunbelt Social

Network Conference, San Diego, California

http://www.jtcunlimited.com/article02.htm


340

Kampf, Constance E. ‘A communications approach to teaching project management’ in

Pries-Heje, Jan (2013). Project Management Multiplicity: Current Trends, Frederiksberg:

Samfundslitteratur

Kent, Simon (2007). Does somebody up there like me? PM Network, June 2007/Volume

21 No. 6

Kerzner, Harold (2006). Project Management – A Systems Approach to Planning, Sched-

uling and Controlling, Ninth edition New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc

Kerzner, Harold (2009), Project Management – A systems approach to planning, schedul-

ing, and controlling, 10th Edition, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc

Kerzner, Harold (2011). Project Management Metrics, KPIs, and Dashboards – a guide to

measuring and monitoring project performance, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kilduff, Martin and David Krackhardt (2008). Interpersonal Networks in Organisations -

Cognition, Personality, Dynamics, and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press

Kilduff, Martin and Wenpin Tsai (2003). Social Networks and Organizations, London:

Sage Publications Ltd.

Kousholt, Bjarne (2007). Project Management – Theory and Practice. Copenhagen: Ny

Teknisk Forlag

Kvale, Steinar (1997) Interview – En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview.

Vejle: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes to project management, it’s the people that matter:

An empirical analysis of project management in Germany. IRNOP III The Nature and role

of Projects in the Next 20 Years: Research Issues and Problems. Calgary: University of

Calgary

Lecoeuvre-Soudain, L. and Philippe Deshayes (2006). From Marketing to Project Man-

agement, Project Management Journal, Volume 37, No. 5, 103-112.

Lee, Romeo (2012) The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi Toegye and Yi Yulgok (Part 123),

http://www.koreantimes.org/the-korean-neo-confucianism-of-yi-toegye-and-yi-yulgok-

part-123/, Retrieved: December 12, 2012

http://www.koreantimes.org/the-korean-neo-confucianism-of-yi-toegye-and-yi-yulgok-part-123/

http://www.koreantimes.org/the-korean-neo-confucianism-of-yi-toegye-and-yi-yulgok-part-123/


341

Leech, Nancy L. and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie (2011). Beyond Constant Comparison

Qualitative Data Analysis: Using NVivo, School of Psychology Quarterly, vol. 26, No 1, 70-

84

Lester, Albert (2007). Project Management – Planning and Control, Butterworth-

Heinemann, Burlington: 2007

Lindegaard, Mette and John Ryding Olsson (2005). Power I projekter og portefølger, Kø-

benhavn: DJØF

Lindlof,Thomas R. and Bryan C. Taylow (2002). Qualitative communication research

methods, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc

Lindlof,Thomas R. and Bryan C. Taylow (2011). Qualitative communication research

methods, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc

Lloyd, Heather L.E og Richard J. Varey (2003). Factors affecting internal communi-cation

in a strategic alliance project. Corporate Communication, Volume 8, number 3, 2003,

pp.197-207.

Marin and Wellman. Social Network Analysis: An introduction. In Scott and Carrington

(2012). The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Martinussen, W. (1991). Sociologisk analyse. Oslo: Universitetsforlag

Matta, N. F. and Ronald N. Ashkenas (2003). Why Good Projects Fail Anyway. Best Prac-

tice, Harvard Business Review, September 2003

May, Steve and Dennis K. Mumby (2005), Engaging Organizational communication Theo-

ry & Research – Multiple perspectives, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Maylor, Harvey (2005). Project Management, 3rd edition, Essex: Prentice Hall – Financial

Times

McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science 8, 352-380

Mepyans-Robinson, Renee. Project Management Communications management in Prac-

tice. In Dinsmore, Paul C. and Jeannette Cabanis-Brewin (2006). AMA Handbook of Pro-

ject Management, New York: American Management Association

Miller, Katherine (2006). Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes.

Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth


342

Mikkelsen, Hans og Jens Ove Riis (2011). Grundbog i Projektledelse, Rungsted: Prodevo

Mooz et al (2003). Communicating Project Management – The integrated Vocabulary of

Project Management and Systems Engineering. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Monge, Peter R. and Noshir S. Contractor (2003), Theories of Communication Networks,

New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Mor Barak, Michal (2000). The inclusive workplace. Social Work pp. 1-12, jul. New York

Moreno, J. (1932). Application of the group method to classification. New York: National

Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor.

Moreno, J. (1934). Who shall survive? Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease

Publiching Company

Morgan, Gareth (1997). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Morse, Janice M (2009), in Developing Grounded Theory – the second generation, by

Morse et al. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press

Moses, Jonathon W. and Torbjørn L. Knutson (2007). Ways of Knowing – competing

Methodologies in Social and Political research, New York: Palegrave Macmillan

Müller, Ralf (2003). Determinants for external communications of IT project managers.

International Journal of Project Management, Volume 21, 2003, pp.345-354.

Nietzsche, Frederich (1989). On the genealogy of morals. New York: Vintage Books

Nokes, SEbaastian and Sean Kelly (2007). The definitive guide to Project Management –

The fast track to getting the job done on time and on budget, 2nd edition. Harlow: Pren-

tice Hall, Financial Times

Northouse, P.G. (2004), Leadership Theory and Practice, London: Sage

Nygaard, Claus (2009). Samfundsvidenskabelige analysemetoder. Frederiksberg: Forla-

get Samfundslitteratur

O’Hair et al (1997). Competent Communication. 2nd edition. New York: St. Martin Press-

Morreale et al (2001). Human Communication: Motivation, Knowledge, and Skills. Bel-

mont: Wadsworth

Olsen, Poul B and Kaare Pedersen (2006). Problem-Oriented Project Work – a workbook.

Frederiksberg: Roskilde University press


343

Orlikowski, Wanda J. (2010), Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philos-

ophy, in: Golsorkhi et al (2010), Cambridge handbook of Strategy as Practice, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Osgood and Schramm in Mooz et al (2003). Communicating Project Management – The

integrated Vocabulary of Project Management and Systems Engineering. New Jersey:

John Wiley & Sons Inc, p. 4

Parkin, James (2007). Organizational decision making and the project manager, In-

ternational Journal of Project Management Institute, Vol. 14, No. 5, 257-263

Parson, T. (1951). The Social System, New York: The Free Press

Perrow, Charles (2000). An organizational Analysis of Organizational Theory, Contempo-

rary Sociology, Vol. 29, No3. Pp.469-476

Pinto, Jeffrey K (1996). Power and politics in project management. Pennsylvania: Project

Management Institute Headquarters

Pinto and Slevin (1988a). Critical success factors across the project life cycle, Project

Management Journal 19(3): 67-75.

Pinto and Slevin (1988b). Project success: definitions and measurement techniques, Pro-

ject Management Journal 19(1): 67-72.

Pinto and Trailer (1998). Leadership Skills for Project Managers. Pennsylvania: PMI

Headquarters

Potter, James W. (2009). An Analysis of Thinking and Research about Qualitative Meth-

ods. New York: Routeledge

Posner, Barry Z (1987). What it takes to be a good project manager, Project Manage-

mentJjournal, 18, no. 1

Powel, Walter W. 1990. Neither Market nor Hierarche: Network forms of Organization.

Pp. 295-336, Researdh in Organizational Behavior, edited by B. Staw and L.L. Cummings.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Pries-Heje, Jan (2013). Project Management Multiplicity: Current Trends, Frederiksberg:

Samfundslitteratur

Prince2 (2009), PRINCE2 – Projektledelse med succes, Belfast: TSO


344

Pritchard, Carl L (2004) The Project Management Communication Toolkit, Norwood: Ar-

tech House Inc.

Propp, K. M. et al. (1999). Collective information processing in groups. Handbook of

group communication theory and research, Thousand Oaks: Sage

Quinn, R. E (1988), Beyond Ratioinal Management – Mastering the Paradoxes and com-

peting demands of High Performance, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

Quinn, R. E., S. R. Faerman, et al. (2007). Becoming a master manager: A Competing Val-

ues Approach. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Reiss, Geoff (2007), Project Management Demystified, 3rd edition, New York: Taylor &

Francis

Ritchie, Jane and Jane Lewis (2003). Qualitative Research Practice – A Guide for Social

Social Science Students and Researchers, London: Sage Publication Ltd

Robson and Tourish (2005). Managing internal communication: an organizational case

study, Corporate Communication, Volume 10, No. 3, pp. 213-222

Rowan, Daniel D. (1986). Managing projects: A systems perspective. New York: Elsevier

Science Publishing

Schechter, Chen (2007). Perspectivism: An Alternative Research Epistemology for the

21st Century Schools, Interhcange, Vol 38/1, pp. 1-13

Sheard A.G and A.P. Kakabadse (2006) Mapping the transitional experience of switching

leadership roles, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol 27, No 7: pp. 597-

619

Shenhar, A.J, Dov Dvir, Ofer Levy and Alan C. Maltz (2001). Project Success: A Multidi-

mensional Strategic Concept, Long Range Planning Journal, 34, 2001, 699-725

Schiefloe, P.M. (2004). Mennesker og Samfund – Innføring I sosiologisk forståelse. Oslo:

Fagbokforlaget

Schwable, Kathy (2007). Information Technology Project Management, 5th edition. Bos-

ton: Thomson Course Technology

Siccama, Carolyn J. and Stacy Penna, (2008). Enhancing Valitdity of a Qualitative Disser-

tation Research Study by Using NVIVO, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 8, no.2, pp. 91-

103


345

Simmel, George (1955), Conflict: The web of group-affiliation, p.162, Glencoe, IL: Free

Press

Spitsberg B.H and Cupach WR (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Thou-

sand Oaks: Sage

Stadil, Christian and Christian Waldstrøm (2009), Corporate Networking. København:

Gyldendal Business.

Stohl, Cynthia (1995), Organizational communication, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Suddaby, Roy (2006), From the editors: What grounded theory is not, Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 2006, Vol. 49, No.4. pp.&33-642

Tebes, J.K. (2005) Community science, philosophy of science, and the practice of re-

search. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3-4), pp. 213-230

Teddlie, Charles and Abbas Tashakkori (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research

– Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral

Schiences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Tsoukas, Haridimos (2010), Pracitce, strategy making and intentionality: a Heideggerian

onto-epistemology for Strategy as Practice, in: Golsorkhi et al (2010), Cambridge hand-

book of Strategy as Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Tulmin, Stephen E. (2008), The uses of argument, updated edtion, New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Tuman, John (2006), Studies in Communications Management: Achieving Project Success

Through Team Building and Stakeholder Management, in Dinsmore & Cabanis-Brewin

(2006), AMA – Handbook of Project Management, Sedond edition, New York: Amacon

Turner, Rodney J. and Ralf Müller (2005). The impact of principal-agent relationship and

contract type on communication between project owner and manager. International

Journal of Project Management, Volume 23, 2005, 398-403.

Uzzi, Brian (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the econom-ic

performance of organizations: The network effect, American Sociological Review, August

1996/Volume 61, pp. 674-698

Van Riel, Cees B.M (1992). Principles of Corporate Communication. London: Pear-son

Education Ltd.


346

Van Reil, Cees.B.M and Fomburn, C.J. (2007). Essential of Corporate Communication,

London/New York: Routelegde

Van Vuuren, M. et al. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of supervisor communication on

organisational commitment, Corporate Communications, Vol. 12 No. 2, 2007

Wasserman, S. and K. Faust (1994). Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press

Waldstrøm, Christian and Bent Engelbrecth (2007). Ledelse af netværk – Virksomhedens

skjulte resource, København: Børsens forlag.

Weatley, Malcom (2007). Strategy meets reality, PM Network, June 2007/Vol 21 No. 6

Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary – of the English Language (1996), New

York: Gramercy Books, Random House Value Publishing Inc.

Webster, JR, Francis M. and Joan Knutson (2006). ‘What is Project Management? Pro-

ject Management Concepts and Methodologies’, in Dismore, Paul C. and Jeannette

Cabanis-Brewin (2006). AMA Handbook of Project Management, New York: American

Management Association

Wellman, Berry (1984). From social support to social network. In Fyrand, L. (2005). Sosi-

alt nettverk – teori og praksis, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Welsh, Elaine (2002). Dealing with Data: Using NVivo in the Qualitative Data Analysis

Process, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Volume 3, No. 2, Art 26

Wiemann JM (1977). Explication and test of a model of communication competence.

Human Communication Research, 4: 195-213

Winch, Graham M. Managing Project Stakeholders. In Moris and Pinto (2007). The Wiley

Guide to Project – Program and Portfolio Management. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc

Wysocki, Robert K (2009). Effective Project Management – Traditional, Agile, Extreme.

Fifth edition. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing, Inc

Yang et al (2011). The association among project managers’ leadership style, teamwork

and project success, International Journal of Project Management, 29, 258-267

Yin, Robert K (2003). Case Study Research – Design and Methods, 3rd edition, Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications

10. Summary in English

“Proper communication is vital to the success of a project” This statement by Kerzner

(2009, 233) illustrates the attitude towards communication in contemporary project

management. Other examples supporting this attitude are: “communication is the cor-

nerstone of effective project management” by Pritchard (2004, 1), and “project man-

agement is communication” by Lindegaard (2005, 261). Communication is highly

acknowledged, but the use of the term ‘communication’ appears with no guidelines on

how to unpack the concept. Communication appears most often as ‘Communications

management’, and is predominant where communication is approached as an object, a

tool, a procedure that is to be managed.

The practical problem is that project problems are often caused by poor communication

(Baker 2007). When defining the project manager’s role, Kerzner (2006) emphasizes that

strong communication and personal relation skills are required, and he points out that

the challenge with communication is that historically a lot of project managers have

their background in engineering. According to Gray and Larson (2006), project man-

agement is defined as more than just a set of tools; but a result oriented management

style that places a premium on building collaborative relationships among a diverse cast

of characters, and Berkun (2008) states that it starts by admitting that communication

and relationships are critical to success.

This research document approaches project management communication from a rela-

tional approach with the focus on the project manager and his or her (communication)

behavior in the center of a vast relational network of stakeholders. This approach con-

siders the formal and informal or emergent communication networks within which the

project manager is engaged.

The purpose of this study on project management communication is to invite a discus-

sion that contributes to strengthening and extending the understanding of the role and

function of communication in project management. The main research question is:

Why project managers perceive communication to be the most important aspect of


tion actions and communicative behaviors?

In order to address this question, four research sub-questions are posed:

Chapter 10: Summary in English

348

1. What are the prominent themes of communicative action and considerations


2. How do project managers understand the role of communication in project man-

agement?

3. What is the context situation/framing of project managers’ communication prac-

tices?

4. In what ways do project managers explain or reveal their use of communication

strategies?

The ontological and epistemological assumptions, which guide the research process of

this study, are rooted in a social constructionist framework. While acknowledging the

ontology of both objectivism and constructivism, this research is positioned within the

paradigm of social constructivism and placed at the epistemological intersection of

grounded theory, phenomenology, and perspectivism.

To answer the main research question and to address the four sub-questions, the re-

search design is constructed as a qualitative multiple case-study (Yin, 2003). The study is

based on 27 individuals. Interviews were conducted twice with approximately one and a

half years in between. Attride-Stirling’s (2001) analytical tool of a thematic network

analysis was applied, and the computer assisted qualitative data analysis software NVivo

was used for interrogation of the data and coding. The analysis consists of four perspec-

tives: the thematic analysis answering sub-question 1, the perception analysis answering

sub-question 2, the context analysis answering sub-question 3, and the relational analy-

sis answering sub-question 4.

The prominent themes in the project managers’ accounts and descriptions of communi-

cation practices center around three main areas: the personality of the project manager,

the context within which the project manager works and the overall prerequisites for

communication that are available to the project manager.

Communication is perceived as being the most difficult task of project management but

at the same time it is seen as a prerequisite for progress. Communication is perceived as

being a tool for information exchange, reporting, documentation, and quality measure-

ment, and yet it is seen as the project manager’s tool to: make things work, get things

aligned, connect initiatives, and to motivate, engage and create collaboration among

stakeholders.

The benchmarking list of stakeholders is not able to capture all the stakeholders men-

tioned by the interviewees. There is a distinct focus on internal stakeholders in the ac-


349

counts which differs from the benchmarking list that shows a balanced focus of internal

and external stakeholders. Findings show that project managers are aware of the frames

within which they work such as reality, values, goals, rules, the contract and expected

methods, and they are aware of both their limitations in influencing the frames as well

as their ability to shape the frames if they are proactive about it.

Formal networks serve as a supporting tool for efficiency. However, when formal com-

munication networks break down, informal communication networks dominate and en-

able project progress. Communicative action is determined by the project manager’s

ability to link: creating value for the project to creating value for the organization. It is

seen how the project manager is aware of creating beneficial positions and outcomes

both to their own advantage as well as for an organizational advantage. In addition, pro-

ject managers consider aspects of integrity when making choices of communicative ac-

tion in relation to communicating the truth about the reality of a situation to powerful

stakeholders and to other resources. Findings show distinct connections between the

expectations of the project manager and the aspects of responsibility, courage, integrity,

and truth.

This study demonstrates that project management communication comprises the tech-

nical and the sociocultural dimension. The technical dimension is to be perceived and

understood as the toolbox of communication. The technical dimension is the direct

management of project communication(s); this is communication related directly to the

project. The sociocultural dimension is the project leader communication, which can be

seen as communication related indirectly to projects, however, directly to the project

manager. Project management communication consists of objective tools and a subjec-

tive person.

It is seen how these two dimensions are distinct yet inseparable, and project manage-

ment communication can be understood as one, but the two dimensions can only be

understood in terms of the other. This duality challenges the requirements in depicting

the complexity of project management communication. However, findings demonstrate

a complexity in the detail of the mapping of what project management communication

is, yet at the same time findings reveal simplicity.

A model is proposed that is to be understood as an illustration to guide reflection, con-

sideration, and awareness of the distinctness and the simplicity in the inseparability of

the duality in project management communication. Project management communica-

tion comprises knowing the profession and having the integrity and the courage to


350

communicate the truth about reality. The complexity in the model lies within the entire

scope of project related requirements, and the simplicity lies within the attitude of the

individual project manager.

The contribution of this study is a vocabulary, derived from the extended frame of theo-

ry, to change and expand our understanding of the role and function of internal com-

munication in respect to the project environment. This vocabulary which is grounded in

literature allows further development of theory. The practical contribution of this vo-

cabulary is the ability to teach project communication and project management com-

munication based on an extended understanding.

11. Resumé på dansk

”God kommunikation er afgørende for projektsucces”. Denne udtalelse af Kerzner (2009,

233) illustrerer holdningen til kommunikation i nutidig projektledelse. Andre eksempler

på denne holdning er: ”kommunikation er en hjørnesten i effektiv projektledelse” af Pri-

chard (2004, 1), og ”projektledelse er kommunikation” af Lindegaard (2005, 261). Kom-

munikation er meget anerkendt, men brugen af begrebet ’kommunikation’ fremgår

uden yderligere forklaring eller vejledning. Kommunikation fremgår ofte som noget, der

skal håndteres, hvilket er dominerende, hvor kommunikation opfattes objektivt, som et

værktøj eller en procedure, der skal håndteres.

Det operationelle problem ses ved, at problemer og udfordringer i projekter ofte er en

konsekvens af dårlig kommunikation (Baker 2007). Når Kerzer (2006) definerer projekt-

lederens rolle, lægger han ekstra vægt på krav som gode kommunikations evner og

kompetence i forhold til at skabe personlige relationer, og han påpeger, at udfordringen

med kommunikation kommer fra, at projektledere tidligere kommer fra en ingeni-

ørmæssig baggrund. Ifølge Gray og Larson (2006) er projektledelse mere end en kom-

munikations værktøjskasse. Det er en resultatorienteret ledelsesstil, der prioriterer op-

byggelse af samarbejdende relationer imellem en skare af meget forskellige mennesker,

og Berkun (2008) påpeger, at det hele tager udgangspunkt i, at man starter med at er-

kende, at kommunikation og relationer er altafgørende for projektsucces.

Afhandlingen tilgår projektledelseskommunikation fra et relationelt perspektiv med fo-

kus på projektlederen og dennes (kommunikative) adfærd i centrum af vidtspændende

netværk af interessenter. Denne tilgang omfatter de formelle og uformelle kommunika-

tionsnetværk i hvilke projektlederen er engageret.

Afhandlingen stiller således det overordnede forskningsspørgsmål:

Hvorfor oplever projektledere kommunikation som det vigtigste aspekt af projektle-

delse, og hvad har indflydelse på deres kommunikative overvejelser, kommunikations

valg og kommunikative adfærd?

Afhandlingen belyser dette fra fire vinkler, der samtidig tegner afhandlingens kronologi:

1. Hvilke overordnede emner om kommunikativ adfærd og overvejelser træder

frem i projektlederes fortællinger om deres kommunikationspraksis?

2. Hvordan forstår projektledere kommunikationens rolle og funktion i projektle-

delse?

Chapter 11: Resumé på dansk

352

3. Hvilken kontekst danner ramme omkring projektlederes kommunikationspraksis?

4. På hvilken måde forklarer, eller på anden måde belyses, projektledere deres brug

af kommunikationsstrategier?

Afhandlingen er funderet i en socialkonstruktivistisk position, dog med anerkendelse af

den positivistiske position. Forskningsdesignet bygger på en kvalitativ og eksplorativ

forskningsmetode og er udformet som et kvalitativt multipelt casestudie (Yin, 2003).

Studiet bygger på kvalitative forskningsinterview med 27 deltagere, interviewet to gange

med et interval på halvandet år. Interviewene er analyseret i henhold til en kodnings-

strategi på baggrund af tematisk netværksanalyse (Attride-Stirling, 2001), samt ved brug

af NVivo software. Analysen er firdelt med fire forskellige perspektiver: den tematiske

analyse, som besvarer underspørgsmål 1; perceptionsanalysen, som besvarer under-

spørgsmål 2; kontekstanalysen, som besvarer underspørgsmål 3, og den relationelle

analysen, som besvarer underspørgsmål 4.

Fremtrædende emner om kommunikativ adfærd og overvejelser i projektlederes fortæl-

linger om deres kommunikationspraksis udgør tre hovedområder: 1) projektlederens

personlighed, 2) den arbejdsmæssige kontekst for projektlederen og 3) de overordnede

forudsætninger for kommunikation, tilgængelige for projektlederen.

Kommunikation opfattes som noget af det sværeste i projektledelse, men samtidig anses

det for en forudsætning for fremdrift. Kommunikation forstås som et værktøj til udveks-

ling af information, rapportering, dokumentation og evaluering af kvalitets, sideløbende

med at kommunikation forstås som projektlederens middel til at få ting til at fungere, få

ting afstemt, forbinde initiativer, samt motivere, engagere og skabe samarbejde mellem

interessenter.

Listen af benchmarkerede interessenter fra projektledelses litteraturen var ikke tilstræk-

kelig til at dække de, af deltagerne, nævnte interessenter. Der er et udpræget fokus på

interne interessenter i deltagernes udsagn, hvilket adskiller sig fra de benchmarkerede

interessenter, som viser mere ligevægt mellem eksterne og interne interessenter. Pro-

jektlederne er opmærksomme på de rammer de arbejder indenfor, såsom realiteter-

ne/virkeligheden, værdier, overordnede mål, regler, kontrakten og forventede metoder,

og de er opmærksomme både på deres begrænsede indflydelse på disse rammer, men

også deres muligheder for at øge indflydelse på rammerne med en proaktiv attitude.

Formelle netværk tjener som støtte for effektivitet, hvorimod hvis de formelle kommu-

nikationsnetværk bryder sammen, dominerer de uformelle kommunikationsnetværk og

sørger for fremdrift. Kommunikativ handling påvirkes af projektlederens evne til at for-

Chapter 11: Resumé på dansk

353

binde det at skabe værdi for projektet med at skabe værdi for den overordnede virk-

somhed. Det ses hvordan projektledere forstår at skabe positionering og resultater, hvis

værdi kommer både projektlederen og virksomheden til gavn. Ydermere, inddrager pro-

jektlederen overvejelser om integritet, når projektlederen skal tage beslutninger om

kommunikationsvalg og strategier i forhold til at skulle formidle en kritisk situations rea-

litet overfor magtfulde interessenter og andre ressourcer. Analysen viser en betydelig

forbindelse mellem forventningerne til en projektleder og begreberne ansvar, mod, in-

tegritet og sandhed.

Afhandlingen viser at projektledelseskommunikation omfatter en teknisk og en social

kulturel dimension af projektledelsesprocessen. Den tekniske dimension skal forstås som

en kommunikationsværktøjskasse. Den tekniske dimension er den håndtering af kom-

munikation direkte relateret til et projekt. Den social kulturelle dimension er projektle-

derkommunikation, som kan forstås som kommunikation indirekte relateret til projekter

generelt, men direkte relateret til projektlederen. Projektledelseskommunikation består

således af objektive værktøjer og en subjektiv person.

Afhandlingen viser hvordan disse to dimensioner er forskellige, dog uadskillelige. Pro-

jektledelseskommunikation kan ses som en helhed, men de to dimensioner kan kun for-

stås i kraft af hinanden. Denne dualitet udfordrer kravene til visualiseringen af projekt-

ledelseskommunikation. Afhandlingen viser en kompleksitet i forståelsen af hvad pro-

jektledelseskommunikation er og samtidig viser den en simplicitet. Afhandlingen giver et

bud på en model, som skal opfattes som en illustration til at guide refleksion, overvejel-

se og opmærksomhed på den kompleksitet og den simplicitet der udgør projektledelses-

kommunikationens dualitet. Kompleksiteten i modellen ligger i hele spektret af projekt-

specifikke krav, og simpliciteten ligger i den individuelle projektlederes attitude.

Denne afhandling bidrager teoretisk med en terminologi, udledt af teorier og litteratur

fra forskningsfelter som ledelse, social netværksforskning, stakeholder management,

strategisk kommunikation, strategy as praksis, kommunikationsnetværk, virksomheds-

kommunikation samt teorier om magt og indflydelse. Herudover, bidrager denne udvi-

dede terminologi til undervisning in forståelsen af projektkommunikation og projektle-

delseskommunikation.

12. List of figures

Figure 1: Aspects that apply and position of this study at the epistemological intersection of theory of science, phenomenology, and perspectivism (Original) ............................................................................................................ 21

Figure 2: The technical and sociocultural dimensions of the project management process by Gray and Larson, 2006 .............................................. 26

Figure 3: Triple constraint in a project-centered perspective to a focus on the people underlying each part of the triple constraint, based on Kampf 2012 ................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 4: Schwable's model of Project Communications Managment summary, 2007, p. 408 ....................................................................................................... 39

Figure 5: Berkun's model of communication, 2008 ........................................................... 41

Figure 6: The project management communication model by Mooz et al (2003, p. 2) .................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 7: Discussed topics not labeled 'Communication' by textbook category (Berggreen Ramsing 2013) ................................................................................ 46

Figure 8: From data to communication, based on Gillard and Johansen (2004) .............. 53

Figure 9: Communication model with open-loop and closed-loop systems based on Gillard and Johansen (2004) ......................................................................... 55

Figure 10: The focus on the communicator(s), to whom is communicated, and the direction of communication........................................................................ 63

Figure 11: Relational approach to project management communication with focus on the project manager's perspective ..................................................... 66

Figure 12: Peripheral areas of research to further explore project management communication from the perspective of the project manager – with a partial representation of used sources ............................................................. 67

Figure 13: The project manager as the central person in his or her egocentric communication network(s) ............................................................................... 71

Figure 14: Prince2 - project organizational structure and stakeholders (Prince2, 2009) .................................................................................................................. 88

Figure 15: Ten categories of stakeholders and four hierarchical levels of the organization according to Connector (2007) .................................................... 89

Figure 16: Covey’s Circle of Concern/Circle of Influence alongside Henderson’s illustration of ‘Project Stakeholders’ ................................................................. 91

Figure 18: The project manager's four systems - based on Bronfenbrenner's development model (1979). .............................................................................. 94

Chapter 12: List of figures

355

Figure 17: Tuman’s (2006) stakeholder categories, Prince2 (2009) structure levels (blue), Connector (2007) levels of hierarchy (green) and Bronfenbrenner (1979) geographical system levels. ........................................ 96

Figure 19: Competing values framework: Inner part showing the effectiveness criteria and the outer perimeter showing the eight general value orientations. Based on Quinn, 1988 ................................................................ 106

Figure 20: The competencies and the leadership roles in the competing values framework. Based on Quinn, 1988 ................................................................. 108

Figure 21: Key terminology extracted from the expanded theoretical framework - vocabulary guiding the analyses (Original) ................................................... 123

Figure 22: Yin’s illustration of the Case Study Method (2003). ....................................... 128

Figure 23: Yin’s Case Study Method applied to present study ........................................ 130

Figure 24: Snowball sampling of access to interview participants of current study (Original). ............................................................................................... 131

Figure 25: Examples of emerging basic themes grouped around second level organizing themes - based on Attride-Stirling’s Thematic network analysis ............................................................................................................ 145

Figure 26: Thematic network analysis used to systematize into basic, organizing, and global themes (based on Attride-Stirling 2001) ....................................... 157

Figure 27: An example of company A2’s 'Communication perception' profile ............... 159

Figure 28: Tuman categories, Bronfenbrenner system levels, Prince2 and Connector levels, Henderson’s stakeholder levels and Covey’s circles integrated into one stakeholder categorization model .................................. 161

Figure 29: Integrated benchmarking list of stakeholders placed according to professional and geographical level – balanced internal and external focus. ............................................................................................................... 162

Figure 30: Using the metaphor of a jungle to guide the logic of the four analyses (Original) .......................................................................................................... 168

Figure 31: The thematic network ‘Project manager’ consisting of five organizing themes and a total of twelve basic themes. ................................................... 186

Figure 32: The thematic network ‘Context’ consisting of three organizing themes and a total of eleven basic themes. ................................................... 198

Figure 33: The thematic network ‘Communication’ consisting of four organizing themes and a total of twelve basic themes. ................................................... 210

Figure 34: The thematic network of the perception of communication consisting of five main groups and 16 basic themes........................................................ 214

Figure 35: Frequency of categories across all companies with the dominant categories emphasized .................................................................................... 232

Figure 36: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication across all five groups ..................................... 234


356

Figure 37: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company A1 ............................................... 235

Figure 38: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company A2 ............................................... 238

Figure 39: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company B ................................................. 241

Figure 40: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company C ................................................. 243

Figure 41: Categories emphasized in accounts concerning the role and importance of communication in company D................................................. 246

Figure 42: The thematic network ‘Perception of communication’ with highlighted areas of communication aspects shared with the thematic network ‘Communication’. .............................................................................. 253

Figure 43: The thematic network ‘Communication’ with highlighted areas of communication aspects shared with the thematic network ‘Perception of communication’. ...................................................................... 253

Figure 44: Company A1 stakeholder mapping – showing primarily internal focus ......... 258

Figure 45: Company A2 stakeholder mapping – showing an internal focus ................... 259

Figure 46: Company B stakeholder mapping – showing a distinct internal focus........... 260

Figure 47: Company C stakeholder mapping – showing a distinct internal focus ........... 261

Figure 48: Company D stakeholder mapping – showing internal focus and framing characteristics .................................................................................... 262

Figure 49: Mapping showing the framing context mentioned by company A1, B, C and D ............................................................................................................ 264

Figure 50: Illustration of the thematic network of ‘Relational approach’ ....................... 271

Figure 51: Example from company A1 demonstrating expected formal communication network and actual underlying activated informal network emerged ............................................................................................ 282

Figure 52: Example from company A2 demonstrating expected formal communication network and actual underlying activated informal network ........................................................................................................... 286

Figure 53: Example from company C demonstrating expected formal communication network and actual underlying activated weak tie informal network ............................................................................................. 292

Figure 54: Interdependencies among fundamental aspects of project management communication (Original) ......................................................... 314

Figure 55: Four characteristics of communication networks in project management communication based on(Original) .......................................... 325


357

Figure 56: Internal communication model, guiding reflection on and consideration of the distinctness and the simplicity in the duality of project management communication (Original)............................................. 330

13. List of tables

Table 1: Comments on content of books with no mention of communication ................ 25

Table 2: Comments on content of books with a technical approach to communication (1/2) ......................................................................................... 27

Table 3: Continuation of table 2: Comments on content of books with a technical approach to communication (2/ 2) .................................................... 28

Table 4: Comments on content of books integrating communication beyond the technical dimension .......................................................................................... 32

Table 5: Discussed topics not labeled 'Communication' ................................................... 45

Table 6: Stakeholder groups from Tuman (2006), Prince2 (2009) and Connector (2007), then integrated into one list of common formal stakeholders ............ 92

Table 7: Dimensions of this study (Original). ................................................................... 127

Table 8: Data set description for current multiple-case study (Original) ........................ 133

Table 9: Objects of inquiry: Project manager, Line managers, Project direction & Expert group and their contribution to this study (Original) .......................... 134

Table 10: Subject question 'Communication in general' with probe questions .............. 137

Table 11: Subject question 'Communication networks' with probe questions............... 137

Table 12: Subject question ‘Stakeholders' with probe questions ................................... 138

Table 13: Subject question ‘Power relations' with probe questions ............................... 138

Table 14: Subject question ‘Support from upper management' with probe questions ......................................................................................................... 139

Table 15: Subject question ‘Alignment with business goals' with probe questions ......................................................................................................... 139

Table 16: Subject question ‘Collaboration with the communication department' with probe question ........................................................................................ 140

Table 17: Subject question ‘Definition of success' with probe question......................... 140

Table 18: Supporting theory for and purpose of Subjects for interview guide 1 ............ 141

Table 19: Differences in subject perspectives and questions in interview guide for line managers............................................................................................. 142

Table 20: Examples of emerging themes from data that makes basis for 2nd round interview subject (Original). ................................................................. 146

Table 21: Subjects, questions and purpose for interview guide 2, (Original). ................ 147

Table 22: Differences in subject perspectives, questions, and purpose in interview guide 2 for line managers, (Original). ............................................. 149

Chapter 13: List of tables

359

Table 23: Frequency count of categories by company and by main groups, showing main groups to the right. .................................................................. 233

Table 24: Perception of communication in project management, reflected models and dimensional approach (Original) ................................................. 249

Table 25: Central aspects defining communicative action and strategy organized by common denominator ................................................................................ 272

14. Appendix: list of empirical materials

Appendix 1: Empirical data transcription: 1st round of interviews

Appendix 2: Empirical data transcription: 2nd round of interviews

Appendix 3: Coding: List of all given codes

Appendix 4: Process from codes to basic themes

Appendix 5: All citations used – translated into English

Appendix 6-8: NVivo queries

The appendices can be found on the author’s website: au.dk/[email protected]

mailto:au.dk/[email protected]

Unpacking Project Management Communication - Pure

Documents