AN EXPLORATION OF PROJECT MANAGERS' COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS AND
THEIR RELATION TO INFORMATION SYSTEMS USE AND PROJECT TECHNOLOGIES
By
Dron M. Mandhana

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Communication—Master of Arts
2014

ABSTRACT
AN EXPLORATION OF PROJECT MANAGERS' COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS AND
THEIR RELATION TO INFORMATION SYSTEMS USE AND PROJECT TECHNOLOGIES
By
Dron M. Mandhana
There is considerable interest in characteristics of project managers that are associated with their
effective performance, especially with regard to their communication competencies in team
settings. However, efforts to develop a research-based framework of “effective” project
managers' behaviors must consider a complex array of project sizes, duration, complexities, pace,
objectives, constraints, and managerial styles. This study examined a broader set of
communication behaviors associated with project managers across several industries. Key
finding from the purposive sample (n = 157) of project management team members revealed
significant differences between the importance of “messy talk” and its reported use in their
project teams as well as between the importance of open communication and its reported
presence. Analyses further indicated that reported messy talk use and reported information
system use significantly predicted project success. These findings offer tentative insight into the
importance of communication behaviors role in project settings in general and in project
managers actions in particular.

To my mother who is a constant source of strength and has always been there with me in times
of despair.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis was like a quest in research, and if I have gained any success in completing
this quest, then it would be because of my advisor Dr. Vernon Miller. He has the attitude and the
substance of a genius and he continuously conveys a spirit of research and scholarship. I would
like to express my sincere gratitude to him for his mentorship, brilliant erudition, immaculate
suggestions, and constant support and guidance,.
I would like to extend my gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Jim Dearing and Dr.
Sinem Korkmaz, whose suggestions, ideas, and feedback improved the quality of this research.
In addition, a thank you to several teachers within the Department of Communication for
imparting excellent education and shaping my thinking.
This thesis demanded patience, hard work, and intense scrutiny. None of which would
have been possible if I were not able to rejuvenate because of the constant support of my friends,
both in East Lansing and in India. Also, I am thankful to my classmates and graduate students,
who shared insights and experiences that helped me complete this study.
One of the major requirements of this study was collecting responses from individuals
working in project teams. I am grateful to the respondents of this study and to people who took
the survey questionnaire before circulation and provided feedback that helped rectify misleading
statements and multiple interpretations.
Last, but not the least, I would like to thank my parents and my sisters. They always
encouraged me to work hard and remain positive throughout this thesis. Finally, I would again
like to thank Dr. Vernon Miller for his endless and superb editing. I owe any brilliance of this
work to him and assume complete responsibility of any mistakes or inadequacies in this thesis.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………….....vii
CHAPTER ONE…………………………………………………………………………………..1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…….1
Project Managers………………………………………………………………………….3
Prescriptive Behavioral Skills of Successful Project Managers…………………..4
Measured Communication Behaviors of Project Managers………………………6
Critique…………………………………………………………………..10
Project Managers Communication Competencies……………………………….11
Information Sharing Systems…………………………………………………….16
IT Centric………………………………………………………………...16
HRM Centric……………………………………………………………..17
Project Managers and Information Systems……………………………..19
Technological Uncertainty……………………………………………………….20
Base Technologies……………………………………………………….21
Key Technologies………………………………………………………..21
Pacing Technologies……………………………………………………..21
Project Managers and Technological Uncertainty……………………….22
Project Success…………………………………………………………………...24
CHAPTER TWO………………………………………………………………………………...26
Methodology……………………………………………………………………….…….26
Sample……………………………………………………………………………26
Procedure………………………………………………………………………...27
Measures…………………………………………………………………………28
Messy Talk……………………………………………………………….30
Monitoring……………………………………………………………….31
Open Communication Environment……………………………………..31
Initiating Structure and Planning………………………………………...35
Information Systems……………………………………………………..36
Technological Uncertainty……………………………………………….36
Project Success…………………………………………………………...37
Project Manager………………………………………………………….38
Research Design………………………………………………………………….38
CHAPTER THREE……………………………………………………………………………...39
Results……………………………………………………………………….…………...39
CHAPTER FOUR………………………………………………………………………………..41
Discussion………………………………………………………………….…………….41
Messy Talk……………………………………………………………………….42
Open Communication Environment……………………………………………..44
v

Project Success…………………………………………………………………...45
Limitations……………………………………………………………………….46
Future Research………………………………………………………………….48
Summary…………………………………………………………………………53
APPENDICES..………………………………………………………………………………….55
Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………56
Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………57
Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………58
Appendix D………………………………………………………………………………59
Appendix E………………………………………………………………………………60
Appendix F……………………………………………………………………………….62
Appendix G………………………………………………………………………………63
REFERENCES…....………………………………………………………………………...…...64

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Skills and Qualifications of Effective Project Managers………………………………...5
Table 2. Measured Communication Behaviors of Project Managers……………………………..7
Table 3. Results of the Principal Component, Factor Analysis and Cronbach's Alphas.………..32
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations……………………………...39
Table 5. Integrated Framework of Technological Uncertainty and Information Systems………49

vii

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Organizations rely on project managers to plan, organize, motivate, and control
resources, procedures, and protocols to achieve specific goals. Project managers have
considerable influence on project quality and project team performance (Ammeter & Dukerich,
2002; Henderson, 2008). Typologies of project team manager behaviors emphasize coordinating
activities and tasks, updating and persuading stakeholders, maintaining an open communication
environment, and among others (e.g., Sommerville, Craig, & Hendry, 2010). In addition, project
managers within matrix organizations are said to coordinate across functional and organizational
environments, though sometime lacking formal authority (Cleland, 1995), and lead teams
consisting of members from different disciplines, requiring technical and managerial skills
(Ammeter and Dukerich, 2002).
Project teams are readily used across almost all industries and organizational structures
for the occasional task or product (Thamhain, 2004). Project-based organizations (PBOs)
undertake projects to fit the bespoke designs for customers (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008). PBOs use
project teams as central feature of their organizational design to accomplish projects of a limited
duration (i.e., with a beginning and a completion date) (Hobday, 2000; Whitley, 2006). In
addition, interorganizational collaborations use project teams as a means to access monetary,
intellectual, official, production, advertising, and circulation resources (Das & Bing, 2000;
Miller, Scott, Stage, & Birkholt, 1995; Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011; Schmidt & Kochan,
1977). Given the use and importance in multiple settings, there is considerable interest in
characteristics of project managers that are associated with their effective performance,
especially with regard to their communication competencies in team settings (Henderson, 2008).

1

Many analyses of project manager behaviors, however, are anecdotal (e.g., Chen, 1997;
Gaddis, 1959) or prescriptive in nature (e.g., Pettersen, 1991; Rwelamila, 1989; Turner &
Muller, 2005). One problem with anecdotal or prescriptive analyses concerns the generalizability
of findings (Lukka & Kasanen, 1995), since these studies are based on authors’ limited
experiences and rarely consider extenuating factors (Tsang, 1997). Efforts to develop a researchbased framework of “effective” project managers behaviors must consider a complex array of
project sizes, duration, complexities, pace, objectives, constraints, and managerial styles (Raz,
Shenhar, & Dvir, 2002). Given variation in project context and commensurate leadership
challenges, it is not surprising that there is a lack of agreement in the literature regarding what
attributes constitute a good project manager (El-Sabaa, 2001) and which behavioral categories
are relevant and meaningful (Turner & Muller, 2005; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002).
One particularly important context concerns the project team’s information knowledge
systems, which greatly shapes the process of managing data and tasks (Jashapara, 2004; Tiwana,
2000; Zack, 1999). At one end of the spectrum, information technology (IT) centric systems
focus on identifying, accessing, and reusing information and knowledge (Carrillo & Chinowsky,
2006; Earl, 2001). At the other end, human resource management (HRM) centric systems focus
on fostering a learning environment that helps members develop, enhance, and utilize their
knowledge to achieve project goals (Carrillo & Chinowsky, 2006; Harman & Brelade, 2000). A
second, important context pertains to technological throughput (e.g., design and material
transformation) processes, which are embedded with types and levels of uncertainty as well as
coordination challenges (Little, 1981; Roussel, Saad, & Erickson, 1991; Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar
& Dvir, 1996). As research forays into employee communication competencies (e.g., Jablin,
Cude, House, Lee, & Roth, 1994; Jablin & Sias, 2001) would suggest, any consideration of

2

project managers’ behavioral “effectiveness” in organizations must consider the context and its
demands upon the person and team.
This study proposes to examine the communication behaviors associated with project
managers across several industries. In particular, the aim is to develop a more thorough range
and explication of pertinent communication behaviors starting with those identified in research
and industrial publications related to project management. This study will also conduct an
exploratory test of measures related to project managers’ communication behaviors in a crosssection of industrial settings. To do so, the proposal first reviews and critique the literature on
project manager behaviors and competencies of successful project managers. To provide a
context for understanding project managers in action, information knowledge technology
strategies of organizations, and design and material transformation processes during project
initiation will be considered. Next, following the literature review, research questions aimed at
understanding the communication behaviors of project managers will be proffered along with a
methodology to examine those behaviors.
Project Managers
Projects are defined as a set of interconnected activities with pre-defined goals and time
that utilize well-defined resources (Hobday, 2000). These projects are managed through
planning, organizing, controlling, and directing resources to accomplish tasks for meeting
specific goals (Kerzner, 1979). Project managers oversee individuals' overall efforts to
accomplish project goals (Chen, 1997). Thus, project managers coordinate overall activities of
team members (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008), deal with both subcultures within the team and
overall organizational culture, and disseminate information across team and stakeholders
(Hobday, 2000).

3

Prescriptive Behavioral Skills of Successful Project Managers
By almost any admission, project management requires a wide range of skills and
training to effectively lead multi-disciplinary projects (Chen, 1997), which are laden with
uncertainty, diversity, and bulk of information (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996). The role of a project
manager is thought to be a challenging one because they work across functional and
organizational environments (Cleland, 1995) and lead personnel from different disciplines
(Anantatmula, 2008). A number of writings (e.g. Pettersen, 1991) seek to describe the essential
qualities of project managers that are associated with efficiency and successful project delivery.
Table 1 summarizes the most frequently mentioned characteristics of effective project
management. For illustration purposes, the presentation of these characteristics follows Stickney
and Johnston’s (1980; Pettersen, 1991) categorization of human, business, and technical skills
To begin, writers suggest that, project manager's human skills are primarily concerned
with general leadership efforts to motivate, inform, and consolidate team efforts. For example,
project manager is expected to motivate personnel, involve members in decision making, support
members’ personal growth, communicate “effectively through writing, reading, speaking and
listening” (p. 2), and build multi-disciplinary teams (Chen, 1997). They are idealized as excellent
communicators who transfer ideas and information in the context (Meredith, Posner, & Mantel,
1995). In addition, the ability to resolve conflicts, build a team environment, motivate and
support employees, delegate authority, and exhibit patience and flexibility are presented as
important human skills for effective project management (Chen, 1997; Kerzner & Thamhain,
1984; Pettersen, 1991). In a nutshell, project manager human skills are synonymous with their
ability to involve team members in decisions and foster open information sharing environments.
Business skills focus on project managers' accomplishing short-term tasks and achieving

4

Table 1. Skills and Qualifications of Effective Project Managers. a
Human Skills

Business Skills

Technical Skills

Effective communication,
both oral and written

Accurate planning and
scheduling

Project knowledge and
understanding

Motivate and support
personnel development
Mobilize mental and
emotional energy of
subordinates
Exhibit flexibility, patience,
and persistence

Negotiate tasks and
operations with other
organizations
Approach project holistically
considering all aspects

Sound understanding of
methods and processes
Ability to integrate business,
technology, and human
objectives
Expertise in the tools and
technology used

Delegate authority and
empower subordinates

Monitor subordinate
performance

Understanding of the market
and product applications

Create multi-disciplinary
project teams

Contract management and
risk analysis

Maintain harmony among
team members

Reduce changes and detect
trends and deviations

Realistic goal setting

a

Extrapolated from Chen (1997), El-Sabaa (2001), Kerzner & Thamhain (1984), Meredith et al.
(1995), Pettersen (1991), and Rwelamila (1989).
project goals. Planning, organizing, team supervision are some of the important business skills
that a project manager should possess (Kerzner & Thamhain, 1984; Pettersen, 1991). Other skills
include making effective decisions, delegating work and authority, tracking project progress and
employee performance, estimating costs and risks, reducing changes, and managing contracts
(Chen, 1997). Additionally, setting realistic goals, taking a holistic approach to the project, and
considering environmental factors while making decisions are set forth as necessary skills for
project management (Pettersen, 1991).
Finally, prescriptive writings also advocate "technical skills" (El-Sabaa, 2001, p. 2), or
the ability of project managers to understand the technology and apply that knowledge to
practice (Pettersen, 1991) in order to ensure successful project delivery. Kerzner and Thamhain

5

(1984) identified technical skills as one of the important competencies possessed by effective
project managers. These skills also involve project managers' ability to integrate business,
technical, and people objectives, as well as understand tools and procedures, market trends, and
product applications (Chen, 1997). Finally, a project manager should have a global view of the
project, consider the multi-disciplinary nature of the project, and stay in close contact with
engineers, contractors, owners, and customers at all times (Pettersen, 1991; Rwelamila, 1989).
In sum, prescriptive project manager materials offer initial guidelines for organizations
and managers in so far as they identify behaviors thought to be central to project success.
However, lacking substantive empirical support, they primarily showcase idealized traits (e.g.,
Chen, 1997; Gaddis, 1959; Pettersen, 1991) rather than behaviors verified as central to project
leader success. The next section reviews empirical studies that focus on the competencies of
successful project managers.
Measured Communication Behaviors of Project Managers
Over the past two decades, empirical research aimed at identifying behaviors related to
“successful” project management has generally adapted constructs developed to assess the
attributes and behaviors of executives and general managers. For example, one of the more
widely used frameworks derives from Dulewicz and Higgs’ (2004) leadership dimensions, which
were based on managers. Their intellectual competency dimension involves critical analysis and
judgment, vision and imagination, and strategic perspective. Their framework also includes
managerial competency (e.g., engaging communication, managing resources) and emotional
competency dimensions (e.g., self-awareness, emotional resilience).
Of particular interest to this proposal are constructs that seek to measure project
managers’ communication behaviors. Table 2 presents a summary of the various constructs of

6

project managers’ communication behaviors. Studies were included in this list if they sampled
project managers. Some of these studies focus explicitly on project managers’ behaviors (e.g.,
Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Muller & Turner, 2010). Other studies (e.g., Yukl et al., 2002) address
general managerial behaviors, but feature project managers in their samples. In turn, some
Table 2. Measured Communication Behaviors of Project Managers. a
Relational Behaviors

Task Behaviors

Change Behaviors

Empowering

Initiate Structure

Creative

 Develop member skills and
foster member growth
 Express confidence in
member skills
 Provide encouragement and
support
 Collective decision making

 Create order and standardize
procedures
 Clearly state task objectives
 Clearly state role
expectations
 Precise planning and
scheduling

Unbiased treatment of
employees

Monitoring

Friendly and considerate

Disseminate information

 Provide creative solutions
 Encourage creative thinking
 Foster innovative thinking
 Risk taking

External environment

 Check project and member
performance
 Keep a check on operations
 Keep project within budget
and on track

 Keep a check on external
environment
 Networking

Futuristic planning

Recognize contributions
a

Extrapolated from Ammeter & Dukerich (2002), Anantatmula (2008), Dvir et al. (2006), Ekvall
& Arvonen (1991), Geoghegan & Dulewicz (2008), Malach-Pines et al. (2009), Muller & Turner
(2010), Schmid & Adams (2008), Shenhar & Dvir (1996), Sommerville et al. (2010), Thamhain
(1999), Turner et al. (2009), and Yukl et al. (2002).
studies assess a single communication construct (e.g., Initiating structure; Anantatmula, 2008)
while others consider an array of communication constructs (e.g., Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Yukl
et al., 2002). It should also be noted that no one study to date explicitly sets forth a typology of

7

project managers’ communication behaviors. Some well-developed project manager typologies
follow the trend in the general management literature to organize discussions around behavioral
sets, which in fact focus on interpersonal communication between managers and employees or
group communication dynamics (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). In one such typology,
Yukl et al. (2002) posit that project managers’ behaviors can be loosely organized into relational,
task, and change-oriented skill areas, which will be used here.
Relational-oriented communication behaviors refer to the ability of project managers to
work effectively as group members and to build cooperative efforts within the teams they lead.
Efforts to measure relational-oriented communication behaviors examine four sub-areas. A
common measurement considers the extent to which project managers empower their team
members by: developing members’ skills and fostering member growth; expressing confidence
in member skills; providing encouragement and support; and engaging in collective decision
making. Accordingly, survey items assessing the extent to which project managers delegate
decision authority, encourage members to take on difficult challenges, help members produce
innovative ideas, and encourage others to challenge existing practices, assumptions and policies
typify this approach (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Muller & Turner, 2010; Schmid & Adams, 2008;
Yukl et al., 2002). Other relational-oriented constructs include the unbiased treatment of
employees (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991), acting in a friendly manner (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991;
Geoghegan & Dulewicz, 2008; Muller & Turner, 2010; Turner, Muller, & Dulewicz, 2009), and
recognizing members’ contributions (Schmid & Adams, 2008; Yukl et al., 2002).
Task-oriented communication behaviors refer to the ability of project managers to
complete tasks in order to accomplish certain project goals or to meet performance standards.
Research to date in this area focus on three sets of behaviors, initiating structure, monitoring, and

8

disseminating information. For example, project managers’ ability to initiate structure is one of
the most commonly operationalized component in project management literature. Examples
include creating order and standardizing procedures, clearly explaining task objectives, clearly
stating role expectations, and planning and scheduling (Ammeter & Dukerich, 2002;
Anantatmula, 2008; Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Sommerville et al., 2010; Thamhain, 1999; Yukl
et al., 2002). In addition, research (e.g. Anantatmula, 2008; Schmid & Adams, 2008) focuses on
the ability of project managers to monitor the performance of project and team members and
check on operations. Task-oriented assessments also seek to measure by the ability of project
managers to disseminate information. For instance, Ammeter and Dukerich (2002) point out the
importance of keeping team members abreast with information regarding the project and
conducting weekly meetings to bring everyone to pace with the project. In turn, Sommerville et
al. (2010) operationalized the information dissemination by examining project managers'
information sharing activities via emails, reports, memos, and speeches.
Change-oriented behaviors refer to project managers' ability to adapt to dynamic
environments and envision opportunities. Accordingly, articulating vision, accepting new ideas,
making quick decisions, encouraging cooperation, and taking risks have considerable importance
(Yukl et al., 2002). Investigations of project managers in this behavioral set consider three subaspects, creative, external monitoring, and futuristic planning. Creative behaviors pertain to
project managers providing creative solutions, encouraging members’ creative thinking,
fostering innovative thinking, and encouraging (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Geoghegan &
Dulewicz, 2008; Muller & Turner, 2010; Turner et al., 2009). Another important change-oriented
behavior is external monitoring, which refers to the identification of threats and opportunities for
the organization by monitoring the external environment (Yukl et al., 2002). Dvir, Sadeh, and

9

Malach-Pines (2006) underline project managers’ propensity to track competitors’ product
development, and Thamhain (1999) emphasizes on cross-functional communication for
innovation in product development. Finally, engaging others in planning for the future is
considered to be a critical project manager behavior (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Geoghegan &
Dulewicz, 2008; Muller & Turner, 2010; Turner et al., 2009).
Critique. The measurement of project managers’ behaviors, communicative and
otherwise, represents an important step forward from earlier, prescriptive writings. Project leader
behaviors do influence project and team performance outcomes (Ammeter & Dukerich, 2002),
especially those behaviors that are relationally or interpersonally based (Anantatmula, 2008;
Christenson & Walker, 2004; Thite, 1999; Weiss & Anderson, 2003). The enumeration of key
behaviors is an important next step toward understanding the actions of project managers that are
most valued. However, this approach poses a number of challenges. First, there are debates what
constitutes “successful” project managers as well as their influences of the project managers.
Successful project managers are often associated with successful projects, but, project success is
multi-dimensional (Muller & Turner, 2010) and includes “end-user satisfaction with the project’s
product or service” (p. 440), keeping within budget, satisfaction among project team members,
recurring business, and other factors. As an aside, there are also considerable challenges to
determining project success related to the methodological practice of aggregating separate
measures, obtaining objective measures, and bias in reporting (Scott-Young & Samson, 2008).
Second, it is important that project managers’ communication abilities fit with the
dynamic nature of an organization and project (Malach-Pines, Dvir, & Sadeh, 2009).
Organizational factors such as project goals, standard operating procedures, information systems,
and reporting guidelines may shape their tasks as well as how they are judged. Projects differ in

10

duration, interdependence, authority structure, and member skills to name a few (Hollenbeck,
Beersma, & Schoutenm, 2012). Consequently, sets of communication behaviors relevant for
leading one project may be more important than in other settings. Further, asking experts or
project managers themselves to generalize across multiple projects and team compositions risks
over simplification of complex contingencies and masking critical actions used on occasion.
Third, much of the research exploring project management behaviors is atheoretical in its
articulation of behaviors, in part due to their exploration of managerial ability from a skills
perspective. Muller and Turner (2007) and others (e.g., Crawford, 2005; Henderson, 2008)
suggest that researchers embrace a multi-dimensional view of managerial behaviors and consider
situational factors such as project type that will contextualize findings.
Project Managers Communication Competencies
General managers’ competencies in enacting sets of behaviors have been an interest to
organizational researchers for many years. In one of the most thorough and theoretically sound
explications of managerial competence, Boyatzis (1982) states that an action (i.e., demonstrating
certain behavior) can be best understood in the context of the demands and requirements of a
specific job. Making inferences about a certain behavior assumes a direct relationship to an
underlying characteristic. Competencies are then sets of behaviors needed to successfully
perform a task within a given context, and skills refer to knowledge and/or demonstrating a high
level of performance in a certain behavior. Those interested in communication competencies
follow a similar framework. For example, communication skills differ from communication
competencies mainly as the former refers to "the ability of an individual to perform appropriate
communicative behavior in a given situation" whereas, the latter refers to "the ability of an
individual to demonstrate knowledge of the appropriate communicative behavior in a given

11

situation" (McCroskey, 1982, p. 5). McCroskey (1982) and others (e.g., Jablin et al., 1994; Jablin
& Sias, 2001) note that organizational members can be "effective without being competent and
may be competent without being effective" (McCroskey, 1982, p. 3).
In terms of general project management competencies, researchers have primarily
explored the relationship between skills and perceived managerial effectiveness. For instance,
the most widely-cited explication of project managers' competence links technical (e.g., planning
and scheduling), managerial (e.g., leadership, delegation, negotiation), financial (e.g.,
establishing budgets), legal (e.g., drafting contracts), communication (e.g., presentations), and
general (e.g., chairing meetings) skills with importance in professional competence (EdumFotwe & McCaffer, 2000). Crawford (2005) states that project managers who are top performers,
as perceived by upper management, “concentrate on using time, human resources and
procurement practices, with particular attention to monitoring and controlling of cost and time,
establishing and negotiating contracts and managing project finalization” (p. 15).
More recent investigations consider the relationship between knowledge and problemsolving. For instance, Muller and Turner (2010) find that project managers with strong
intellectual (e.g., critical thinking), managerial (e.g., managing resources, empowering,
developing), and emotional (e.g., sensitivity, influence, motivation, conscientiousness)
competencies were most successful in engineering projects. They also report that projects of high
and medium complexity demanded competencies in all three areas. In turn, Brill, Bishop, and
Walker (2006) link core project management competencies with contextual knowledge, problemsolving, leadership, and communication expertise.
To date, few investigations explicitly examine project managers behaviors from a
communication competence perspective. For instance, Henderson (2008) reports that project

12

managers’ clarity in information giving was positively related to team member's satisfaction and
productivity while their information receiving abilities (e.g., listening, reading) were associated
only with members' satisfaction. Drawing from Monge, Bachman, & Dillard (1982), this study
only considers two dimensions of communication competencies. Similarly, Brill et al.’s (2006)
reference to communication expertise is limited to “listen effectively” and “has strong verbal
communication skills” (p. 127). However, it seems worth noting Jablin and Sias’s (2001)
concerns about the conceptualization and measurement of communication competencies in
organizational settings, which can be applied to project managers. They point to a number of
shortcomings that diminish the usefulness of research, noting among others:
1. Communication competence research tends to focus only on the member interacting on the
individual and/or dyadic-interpersonal level of analysis whereas interactions with higher
level (i.e., upper management) as well as parallel (i.e., other work units) entities that should
also be considered;
2. Research has compiled inventories of communication skill capabilities that are important in
organizational settings, but often ignore individuals’ capability to know when to enact
various communication behaviors;
3. Lists of skills suggest threshold communication competencies that are sufficient to
accomplish tasks, but fail to provide insight into superior levels of communication behavior
performance necessary for outstanding performance;
4. Competency conceptualizations are typically based on an "ideal communicator" model,
which does not recognize that individuals do not have to be outstanding in all dimensions to
be “effective;”

13

5. “Ideal communicator” conceptualizations do not consider the dynamic, changing nature of
changing work and project requirements;
6. There is a tendency in practice to hold one dimension of an individual's competency in high
regard, creating a "halo effect" that overshadows the lack of communication competencies
in other areas;
7. The literature tends to view competence as discrete, being present or not present, rather as a
continuous variable, ranging from low to high.
With respect to consideration of project managers’ communication behaviors as well as
competencies, noticeably missing is the explicit examination of actions that enhance group or
team coordination and information sharing processes. Research investigations into project team
managers’ communication behaviors (see Table 2) examine actions that certainly have group- or
team-level implications. For example, “recognizing contributions” and “monitoring” imply that
the project team manager is communicating to multiple members of the team. Yet, these actions
could also be directed to individuals in a dyadic context and provide little insight into the extent
to which project managers encourage information sharing or address political ramifications of
decisions (Dossick & Neff, 2011; Lewis, 2000, 2011). In particular, project teams working on
complex assignments at times need to engage in "messy talk" (Dossick & Neff, 2011, p. 84), that
is, discussion of design specifications or changes, materials, production orders, and the like, in
order to consider the ramifications of past and impending actions.
Whether discussions are facilitated via face-to-face conversations or intranet whiteboards, the review of actions and their implications can have a marked impact on product quality
and cost (Adler, 1995; Dossick & Neff, 2011). Setting project teams apart are managers’
maintaining open communication environments within the team in keeping with project

14

demands, arranging formal and informal meetings to disseminate information and spur
conversations, responding quickly to queries and issues, and involving others (e.g., customers,
contractors, and upper management) in making decisions (Adler, 1995; Dossick & Neff, 2011;
Dvir et al., 2006; Malach-Pines et al., 2009). Investigations into the extent to which project
managers’ facilitate team interaction would fall into line with previous research that emphasizes
the importance of managerial communication related to considering project complexity, group
norms, politics, and team decision making (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Poole, 2011).
A series of recent articles (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell, 2011; Morgeson et al., 2010) also
point to the importance of examining leadership purposefully at the group level and suggest that
behaviors associated with structuring and planning, setting expectations for the team, and
monitoring team performance are essential for work group success. The ability to initiate
structure (e.g. incorporate standard reporting procedures), keep projects within budget and on
schedule, and avoid excessive modifications to design (Dvir et al., 2006; Shenhar, 1998) requires
both knowledge and social skills. Yet, as Shenhar (1998) notes, some projects require managers
primarily to be administrators while others require project managers to be technical leaders who
add to the project via knowledgeable decisions and seeking others’ input.
In short, the ability of and the degree to which project managers engage team members in
a way required by the project is more than a fanciful notion. How project managers facilitate
team progress, create open communication environments through their interactions with others,
by monitoring team members’ responses to routine information, and promote discussions to nonroutine information appears to be at the heart of investigations into project manager effectiveness
or competence. To better understand the communicative challenges of project managers, this
research asks,

15

RQ1

According to team members, what project manager communication behaviors were
important given the challenges of their project?

RQ2

According to team members, how well did their project managers enact communication
behaviors related to the challenges of their project?

Information Sharing Systems
Information sharing systems within organizations differ in the extent to which their
members analyze and interact over explicit and tacit knowledge (Earl, 2001; Nonaka, 1994;
Whyte, Ewenstein, Hales, & Tidd, 2008). Explicit knowledge refers to information that can be
captured, codified, and communicated in a systematic formal language. Tacit knowledge is
personal, possessed alone, rooted in involvement in a specific context and, thereby, difficult to
codify and communicate (Polanyi, 1966). However, for explicit knowledge to be maximally
applied, it must be coupled with tacit knowledge or awareness (Whyte et al., 2008). For example,
"the reasoning behind the selection of a steel structure (as opposed to concrete or wood)”
(Dossick & Neff, 2011, p. 85). Aspects of the rationale for using steel may be included in
designs, analysis reports, or meeting minutes, but much of this information is stored in brains of
people who made these decisions (Whyte et al., 2008). Two means of accessing explicit and tacit
knowledge in project development are IT and HRM centric systems (Carrillo & Chowsky, 2006).
IT Centric. This information sharing system is designed to circulate explicit information
among its members (Earl, 2001). Explicit information includes standard operating procedures,
best practices guide, drawings, 3D models, task assignments, and contracts (Carrillo &
Chinowsky, 2006). Project participants here are mainly concerned with the search, access,
implementation, and reuse of information (Earl, 2001). Consequently, IT centric systems form
the modern backbone of conventional coordination mechanisms such as formalized rules,

16

procedures, plans, schedules, policies (Adler, 1995; Van de Ven, Delbecq, & Koenig, 1976).
Dossick and Neff (2011) refer to the emphasis on explicit knowledge as "the what" (p. 85)
information sharing system. Clearly codified coordination mechanisms align well with
impersonal forms of coordination that require minimal verbal communication between project
participants (Galbraith, 1973). As a type of standard operating procedure (Thompson, 1967) or,
in this case, standard reporting procedure, deviations from reporting are easily visible. The IT
centric mode is particularly useful when dealing with routine tasks characterized by low
uncertainty (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973; Tushman & Nadler, 1978).
HRM Centric. The HRM information sharing system focuses on creating tacit
knowledge by fostering a discussion based response to the received information (Harman &
Brelade, 2000). Tacit knowledge includes wisdom gained through hands-on experiences (Carrillo
& Chinowsky, 2006). Dossick and Neff (2011) refer to this as "the why" (p. 85) information
sharing system as participants focus on creating a learning environment, where members
disseminate or apply lessons learned on previous projects to current project situations. However,
documenting tacit information is difficult due to its emergent nature, but can be brought forth
through talk and discussion (Whyte et al., 2008). Thus, in addition to explicit information
transfer, HRM centric systems make use of face-to-face meetings, liaisons/integrators, whiteboard discussions, knowledge transfer sessions, and telephonic conversations (Dossick & Neff,
2011), which may particularly be useful in addressing non-routine tasks characterized by high
uncertainty (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Van de Ven et al., 1976). In short, HRM centric systems can
more easily address issues requiring debate or commentary due its ability to deliver a discussionbased response to the incoming information (Dossick & Neff, 2011).

17

Several types of product modeling software facilitate the interoperability of information.
Design tools like Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and
others (e.g., Building Information Modeling, BIM; Computer Aided Three-dimensional
Interactive Application, CATIA) enhance the consistency of information used by participants
from different disciplines and help participants generate design alternatives swiftly (Faraj,
Alshawi, Aouad, Child, & Underwood, 1999; Liston, Fischer, & Winograd, 2001). Other
software like Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Systems, Applications, and Products
(SAP) allow organizations to store data at a common platform, which is then available for
analysis and interpretation. In addition, Group Support Systems (GSS) allow teams to be
productive during meetings by providing electronic support (e.g., screen sharing, group
authoring) for members’ needs. However, the use of software to post or retrieve data may or may
not facilitate team members’ interaction over that information. In the first place, the visualization
software produce images that support members’ coordination efforts (Liston et al., 2001), but the
software may not offer (or top management may not have enabled) features that enable team
members to expound on the implication of a design addition or change. Consequently,
considerable effort may be required to engage members in discussion of a potential or emerging
issue. Second, with regard to interdisciplinary teams, these software design tools may have
difficulty supporting teams with interchangeable membership. Third, the voluminous and
detailed information associated with a complex project can also be overwhelming for project
participants (Liston et al., 2001). Consequently, information systems that offer the ability to
annotate in a synchronous or asynchronous manner are an important first step in improving
designs, reducing unintended consequences, and advancing project success. The extent to which

18

project managers facilitate interaction among members when necessary or advantageous,
whether or not software offers annotation or discussion options, seems to be an important issue.
Project Managers and Information Systems. A rudimentary concern revolves around
how project managers make use of available information systems or work around such systems.
For instance, in the IT centric information sharing system, a chief role of project managers is to
maintain an optimum information reporting procedure and create conversations pertaining to
non-routine information. On one hand, project managers seek to maintain schedules and formal
reporting procedures, and on other hand, project managers avoid extreme levels of formal
reporting procedures as it may lead to frustration and conflict among team members (Van de Ven
& Walker, 1984). In keeping with Daft and Lengel (1984, 1986; Lengel & Daft, 1988), these
materials are relatively explicit in nature and their meanings and significance would be
understood and processed in routine ways. However, equivocality and uncertainty are associated
with data entries or their ramification, project managers are known to take the unusual step of
hosting informal meetings and promoting discussions to reduce error in project design and
outcomes (Dossick & Neff, 2011). Again, possibly operating outside of work unit design, project
managers may also monitor the subsequent responses to previous information interactions of
team members and stakeholders (e.g., contractors, customers) to insure that members are actively
processing available information.
In contrast, project team managers in HRM centric systems are thought to face challenges
associated with rich information. Namely, information systems that offer annotation or holding
discussions via white-boards enable consultations on issues, creative solutions, and mindful
consideration of the ramifications of the team’s decisions (Dossick & Neff, 2011). Yet, project
managers must still keep projects on schedule and within budget. As such, a considerable

19

challenge is promoting efficient responses to routine information while promoting discussionbased responses to non-routine information. It is anticipated that project managers regularly host
formal meetings to review entries and decisions of team members as well as host informal
meetings to discuss non-routine information. Consequently, to better understand the
communicative challenges that project managers encounter with prescribed information systems,
this study asks,
RQ3

According to team members, what are the communication challenges of project managers
when operating with IT-centric and HRM-centric information systems?

Technological Uncertainty
During project initiation, technological uncertainty can impact project coordination
mechanisms as well as team members’ and project managers’ communicative behaviors (Dvir et
al., 2006; Shenhar 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996). Uncertainty, in its simplest terms, refers to the
difference between the required amount of information to complete a task and the amount of
information actually available for organizations' disposal (Galbraith, 1973). Technological
uncertainty often begins in the product specification and production processes (Harris & Woolley
2009). In terms of product specification, the project's usefulness, functionality, or quality can be
unclear or not specified completely primarily due to the newness of the technology or the project
team’s unfamiliarity with the technology (Hall & Martin, 2005). With regard to production
uncertainty, changes in production technology lead to alterations in the tools, devices,
techniques, and knowledge that mediate between input and output (Daft & Lengel, 1986;
Tushman & Anderson, 1986), and these alterations are associated with increases equivocality
and the need for more and detailed or richer information (Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Daft &
Lengel, 1984). As information processing requirements increase and equivocality of the meaning

20

and importance of information increases, the need for units to engage in face-to-face and group
exchanges and hold unscheduled meetings increase (Daft & Macintosh, 1981). A common way
to describe levels of uncertainty associated with project initiation and production processes is
base, key, and pacing technology (Little, 1981; Roussel et al., 1991; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996).
Base Technologies. Base technologies are relatively well-known and widespread (i.e.,
mature). These technologies are commonly owned or leased from suppliers, and in most cases
production costs associated with technological process are stable (Little, 1981). Projects that
incorporate base technology have their designs finalized (e.g., “build to print,” Shenhar & Dvir,
1996, p. 36) before the execution phase, such as found in manufacturing, utility, construction,
and road-building projects. The project technology in and of itself, in most cases, offers no
competitive advantage. Consequently, uncertainty related to base technologies is largely absent,
even if projects are on a large scale (Shenhar, 1998).
Key Technologies. These technologies offer some degree of competitive advantage by
adding a new throughput or transformation feature (Little, 1981); Roussel et al., 1991). Such
projects deliver incremental innovation (Shenhar, 1998) and are typically developmental
products within well-established industries (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996). Technological uncertainty in
these projects is moderate, and organizations tend to keep a well-known technology as a back-up
alternative. Finally, the designs in such projects may go through one or two design cycles and are
frozen before the first or second quarter of project execution (Shenhar, 1998).
Pacing Technologies. Pacing technologies exist, possibly in some industries but not in
others or have yet to be employed in an industry. As such, they have the potential to displace
organization's base or key technologies (Little, 1981). Projects undertaken here may incorporate
more than 50% of the new technology in the throughput process or even undertake a new product

21

line altogether (Shenhar, 1998). Projects in this category include military defense or high-tech
industrial products that use newly developed technologies. The technological uncertainty in such
projects is high as members deal with non-routine technology and issues (Daft & Lengel, 1986)
and discuss the ramifications of these issues (Raz et al., 2002; Song & Montaya-Weiss, 2001).
Pacing technologies offer a competitive niche, but are also risky (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996).
Finally, the designs in such projects may go through more than two design cycles and are
generally frozen by the second or third quarter of project execution (Shenhar, 1998).
Project Managers and Technological Uncertainty. Regardless of the nature of their
task, project managers must adapt to the technology with which they are given or, in some cases,
are creating. In considering project managers’ communication challenges, it may be useful to
consider the technological challenges pertaining to the specification and process of the projects.
To begin, base technology projects require little or no developmental work, and, before the
execution phase begins, the project designs are frozen (Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996;
Raz et al., 2002). Given the relatively low levels of technological uncertainty, project efficiency
is likely linked with the adoption of standard operating procedures, rules, plans, and carefully
designed contractual agreements (Sadeh, Dvir, & Shenhar, 2000). According to Shenhar (1998)
and colleagues (e.g., Shenhar & Dvir, 1996), formal channels, documents, standardized forms,
and regular meetings provide an adequate basis for information exchange and dissemination.
Thus, project managers with base technologies may serve more than adequately in the role of
administrator rather than a technical leader, being mainly concerned with keeping projects on
schedule, within budget, and aligned with initial project design (Shenhar, 1998).
Project teams using key technology, however, experience medium uncertainty in the
technological process related to the project, and they are thought to require occasional

22

clarification or discussion regarding non-routine information. Thus, project managers may host
occasional informal meetings and promote discussions on developments or information
considered to be non-routine. Unlike conditions with base technology, project managers involved
with key technology are likely to encourage actively information processing of others’ data
design entries and feedback, provide feedback to project members, and attempt to maintain open
communication channels (Daft & Lengel, 1988; Poole, 2011).
Pacing technology projects differ from other technologies in that they involve long
periods of development, testing and redesign (with possibly two or three design cycles), and may
be frozen in second or third quarter of project execution phase (Raz et al., 2002; Shenhar, 1998;
Shenhar & Dvir, 1996). Project managers in these conditions may form clan-type organizational
structures, where project and participant goals align, rules, plans, and operation procedures are
meticulously followed (Ouchi, 1980; Williamson, 1975). Communication in these projects has
been characterized as highly intense, with on-going formal and informal meetings (Shenhar,
1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996). Accordingly, project managers disseminate information via
asynchronous written and emailed reports, meeting minutes, and memos as well as verbally
through synchronous face-to-face conversations with individuals or groups and telephonic
means. Due to the dynamic, evolving nature of project issues, project team managers are
reported to be in constant discussion with members in order to derive appropriate responses to
information requests and problems (Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996). Research across
several industries suggests that use of information systems such as BIM (Dossick & Neff, 2011),
CAD/CAM (Adler, 1995), and Computer-Augmented Design And Manufacturing (CADAM,
Argyres, 1999) are in-and-of-themselves not sufficient to achieve the degree a high level of
integration and information sharing. Rather, these coordination modes must be complemented

23

with the regular tools that promote rich information sharing (Jensen, Johansson, & Lofstrom,
2006; Lengel & Daft, 1988; Van de Ven et al., 1976).
In order to better understand the communicative challenges that project managers
encounter with technological uncertainty, this study asks,
RQ4

According to team members, what are the communication challenges of project managers
when working with base, key, and pacing technologies?

Project Success
The successful accomplishment of project goals is of paramount importance to the project
team, management, customers, and shareholders. Each interest group (e.g., shareholders,
customers) can define success differently. For most managers, successful project delivery means
finishing the project on time, within budget, and according to specifications (Dvir et al., 2006).
Yet, user requirements must also be met if recurring business has to be achieved. Consequently,
Muller and Turner (2007, 2010) and others (e.g., Sadeh et al., 2000; Dvir et al., 2006) report that
client satisfaction is also a vital criterion for project success, and the measurement of project
success must reflect a range of different viewpoints.
According to Sadeh et al. (2000), project success consists of at least four dimensions that
include meeting design goals, benefit to the end user, benefit to the developing organization, and
benefit to the national and defense infrastructure. Other criterion include meeting project's
overall performance, user requirements, client and end-user satisfaction, supplier satisfaction,
project team's satisfaction, and stakeholder's satisfaction (Muller & Turner, 2007, 2010).
Projects are a set of interconnected activities with pre-defined goals and time, while
utilizing well defined resources (Hobday, 2000). One of the biggest challenges faced by project
team members is information dissemination due to the diverse array of team members, who may

24

or may not have worked together in the past and may have unique points of views and interests
(Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008). Thus, coordinating tasks across disciplines and sharing information
across organizational departments (Baiden & Price, 2011) is an explicit and implicit task of
project leaders. At times, project managers emphasize team cultures that facilitate decision
making norms and coordination (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008). Prior research suggests relationships
between project success and project managers' leadership styles, especially with regard to
emotional, managerial, and intellectual competencies (Muller & Turner, 2007, 2010), and project
managers' personalities that include personality dimensions such as openness to experiences,
driven by punctuality, risk-taking tendency, and investigative and enterprising (Dvir et al.,2006).
However, this study seeks to explore the relationship between project managers' communication
behaviors, implicit in prior work, and project success. Messy talk, monitoring, and open
communication environment are the backbone to information dissemination, which is at the heart
of project success (Baiden & Price, 2011). Initiating structure and planning are essential to
effective unit functioning (Morgeson et al., 2011; Sydow, Lindkvist, & DeFillippi, 2004).
Consequently, this study asks,
RQ5

What is the relationship of project team member's perceptions of their project leaders'
communication behaviors, information system use, and technological uncertainty to
project success?

25

CHAPTER TWO
Methodology
Sample
This study pursued a purposive sample of experienced project team members in order to
explore the relationships identified in this research. Therefore, the study focused on
organizational members who had worked on project teams and had two or more years of work
experience in large engineering, information technology, building and construction, and
manufacturing industries. Such organizational members were thought to have had a range of
experiences with a range of project managers, worked with several team members, and
performed several roles as members of project teams. The targeted sample included engineering
graduates working in construction, software, manufacturing, mechanical, and automobile
industries in India and United States. A total of 335 individuals were sent invitations to complete
the survey through emails, social media, and third party contacts. Although considerable
organizational culture differences exist between these two countries (Hofstede, 1983), each
nation has well-developed engineering-based education systems that feed into information
technology, construction, and manufacturing industries. Therefore, the American and Indian
samples were combined.
One hundred and fifty-seven individuals responded to the invitation to participate in the
research study, a 47% response rate. Fifty-two responses either contained incomplete data or
missing values, thus these responses were removed from the study resulting in 105 usable
responses. Based on information provided by these participants, they are best described as:
mostly young (M = 27.2, SD = 3.3), male (n = 68, 74%; 24 females, 26%); highly educated
(bachelor’s degree, n = 49, 53%; master's degree, n= 41, 44%, doctorate, n=3, 3%) majoring in

26

the computer science (n = 26, 35%) and electronics fields (n = 23, 31%). Research participants
worked in the information technology (n = 45, 53%), computer science (n = 19, 22%),
mechanical (n = 9, 11%), and manufacturing (n = 8, 9%) industries. Participants’ projects were
chiefly delivered to companies in the United States (n = 72, 61%), India (n = 46, 39%), and
United Kingdom (n = 15, 13%) into the construction (n = 10, 9%), manufacturing (n = 18, 16%),
software (n = 76, 66%), and automobile (n = 11, 10%) industries. In addition, participants
worked for mostly male managers (n = 91, 91%), in project teams whose members belonged to
same organization (n=102, 76%), operated from more than one physical location (n=83, 61%),
and met face-to-face for important meetings (n=101, 75%).
Procedure
Several studies focus on project team managers’ self-reports (e.g., Cohen, Ornoy, &
Keren, 2013; Dvir et al., 2006). However, this study sought to avoid biases related to self
evaluations and to better understand, from project team members' point of views, the work
context in which the project team is situated. In addition, assessing the viewpoint of a second
party was thought to enable researchers to move away from idealized depictions of project team
leader communication behaviors toward competency depictions based on what the context
required and the extent to which project team leaders manifested behaviors relevant to
satisfactory performance (Jablin et al., 1994; Jablin & Sias, 2001).
Survey requests were sent to individuals working in select industries and to graduates
from Amravati University who met the study's minimal qualifications. These individuals were
contacted through personal contacts via email and social media. Also, through industry contacts,
permission from managers and human resource personnel was granted to ask individuals, who fit
the study’s minimal qualifications, to participate in the research study. In most cases, managers

27

and human resources personnel sent emails to such individuals, copying the researcher on
emails. Organizational members were given four weeks to complete the survey questionnaire
voluntarily, and the researcher sent two friendly reminders.
As noted earlier the sample size was reduced to 105 participants, and even within their
responses, there were occasional missing item scores to the measurement scales. These data were
handled via SPSS’ mean function procedure, which aggregated and then averaged existing scale
item responses to form an overall response score. Rather than substitute the average score or
insert a new value for missing items, the mean function calculates the mean using only those
items that were reported (e.g., using the four out of five possible responses). The mean function
procedure assumes a flat inter-item correlation matrix with items contributing equally (Hunter,
1980; Hunter and Gerbing, 1982) and allowed the researcher to retain as many responses as
possible without data imputation or mean score replacement. All further data analyses were
computed using listwise comparisons.
Measures
Four group-focused communication constructs were assessed in this study through survey
measures: Messy talk, monitoring, open communication environment, and initiating structure
and planning. The project team context was assessed through two constructs, information
systems and technological uncertainty. The criterion variable, perceived project success, was also
measured through a survey instrument collected at the same time as the other measures. All
measures were simultaneously subjected to a principal component, varimax rotation factor
analysis. Results of the factor analysis are reported in Table 3.
The survey first asked participants to indicate the perceived importance of messy talk,
monitoring, open communication environment, and initiating structure and planning to the

28

project. The prompt for perceived importance responses read, "In your opinion, with regard to
your most recent/current project team experience, please indicate how important were/are the
following behaviors of the project manager in addressing the challenges of the project." The
scale anchor set for perceived importance ranged on a scale of 1-5 from "not important" to "very
important." The survey then asked participants to indicate their perceptions of “actual” or
enacted messy talk, monitoring, open communication environment, and initiating structure and
planning behaviors. This second prompt, inquiring into the enactment of those behaviors, read,
"As you reflect on your Project Manager's behaviors during this project, please indicate the
extent to which your Project Manager demonstrate the following behaviors." Scale anchors
ranged on a scale of 1-5 from "to a very little extent" to "to a very great extent."
Factor analyses were conducted in the following manner. First, the four perceived
importance communication scales plus information systems, technological uncertainty, and
project success scales were computed through SPSS principal components, varimax rotation
simultaneously. Items not loading or cross loading on multiple factors were dropped. As
discussed below, dropped scales included monitoring as well as initiating and planning structure.
Second, perceived importance of messy talk and open communication environment scales, actual
messy talk and open communication environment scales along with information systems,
technological uncertainty, and project success scales were computed at the same time. All scales
demonstrated heterogeneity except for actual messy talk and open communication environment
scales, which loaded on the same factor. When the actual open communication environment
scale items were removed from the analysis, all items loaded on their respective factors.
Subsequent factor analyses with actual messy talk scale items with project success scale items
and open communication environment with project success scale items demonstrated

29

heterogeneity, respectively. Consequently, a factor analysis was performed on perceived
importance of messy talk, perceived importance open communication environment, actual messy
talk, information systems, technological uncertainty, and project success scales, and these results
are reported in Table 3. As the average inter-item correlation for the open communication
environment-actual scale items, when subjected to the multi-scale factor analysis and the bi-scale
factor analysis, remained at r = .64 and the scale demonstrated a unique factor structured when
compared to project success, the scale was retained and its factor loadings when analyzed with
project success are reported in Table 3.
Messy Talk. A chief behavior of project managers in the team or group setting pertains
to communication behaviors that enhance group or team coordination and information sharing
processes. Projects can be a combination of routine, day-to-day problems and non-routine, new
problems. Dossick and Neff (2011) suggest that project team members may have to engage in
messy talk in order to effectively deal with these complex and/or new problems. Project
managers' ability to facilitate discussion is one of the communication behaviors this study
attempts to measure. As noted earlier, messy talk is defined as "the interstitial dialogue between
and after formally organized agenda items" (Dossick & Neff, 2011, p. 84). To examine the extent
to which project managers facilitate messy talk, items were developed around three key elements
or components: interstitial dialogue or the interspersing of commentary or idea generation during
ideation flow on online software, conversation prior to and following meetings, and general
discussion of issues and ideas. Items related to this construct are presented in Appendix A.
Factor analytic results of the importance of messy talk revealed a five item,
unidimensional factor, accounting for 12% of the variance (see Table 3). A subsequent factor
analysis of reported actual messy talk indicated that its five items loaded on the same factor as

30

the five-item reported actual open communication environment. The factor comprising these
combined scales accounted for 18% of the variance. For comparison purposes in this study, the
five-item reported actual messy talk scale was entered as a separate variable in subsequent
analysis as (a) the perceived importance of messy talk scale constituted a separate factor and (b)
the reported actual use of messy talk scale also constituted a separate factor when run without
reported actual open communication environment.
Monitoring. Monitoring refers to actions of observation and feedback. Morgeson et al.
(2009) define monitoring as the examination of team's processes, performance, and the external
team context. Monitoring a team can take different forms, including observation of work
operations, reading written reports, holding progress review meetings, and inspecting quality of
work (Yukl et al., 2002). Luthans and Lockwood (1984), Morgeson et al. (2009), and Yukl et al.
(2002) suggest monitoring at the team level has three manifestations: checking project and team
member performance, checking operations, and keeping the project on track and within budget.
In creating a measure of monitoring, this study incorporated items from Luthans and Lockwood
(1984), Morgeson et al. (2009), and Yukl et al. (2002), which are reported in Appendix B.
Results of the factor analysis revealed that a majority of the monitoring items crossloaded on the reported actual messy talk factor, with items of both scales correlating between r =
.45 and r = .70. As messy talk and monitoring depict two distinct behaviors and represented an
instance of multicollinearity, monitoring scale was subsequently dropped from the study.
Open Communication Environment. Maintaining open communication environment
within the team has been identified as critical to project, unit, and organizational success (e.g.,
Dvir et al., 2006; Malach-Pines et al., 2009; Poole, 2001). An open communication environment
refers to an environment in which members perceive others to be willing and receptive listeners,

31

Table 3. Results of the Principal Component, Factor Analysis and Cronbach's Alphas.
Factor
Loadings

Factors, Scale Items, and Cronbach Alphas
Messy Talk - Perceived Importancea (α = .89)
In your opinion, with regard to your most recent/current project team
experience, please indicate how important were/are the following behaviors of
the project manager in addressing the challenges of the project.
 encourage team members to incorporate discussion tools (e.g. whiteboards

.64

or blackboards, notepads, visual diagrams or models) during meetings?
 encourage team members to raise concerns during face-to-face or online

.71

meetings?
 converse with others about design or task issues during face-to-face or

.82

online meetings?
 prompt members to make comments, annotate, or raise questions using

.75

software (e.g. group support systems, product model software)?
 encourage project team members to engage in discussions after face-to-face

.72

or online meetings?
Open Communication Environment - Perceived Importancea (α = .92)
In your opinion, with regard to your most recent/current project team
experience, please indicate how important were/are the following behaviors of
the project manager in addressing the challenges of the project.
 encourage team members to talk openly with each other?

.78

 encourage team members to talk to openly to him/her regarding task related

.77

issues?
 make sure all team members were sharing information about the project?

.73

 help team members to be comfortable sharing issues/problems with each

.84

other?
 make members comfortable in asking advice from others?

.79

Information Systemsa (α = .81)
 To what extent did the information sharing mediums allow members to ask
questions and obtain answers as they arise?
32

.70

Table 3 (Cont'd)
 To what extent did the information sharing mediums allow members to

.87

have discussions (e.g., group chat, whiteboard, annotations) before
responding or executing a task?
 To what extent did the information sharing mediums support multiple

.84

communication cues such as body language, voice, tone, etc.?
Technological Uncertaintya (α = .60)
 To what extent have project teams in your organization used this

.70

technology in the design process or throughput process?
 To what extent did the project go through multiple design cycles before it

.78

reached final configuration and final specification (i.e., frozen)?
 To what extent did the project involve computerized planning?

.53

Project Successa (α = .88)
 were the suppliers satisfied with the project’s product or service?

.74

 were other stakeholders satisfied with the project’s product or service?

.70

 did the project meet its overall performance goals (functionality, budget

.57

and timing)?
 were the user requirements met?

.80

 was the project’s purpose met?

.50

 was the client satisfied with the project results?

.75

 was the project successful (based on what you define as success)?

.50

Messy Talk - Actual Behaviorsa (α = .87)
As you reflect on your Project Manager's behaviors during this project, please
indicate the extent to which your Project Manager demonstrate the following
behaviors.
 encourage team members to incorporate discussion tools (e.g. whiteboards

.56

or blackboards, notepads, visual diagrams or models) during meetings?
 encourage team members to raise concerns during face-to-face or online

.72

meetings?
 converse with others about design or task issues during face-to-face or
online meetings?

33

.60

Table 3 (Cont'd)
 prompt members to make comments, annotate, or raise questions using

.66

software (e.g. group support systems, product model software)?
 encourage project team members to engage in discussions after face-to-face

.62

or online meetings?
Open Communication Environment - Actual Behaviorsb (α = .90)
As you reflect on your Project Manager's behaviors during this project, please
indicate the extent to which your Project Manager demonstrate the following
behaviors.
 encourage team members to talk openly with each other?

.72

 encourage team members to talk to openly to him/her regarding task related

.61

issues?
 make sure all team members were sharing information about the project?

.87

 help team members to be comfortable sharing issues/problems with each

.81

other?
 make members comfortable in asking advice from others?

.70

a

Factor loadings derived from multi-scale analysis.
Factor loadings derived from analysis with open communication environment – actual
behaviors and project success scales.
b

and avoid giving responses which might be seen as negative (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987). Open
communication environments are characterized by supportiveness, participation, and candid
sharing of feelings (Redding, 1972). To measure the extent to which project managers facilitate
open communication environments in their teams, items were incorporated from prior studies
(e.g., O'Reilly and Roberts, 1977) and literature reviews (e.g., Poole, 2011; Redding, 1972) as
well as were created and are reported in Appendix C.
Results of the factor analysis of the importance of open communication environment
revealed a five-item unidimensional factor, accounting for 13% of the variance. As noted earlier,
a subsequent factor analysis of reported actual open communication environment loaded on the

34

same factor as the five-item reported actual messy talk factor. For comparison purposes in this
study, the five-item reported actual open communication environment scale was entered as a
separate variable in subsequent analysis as (a) the perceived importance of open communication
environment scale constituted a separate factor and (b) the reported actual use of open
communication environment scale also constituted a unique factor when run without the reported
actual messy talk scale.
Initiating Structure and Planning. A series of recent articles (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell,
2011; Morgeson et al., 2010) point to the importance of examining leadership purposefully at the
group level and suggest that behaviors associated with structuring and planning as essential for
work group success. The ability to initiate structure (e.g. incorporate standard reporting
procedures) requires both knowledge and social skills and project managers’ ability to initiate
structure is one of the most commonly operationalized component in project management
literature. Morgeson et al. (2010) state that structuring and planning a team involves
"determining or assisting in determining how work will be accomplished (e.g., method), who
will do which aspects of the work (e.g., role clarification), and when the work will done (e.g.,
timing, scheduling, work flow)" (p. 12). Manifestations of project managers' ability to initiate
structure include creating order and standardizing procedures, clearly explaining task objectives,
clearly stating role expectations, and planning and scheduling (Ammeter & Dukerich, 2002;
Anantatmula, 2008; Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Sommerville et al., 2010; Thamhain, 1999; Yukl
et al., 2002).
To measure initiating structure and planning, this study employed Morgeson et al.’s
(2010) establish expectations and goals and structure and plan scales, reported in Appendix D.
Factor analytic results revealed that the importance of structuring and planning cross-loaded on

35

the perceived importance of communication factor, with items between scales correlating
between r = .42 and r = .67. As the importance of initiating structure and planning scale crossloading on the importance of open communication environment scale items represented an
instance of multicollinearity, the initiating structure and planning scale was subsequently
dropped from the study.
Information Systems. As noted earlier, IT-centric information sharing systems circulate
explicit information among its members (Earl, 2001). Examples of explicit information that
typically are included in IT-centric systems are standard operating procedures, best practices
guide, drawings, 3D models, task assignments, and contracts (Carrillo & Chinowsky, 2006).
HRM-centric information sharing system include explicit information in IT-centric systems but
enable the sharing of tacit knowledge by fostering discussion-based responses to received
information (Harman & Brelade, 2000). HRM-centric systems, in addition to explicit
information transfer, make use of face-to-face meetings, white-board discussions, telephonic
conversations, integrators, knowledge transfer sessions, and (Carrillo & Chinowsky, 2006).
For this study, project team use of IT-centric and HRM-centric systems was
conceptualized as operating on a continuum, ranging as it were from less information rich
assignments, models, reports to more information rich dialogues and creative brainstorming
(Daft & Lengel, 1986). Items for this construct were drawn from concepts and examples from
several field observation studies (e.g. Carrillo & Chinowsky, 2006; Dossick & Neff, 2011;
Whyte et al., 2008) and are reported in Appendix E. Results of a principal components factor
analysis revealed a three-item, unidimensional factor, accounting for 7% of the variance.
Technological Uncertainty. The foundational aspects of base, key, and pacing
technologies are well-known means of describing the maturity of throughput technologies and

36

the uncertainty related to idea or product transformational processes (Little, 1981; Shenhar,
1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996). Uncertainty related to these technologies is conceptualized as
ranging from minimal in base contexts to maximum in pacing contexts: (a) in base technology,
there are relatively few surprises in using or adapting the technology in product creation; (b) key
technologies projects deliver incremental innovations and are associated with moderate
technological uncertainty; (c) uncertainty in pacing technology projects is high as members deal
with non-routine matters and issues, and members must regularly discuss the ramifications of
these issues (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Raz et al., 2002; Song & Montaya-Weiss, 2001).
To determine what type of technology was undertaken by project team members, items
were adapted from previous literature reviews (e.g. Little, 1981; Roussel et al. 1991) and
research investigations (e.g. Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996) as well as created for this
study and are reported in Appendix F. Results of the factor analysis revealed the presence of a
two-item, unidimensional factor, named technological uncertainty. This factor accounted for 5%
of the variance.
Project Success. Cooke-Davies (2002) defined project success as the achievement of
planned business results using the project's outcome. Muller and Turner (2007, 2010) state that
project success is not a fixed target and it comprises of several factors including the end-users',
clients', suppliers', stakeholders' and project team members' satisfaction. The ten-item project
success scale was adapted from Muller and Turner's (2007, 2010) work. Scale items used are
reported in Appendix G. Factor analytic results indicated a seven-item, unidimensional factor,
accounting for 11% of the variance, and are comparable to results presented in Muller and
Turner's (2010) factor analysis.

37

Project Manager. Organizational titles, for those who oversee others’ overall efforts to
accomplish project goals in a team setting, are known primarily by two titles, project manager
and project leader (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Chen, 1997; Hobday, 2000; Kerzner, 1979). To
avoid confusion, this study first asked participants to state the title of the individual: “Across
different industries and organizations, a range of titles are given to those individuals whose
responsibility is to plan, organize, control, and direct resources to accomplish specific goals.
These individuals oversee the project's progress, monitor team members, coordinate their
activities, disseminate information, and deal with other management issues.” Second, the
electronic survey inserted the exact same title named by participants when asking them to
respond to scale items related to the project manager. The electronic insertion was an effort to
focus participants’ attention on the same individual and avoid potential confusion from the use of
multiple titles (e.g., project manager, project lead, delivery manager).
Research Design
This study was primarily a descriptive one. The study initially sought to obtain profile
characteristics related to project team members’ perceptions of the managers’ communicative
behaviors. In particular, they were asked to identify how important certain project manager
communication behaviors were in their current or most recent project and how well their project
managers performed those particular communication behaviors.
Next, the study sought to determine the association between the importance and
manifestation of project manager communication behaviors, the projects’ information system
use, technological uncertainty, and perceived project success. The association of communication
behaviors and systems and context with project success as the criterion variable was tested
through multiple regression, stepwise procedure.

38

CHAPTER THREE
Results
Variable means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations are reported in Table 4.
The first research question inquired into team members’ perceptions of the importance of project
managers’ communication behaviors. Analysis of mean scores indicated that responses to messy
talk-perceived importance (M = 4.02, SD = .77) and communication environment-perceived
importance (M = 4.16, SD = .80) were significantly different, t(90) = -1.96, p = .05, η2 = .04.
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations. a
(1)
-

(2)

4.02

s.d.
.77

(2) Messy Talk - Actual Behaviors

3.83

.80

.66

-

(3) Open Communication Environment

4.16

.80

.60

.62

-

3.87

.86

.56

.84

.59

-

(5) Technological Uncertainty

3.55

.88

.36

.35

.17

.30

-

(6) Information Systems

2.97

1.00 .11

.21

.16

.08

.19

-

(7) Project Success

3.79

1.20 .20

.30

.08

.24

.25

.29

1)

Variable
Messy Talk - Perceived Importance

x

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

- Perceived Importance
(4) Open Communication Environment
- Actual Behaviors

a

-

N=97; r greater than .19, p<.05
The second research question sought to learn team members’ perceptions of differences

between the importance of project managers’ communication behaviors and their enactment. A
paired samples t-test compared the perceived importance of messy talk (M = 3.99, SD = .77) and
reported actual messy talk (M = 3.83, SD = .80), indicating a significant difference between the
two means, t(91) = 2.34, p = .02, η2 = .06. A similar paired samples t-test compared differences
between the perceived open communication environment (M = 4.17, SD = .74) and reported
actual open communication environment (M = 3.88, SD = .86) and found a significant difference,
t(84) = 3.69, p = .001, η2 = .14, between the means. An additional post-hoc analysis revealed that
39

perceptions of messy talk - actual reported (M = 3.87, SD = .76) and open communication
environment - actual reported (M = 3.87, SD = .86) were not significantly different.
The third research question inquired into the communication challenges of project
managers with their information system use. Comparisons of project team members’ reports of
information system use did not significantly vary across the industry to which the project was
delivered, whether team members were co-located or not, and whether or not they were from the
same organization.
The fourth research question sought to assess communication challenges of project
managers associated with technological uncertainty. Project team members responses indicated a
significant association between technological uncertainty and messy talk – perceived importance
(r = .36), messy talk – actual behaviors (r = .35), open communication environment – actual
behaviors (r = .30), and use of information systems (r = .19). Additional comparisons of project
team members’ reports of technological uncertainty did not significantly vary across the industry
to which the project was delivered, whether team members were co-located or not, and whether
or not they were from the same organization.
The final research question examined the relationship of project team member's
perceptions of their project leaders' communication behaviors, information system use, and
technological uncertainty with project success. Results of a stepwise linear regression revealed
that messy talk – actual behaviors (β = .25, t = 2.40, p <.02) and use of information systems (β =
.24, t = 2.28, p <.03) significantly predicted project success (R2 = .15). No other variables
contributed significantly to the equation.

40

CHAPTER FOUR
Discussion
Over the years, construction, engineering, and information technology industries have
benefited in a number of ways from the use of collaborative project teams (Adler, 1995;
Barringer & Harrison, 2000). In particular, project teams can maximize the knowledge and skills
of members, facilitate members’ negotiating divergent opinions, and integrate a constant flow of
information in addressing complex issues (Adler, 1995; Dossick & Neff, 2011; Muller & Turner,
2010). Project teams are especially important for organizations that want to achieve intra- and
inter-organizational coordination and develop innovative and efficient processes (Lawrence &
Lorsch, 1969).
Communication behaviors in project team settings, such as messy talk, monitoring, open
communication environment, and structuring and planning, have been observed to enhance
coordination and information sharing efforts of project managers (e.g., Dossick & Neff, 2011).
There has been considerable interest in exploring communication behaviors of project managers
associated with effective performance (e.g., Crawford, 2005; Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer, 2010;
Henderson, 2008). Yet, as noted before, many earlier studies exploring communication behaviors
of project managers are prescriptive and anecdotal in nature, and investigations rarely focus on
the communication behaviors of project managers that have implications for group or team
outputs. In the context of prior project manager research, this study advances a set of behaviors
associated with information analysis and refinement, not the typical listing of idealized
structuring and planning behaviors (e.g., Globerson & Zwikael, 2002). Moreover, these
communication behaviors are linked to team settings and effective team performance. By
comparing team members’ perceptions of the importance of their project managers'

41

communication behaviors to the demonstrated project managers' communication behaviors in
their most recent project, this research moves closer to understanding what project team
members perceive to be important communication behaviors enacted by their project managers
and the consequences of those communicative acts.
Messy Talk
Messy talk is particularly valuable as a communication construct as it explores
"interstitial dialogue" (Dossick & Neff, 2011, p. 84) among project team members during brief
episodes or over long periods of time. Messy talk is thought to assist in effectively parsing out
confounding elements within complex and/or new problems (e.g., Liston, Fischer, & Kunz,
2000; Liston et al., 2001). Studies indicate that project managers can also encounter considerable
difficulty coordinating tasks across disciplines and sharing information across the organizational
departments (Baiden & Price, 2011). Even if organizations use various product-model software
for sharing information across disciplines, software only improves the interoperability of
information; software usage alone does not foster the explication of design inputs that are often
discipline-specific and where others are not cognizant of their implications (Dossick & Neff,
2011; Liston et al., 2001). In such scenarios, it is vital for project team managers to spur messy
talk to address effectively complex issues.
The term, messy talk, originates from building and construction industry (Dossick &
Neff, 2011), but it has clear relevance to other project based industries. A major function of
messy talk is to spur discussions that help team members engage in complex projects to consider
the ramifications of past and impending actions. As applied to other industries, messy talk can
also address the need of project members to go beyond data entry and assuming that others are
knowledgeable of the consequences of decisions in design, development, and testing or analysis

42

phases (Adler, 1995). In any project, be it construction, manufacturing, software, or electronics
industry, disseminating information and spurring conversations is deemed to be of vital
importance and associated with better product quality and cost (Adler, 1995; Dvir et al., 2006;
Malach-Pines et al., 2009).
Messy talk, by iterative exchanges and permission to revisit issues, assists members by
jogging their mental associations of past experiences and creating temporal venues to learn
different perspectives and generate unique solutions (Dossick & Neff, 2011). Both Adler (1995)
and Liston et al. (2001) state that use of visual tools and conversational references help
individuals to better solve problems and raise concerns or issues related to problems. A major
assumption with regard to project manager communication competencies is that project
managers across all industries will recognize the need for and facilitate messy talk when
addressing complex issues, especially under conditions of high technological uncertainty.
This study reports the development of a five-item scale to measure messy talk. Following
Dossick and Neff (2011), the items assessed means for spurring dialogue by using discussion
tools (e.g. whiteboards, notepads, visual diagrams) during meetings, raising concerns during and
after meetings, discussing face-to-face on task or design related issues, and prompting or
annotating using software. In this study, around 80% of participants’ projects involved medium
or high levels of technological uncertainty, which would be appropriate for messy talk
engagements. In the present study, messy talk - actual reported and technological uncertainty
were also significantly correlated (r = .35), suggesting evidence for concurrent validity. Future
research investigating messy talk should consider the conversational references (Dossick & Neff,
2011), which both precede and are embedded in the discussion of project issues. Certainly,
greater attention to the history amongst the parties involved, politics within teams and

43

organizations, and the norms of project team interactions would provide insights into challenges
of facilitating messy talk and maximizing its use.
Open Communication Environment
The measure of open communication environment, created for this study, focused on
identifying project managers' communication behaviors that encouraged team members to talk
openly with each other, talk openly regarding tasks, share information about the project, and help
them feel comfortable seeking advice and sharing issues/problems with each other. Poole (2010)
stated that an open communication environment is a one in which members perceive others to be
willing and receptive listeners, and avoid giving responses which might be seen as
interpersonally negative (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987). Such workgroup environments have
parallels to conceptualizations of ideal communication climates (Redding, 1972), marked by
supportiveness, participation, and information sharing. The five-item scale for open
communication environment may be said to have face or content validity as assesses the aspects
of open communication climates identified in earlier research (Jablin & Sias, 2001; Redding,
1972). Pertinent to project manager behaviors, items here not only asked questions about openly
sharing information with other team members, but also about asking advice and sharing
information with managers.
Both messy talk – importance with open communication environment – importance and
messy talk – importance with open communication environment – actual were significantly
correlated (r = .60, r = .84, respectively), suggesting concurrent validity. It is important to note
that participants worked in a range of industries, from construction, engineering, information
technology, manufacturing, electronics, and automobile to mechanical. Additional investigations
are needed to understand the relationship between enactment of messy talk behaviors and open

44

communication environments. For instance, project teams interfacing with base technologies,
where messy talk may be rarely needed, might have open communication environments but little
report of messy talk behaviors.
Project Success
A number of factors contribute to project success, whether success is determined from the
end-users', clients', suppliers', stakeholders' or project team members' perspectives (Dvir et al.,
2006; Muller & Turner, 2007, 2010; Sadeh et al., 2000). Though project success has been tied to
project managers’ leadership styles and personality orientations (Dvir et al., 2006; Muller &
Turner, 2007, 2010), the nature of communicative behaviors associated with project success has
been speculative in nature. The findings here, that messy talk-actual behaviors and use of
information systems were significant predictors of project success, are particularly helpful as
both messy talk and open communication environments address the coordination challenges
associated with diverse membership and decision making norms (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008;
Baiden & Price, 2011).
Although these findings are preliminary in nature, questions regarding the development
of project team managers’ and team members’ messy talk skills immediately come to mind.
Specifically, what skills are necessary to interface with both technological skills such as a
whiteboard and the interpersonal skills to persist in directing team members to the implications
of an action? What training best facilitates leaders’ and members’ vigilantly engaging in messy
talk behaviors over an extended period of time? Similarly, how is an open communication
environment created and sustained in a project team setting? The elements of an open
communication climate, a theoretically related construct, have been long known (Redding,
1972), but how to cultivate an open environment is less known. Given prospective importance of

45

messy talk and open communication environments, it is hoped that future investigations will
explore the relationship of these behaviors in project team settings.
Limitations
In an effort to gain greater insight into the communication behaviors of project managers,
this study sought out individuals with two years of project team experience. The rationale for
seeking this sample population was to avoid project managers’ self-reports (e.g., Dvir et al.,
2006). The present study’s sample consisted of 157 individuals, out of which there were
approximately 100 usable responses, which hindered the ability to identify weak statistical
associations (Cohen, 1988), in part due to large confidence intervals (r = + .13 at p<.05). The
relatively small sample size also introduces volatility into factor loadings and dimensionality for
principal components factor analyses. Thus, findings from this study should be viewed with
caution pending further testing.
The study also sought to investigate projects across a range of industries. However, the
sample was skewed towards software and electronics, and responses from participants in those
industries may not be readily applicable to manufacturing industries, for example. The scale
developed for technological uncertainty initially composed of six items. Following factor
analytic tests, the remaining three items (e.g., to what extent did the project go through multiple
design cycles before it reached final configuration and final specification/i.e., frozen?) may also
be more suitable for high tech industries versus the manufacturing industry. At the same time, it
should be noted that significant differences in information systems and technological uncertainty
were not found due to industry type, bolstering confidence in the generalizability of the findings
across industries and pointing to the need to consider differences in technological uncertainty in
future investigations as potential moderators.

46

In terms of other investigations of project managers across a range of industries (e.g.,
agriculture, chemistry, commercial high tech, construction, defense, engineering, information
and telecommunication, software), limited comparisons of their samples (Dvir et al., 2006;
Malach-Pines et al., 2009; Muller & Turner, 2010; Turner et al., 2009) with the present study are
possible. Distributions of males and females, educational achievement, and popular product
delivery locations (e.g., North America) are similar. Other studies tend to sample individuals
who are older in age (e.g., M = 38 years, Dvir et al., 2006). However, this study sought to access
the perceptions of team members, who with two years project team experience, could report on
their project managers. As such, participants in this study were younger (M = 27.2, range 24 to
43).
As individuals might perceive project teams’ communication needs differently with a
greater number of project team experiences, future investigations should endeavor to secure a
sample with a broader age range as well as range in project team experiences. Differences in
perceptions where greater need for messy talk, for example, is associated with age or number of
experiences might suggest individuals receiving assignments of greater difficulty or longer
duration.
In terms of assessing the internal validity of measures in this study, factor analytic tests
provided insights into the association and dimensionality of scale items. Confidence in the scale
validity would be increased by sampling individuals from a range of industries and who are at
various stages of project completion (e.g., design phase, delivery phase, maintenance phase). In
addition, reports from project team members about their team managers would be bolstered by
open-ended questions asked through structured interviews that may provide insights into the
emergence and use of messy talk behaviors and open communication environments.

47

Future Research
Organizations strategically (or unwittingly) structure their project teams to immerse their
members in explicit information or to develop tacit knowledge (Carrillo & Chinowsky, 2006;
Dossick & Neff, 2011; Whyte et al., 2008), which speaks to the need to understand the use of
messy talk, especially in tacit knowledge contexts. Table 5 presents a framework for how project
managers’ communication behaviors might vary across technological uncertainty environments
and information system availability. The materials in the table emerge from an agency
orientation, where the project manager is assumed to be responsible for capitalizing on
opportunities and address project challenges or match their abilities with the present
contingency. For the sake of brevity, only the aspects of coordination challenges are presented
here.
Where project team information system are a primary organizing tool, IT centric information
systems provide its users with information through advanced design tools, emails, standard
operations guides, diagrams, charts, rules, plans, and schedules (Adler, 1995; Dossick & Neff,
2011). In base technology projects, managers are likely to act primarily as administrators and
focus their energies on keeping project schedule on track, within budget, and aligned with initial
project design (Shenhar, 1998). Major communication challenges in IT-centric information
system facing those project managers include: creating conversations among participants; and
prompting participants to discuss the implications of data entry iterations.
Key technology projects typically have weekly or biweekly meetings, but BIM and CAD
systems alone may not facilitate sufficient integration. Hence, project managers are likely to host
occasional informal meetings and promote discussions on non-routine information, actively
encourage the sharing of tacit knowledge, provide feedback, and maintain open communication

48

Table 5. Integrated Framework of Technological Uncertainty and Information Systems
Technological Uncertainty
Base Technology
1. Projects deal with base
technology and little or no
developmental work
2. Design and specifications
clearly stated before
execution phase

The "What"/ IT Centric

Information Sharing Modes

3. Members mostly deal with
routine information and
gather known objective data
4. Action based response to
routine information is
expected
5. Explicit information
transferred via diagrams,
models, and structures
6. Project manager keeps
design schedule on track,
and project within budget

7. Project manager monitors
quick responses to routine
information

8. Project manager hosts
monthly or bimonthly formal
meetings and promotes
discussions on updates and
routine information
9. Project manager hosts
sporadic informal meetings
to create conversations that
will not normally happen

Key Technology

Pacing Technology

1. Projects deal with key
technology and some
developmental work
2. Design and specifications
go through a few design
cycles before execution
phase
3. Members deal with routine
and occasional non-routine
information; gather known
and new objective data
4. Action based response to
routine information is
expected
5. Explicit information
transferred via diagrams,
models, and structures
6. Project manager keeps
design schedule on track,
and avoids excessive design
changes

1. Projects deal with pacing
technology and lot of
developmental work
2. Design and specifications
go through multiple
design cycles before
execution phase
3. Members mostly deal
with non-routine
information and gather
new objective data
4. Action based response to
routine information is
expected
5. Explicit information
transferred via diagrams,
models, and structures
6. Project manager is
flexible with design
schedule, and ensures
some slack time before
design is finalized
7. Project manager promotes
discussion based
responses to both routine
and non-routine
information
8. Project manager hosts
frequent formal meetings
and promotes discussions
on routine information
and its impact on nonroutine information
9. Project manager hosts
regular informal meetings
to promote continuous
discussions on nonroutine information

7. Project manager monitors
quick responses to routine
information, and promotes
discussion based responses
to non-routine information
8. Project manager hosts
weekly or biweekly formal
meetings and promotes
discussions on updates and
routine information
9. Project manager
occasionally hosts informal
meetings to promote
discussions on non-routine
information

49

Table 5 (Cont'd)
Technological Uncertainty

The "Why"/ HRM Centric

Information Sharing Modes

Base Technology

Key Technology

Pacing Technology

1. Projects deal with base
technology and little or no
developmental work

1. Projects deal with key
technology and some
developmental work

1. Projects deal with pacing
technology and lot of
developmental work

2. Design and specifications
clearly stated before
execution phase

2. Design and specifications
go through a few design
cycles before execution
phase

2. Design and specifications
go through multiple
design cycles before
execution phase

3. Members mostly deal with
routine information and
gather known objective data
4. Decision based response to
non-routine information is
enabled via ‘messy talk’

3. Members deal with routine
and occasional non-routine
information; gather known
and new objective data
4. Decision based response to
non-routine information is
enabled via ‘messy talk’

5. Tacit information transferred
using face-to-face
communication and whiteboard discussion

5. Tacit information
transferred using face-toface communication and
white-board discussion

3. Members mostly deal
with non-routine
information and gather
new objective data
4. Decision based response
to non-routine
information is enabled via
‘messy talk’
5. Tacit information
transferred using face-toface communication and
white board-discussion

6. Project manager keeps
design schedule on track,
and project within budget

6. Project manager keeps
design schedule on track,
and avoids excessive design
changes

7. Project manager promotes
quick responses to routine
information

7. Project manager promotes
quick responses to routine
information, and monitors
discussion based responses
to non-routine information

8. Project manager hosts
monthly or bimonthly formal
meetings and monitors
discussions on updates and
routine information

8. Project manager hosts
weekly or biweekly formal
meetings and monitors
discussions on updates and
routine information

9. Project manager hosts
sporadic informal meetings
to create conversations on
non-routine information

9. Project manager hosts
frequent informal meetings
to discuss non-routine
information

50

6. Project manager is
flexible with design
schedule, and ensures
some slack time before
design is finalized
7. Project manager monitors
discussion based
responses to both routine
and non-routine
information
8. Project manager hosts
frequent formal meetings
and monitors discussions
on routine information
and its impact on nonroutine information
9. Project manager hosts ongoing informal meetings,
with occasional
involvement of outside
experts, to continuously
discuss non-routine
information

channels (Daft & Lengel, 1988; Dossick & Neff, 2011; Poole, 2011; Van de Ven et al., 1976). In
turn, pacing technology projects undergo considerable testing and redesign (Shenhar, 1998;
Shenhar & Dvir, 1996; Raz et al., 2002). Due to the dynamic nature of the project evolution in
this setting (Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996), project managers are likely to analyze and
disseminate information and regularly provide feedback to team members. In addition, project
managers under pacing technology conditions are likely to be additionally challenged with
coordinating information dissemination across specialties, host regular informal meetings, and
maintain open communication channels (Daft & Lengel, 1988; Poole, 2011; Van de Ven et al.,
1976).
In contrast, HR-centric information sharing systems are designed to assist project
participants’ discussion of tacit information through white-board discussions, scheduled and
unscheduled meetings. The extent to which members engage in messy talk will reduce errors in
processing information. In base technology projects, annotation tools in the software may be
largely unneeded as data should be relatively routine and standard and excessive discussion may
spur information overload and confusion (Lengel & Daft, 1988). Thus, communication
challenges of project managers in base technology conditions with HR-centric information
systems include: the monitoring of conversations to promote efficient responses to routine
information; ensuring discussions via the software and in meetings on non-routine information;
and keeping projects on schedule and within budget.
In key technological projects, it is very important that project managers assist team
members to respond efficiently to routine data and ensure discussion-based responses to nonroutine information (Daft & Lengel, 1988; Dossick & Neff, 2011; Dvir et al., 2006). The HR
centric information system is expected to provide a good fit to key technology projects due to its

51

ability to reduce errors in processing information due to annotations and regular meetings
(Carrillo & Chinowsky, 2006; Whyte et al., 2008). Communication challenges of project
managers in this setting are: to monitor participant discussions; to promote efficient responses to
routine information; to encourage annotations for the sharing of tacit knowledge and host
informal meetings to discuss non-routine data; and to avoid excessive costs due to design
changes and keep project on schedule. For pacing technology projects, communication is likely
to be intense with on-going formal and informal meetings as follow up to and leading to
annotations (Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996). Given the probability of multiple design
cycles, the communication challenges of these project managers include administrating the
project (e.g., keep within budget, on-time), maintaining an open communication environment,
actively providing feedback and encouraging information sharing, facilitating informal meetings,
and, in some cases, inviting external experts to the project in order to solicit insights to the
project.
Although this study primarily categorized projects based on their technological
uncertainty, project complexity, novelty, and pace (Malach-Pines et al., 2009) are also major
influences on the strategic selection and development of project coordination systems (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Van de Ven & Walker, 1984). To better understand the enactment of formal and
informal micro-information exchange sharing systems, future investigations might be wellserved by considering the development as well as the evaluation of communicative protocols
surrounding “successful” and “unsuccessful” projects. For example, standard use of more formal
information systems and reporting procedures, common to IT centric information systems, may
be adequate at the initiation of a project, but then become a hindrance (Dossick & Neff, 2009).

52

Organizations may promote the use of messy talk interactions, but its implementation may be
flawed or not supported by the team or organization (Dossick & Neff, 2010).
Future studies should also consider longitudinal investigations where responses are
solicited from members of the same team over time. The value of collecting responses from
members of the same team, working on the same project, and under the same manager over time
can lead to a better understanding of the viability of messy talk under a range of conditions, how
open communication environments emerge and are reconstituted following conflicts (Druskat &
Wheeler, 2003; Lewis, 2000), and how team members as well as outsiders perceive the project
team’s operations (Crawford, 2005). Longitudinal investigations can also improve scale validity
through confirming factorial dimensions over different points in time and establishing predictive
validity through the use of more elaborate criterion variables associated coordination processes
(Adler, 1995; Argyres, 1999; Daft & Lengel, 1986) and with project outcomes (Dvir et al., 2006;
Muller & Turner, 2007, 2010; Sadeh et al., 2000).
Summary
This study sought to explore project managers' communication behaviors in cross section
of industry settings. The study was comprised of five research questions, in which the first two
questions inquired into the perceived importance and the actual communication behaviors of
project managers given the challenges of their projects. The next two research questions inquired
into the communication challenges of project managers when working with different types of
information systems and different types of project technologies respectively. The final research
question aimed at identifying the relationship of team members' perceptions of their project
leaders' communication behaviors, information system use, and technological uncertainty to
project success.

53

Important contributions of this study to the project management research literature
include the development of measurement scales for messy talk, open communication
environment, information systems, and technological uncertainty, which may enable researchers
to understand better how project teams’ exchange information and their contextual challenges.
Findings also reveal significant differences between team members' perceptions of the
importance of project managers' communication behaviors (messy talk and open communication
environment) and actual reported project managers' communication behaviors (messy talk and
open communication environment). Furthermore, messy talk - actual reported and information
systems use were found to be significant predictors of project success. It is hoped that these
findings, though tentative, will assist in understanding the nature and role of project managers’
communication behaviors in all phases of project development.

54

APPENDICES

55

Appendix A
Project Manager Communication Behaviors

Messy Talk

To what extent did your project manager…

encourage team members to incorporate discussion tools (e.g. whiteboards or blackboards,
notepads, visual diagrams or models) during meetings?
encourage team members to raise concerns during face-to-face or online meetings?
converse with others about design or task issues during face-to-face or online meetings?
prompt members to make comments, annotate, or raise questions using software (e.g. group
support systems, product model software)?
encourage project team members to engage in discussions after face-to-face or online meetings?

56

Appendix B
Project Manager Communication Behaviors

Monitoring

To what extent does your project manager…

monitor team and team member performance?
keep informed about what other teams are doing?
request task-relevant information from team members?
refer to regulations pertaining to the process or product?
check project progress?
provide feedback on team's performance?
inspect the team's work?

57

Appendix C
Project Manager Communication Behaviors

Open Communication Environment

To what extent did your project manager…

encourage team members to talk openly with each other?
encourage team members to talk to openly to him/her regarding task related issues?
make sure all team members were sharing information about the project?
help team members to be comfortable sharing issues/problems with each other?
make members comfortable in asking advice from others?

58

Appendix D
Project Manager Communication Behaviors
Initiating Structure and Planning

Establish expectations and goals
Defines and emphasizes team expectations
Asks team members to follow standard rules and regulations
Communicates what is expected of the team
Communicates expectations for high team performance
Maintains clear standards of performance
Sets or helps set challenging and realistic goals
Establishes or helps establish goals for the team’s work
Ensures that the team has clear performance goals
Works with the team and individuals in the team to develop performance goals
Reviews team goals for realism, challenge, and business necessity

Structure and plan
Defines and structures own work and the work of the team
Identifies when key aspects of the work need to be completed
Works with the team to develop the best possible approach to its work
Develops or helps develop standard operating procedures and standardized processes
Clarifies task performance strategies
Makes sure team members have clear roles

59

Appendix E

IT-Centric/HRM-Centric Information Systems
Directions:
The following questions pertain to information sharing mediums used by your project
management group during your last project.
By information sharing mediums, we refer to design tools such as Computer Aided Design
(CAD), Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM), Building Information Modeling (BIM),
Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application (CATIA), Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP), Systems, Applications, and Products (SAP), or Group Support Systems (GSS).

1. In your last project, please indicate which of the following information sharing mediums were
used by your project management group (please check all that apply):
___ Computer Aided Design (CAD)
___ Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM)
___ Building Information Modeling (BIM)
___ Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application (CATIA)
___ Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
___ Systems, Applications, and Products (SAP)
___ Group Support Systems (GSS)
___ Other (please name _____________________________________________________)
2. To what extent did the information sharing mediums allow members to ask questions and
obtain answers as they arise?

60

3. To what extent did the information sharing mediums allow members to have discussions (e.g.,
group chat, whiteboard, annotations) before responding or executing a task?
4. To what extent did the information sharing mediums support multiple communication cues
such as body language, voice, tone, etc.?
5. To what extent did the information sharing mediums allow members to express the intensity of
their opinions or feelings in their entries?
6. To what extent did your project team follow standard operating procedures (SOPs) to share
information?

61

Appendix F

Technological Uncertainty
Directions:
The following questions address the “technology” that your project is using to produce a product
or outcome (e.g., software application).

1. How well known or widespread (i.e., mature) was the technology used in creating the product
or outcome?
2. To what extent did the project technology processes require modification or development
work?
3. To what extent have project teams in your organization used this technology in the design
process or throughput process?
4. To what extent did the technology to create the product or outcome not exist in the past or was
new to your industry?
5. To what extent did the project go through multiple design cycles before it reached final
configuration and final specification (i.e., frozen)?
6. To what extent did the project involve computerized planning?

62

Appendix G

Project Success

Indicate the extent of your project's success along these measures

1. End-user satisfaction with the project’s product or service
2. Suppliers’ satisfaction
3. Project team’s satisfaction
4. Other stakeholders’ satisfaction
5. Meeting project’s overall performance (functionality, budget and timing)
6. Meeting user requirements
7. Meeting the project’s purpose
8. Client satisfaction with the project results
9. Reoccurring business with the client
10. Meeting the respondent’s self-defined success factor

63

REFERENCES

64

REFERENCES
Adler, P. S. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the
design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147-168.
Ammeter, A. P. & Dukerich, J. M. (2002). Assessing the impact of leadership, team building,
and team member characteristics in creating high performance project teams.
Engineering Management Journal, 14(4), 3-10.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2008). The role of technology in the project manager performance
model. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 34-48.
Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008). Knowledge transfer in project‐ based organizations:
An organizational culture perspective. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 7-15.
Argyres, N. S. (1999). The impact of information technology on coordination: Evidence from the
B-2 "stealth" bomber. Organization Science, 10(2), 162-180.
Baiden, B. K., & Price, A. D. (2011). The effect of integration on project delivery team
effectiveness. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 129-136.
Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: creating value through
interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367-403.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York:
Wiley.
Brill, J. M., Bishop, M. J., & Walker, A. E. (2006). The competencies and characteristics
required of an effective project manager: A web-based Delphi study. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 115-140.
Carrillo, P., & Chinowsky, P. (2006). Exploiting knowledge management: The engineering and
construction perspective. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22(1), 2-10.
Christenson, D., & Walker, D. H. (2004). Understanding the role of" vision" in project
success. Engineering Management Review, IEEE, 32(4), 57-73.
Chen, M. T. (1997). The modern project manager. Cost Engineering, 39(3), 27-30.
Cleland, D. I. (1995). Leadership and the project-management body of knowledge. International
Journal of Project Management, 13(2), 83-88.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, Y., Ornoy, H., & Keren, B. (2013). MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and
Their Success: A Field Survey. Project Management Journal,44(3), 78-87.
65

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 20(3), 185-190.
Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management competence.
International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 7-16.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial
behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.
Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality
of information processing in work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 207224.
Das, T. K., & Bing, S. T. (2000). A resource based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of
Management, 26(1), 31-61.
Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2009). Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial
construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), 459-467.
Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2011). Messy talk and clean technology: communication, problemsolving and collaboration using Building Information Modeling. The Engineering Project
Organization Journal, 1(2), 83-93.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership
of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435-457.
Dulewicz, S. V., & Higgs, M. J. (2004). Design of a new instrument to assess leadership
dimensions and styles. Selection and Development Review, 20(2), 7-12.
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., & Malach-Pines, A. (2006). Projects and project managers: the relationship
between project managers' personality, project types, and project success. Project
Management Quarterly, 37(5), 36-48.
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215-242.
Edum-Fotwe, F. T., & McCaffer, R. (2000). Developing project management competency:
Perspectives from the construction industry. International Journal of Project
Management, 18(2), 111-124.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Witten, M. G. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organizational
communication. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 418-426.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the twodimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 17-26.
66

El-Sabaa, S. (2001). The skills and career path of an effective project manager. International
Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 1-7.
Faraj, I., Alshawi, M., Aouad, G., Child, T., & Underwood, J. (1999). Distributed object
environment: using international standards for data exchange in the construction
industry. Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 14(6), 395-405.
Gaddis, P. O. (1959). The project manager. Harvard Business Review, 37(3), 89-97.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Geoghegan, L., & Dulewicz, V. (2008). Do project managers' leadership competencies
contribute to project success? Project Management Journal, 39(4), 58-67.
Globerson, S., & Zwikael, O. (2002). The impact of the project manager on project management
planning processes. Project Management Journal, 33(3), 58-64.
Hall, J. K., & Martin, M. J. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation
value‐ added chain: A framework for evaluating radical technology development. R&D
Management, 35(3), 273-284.
Harman, C., & Brelade, S. (2000). Knowledge management and the role of HR. Harlow, U. K.:
Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Harris, E., & Woolley, R. (2009). Facilitating innovation through cognitive mapping of
uncertainty. International Studies of Management and Organization,39(1), 70-100.
Henderson, L. S. (2008). The impact of project managers' communication competencies:
Validation and extension of a research model for virtuality, satisfaction, and productivity
on project teams. Project Management Journal, 39(2), 48-59.
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organization: an ideal form for managing complex
products and systems? Research Policy, 29(7), 871-893.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of
International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies:
A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management
Review, 37(1), 82-106.
Hunter, J. E. (1980). Factor analysis. In P. R. Monge & J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Multivariate
techniques in human communication research (pp. 229-258). New York: Academic
Press.
Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor
analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-320.

67

Jablin, F.M., Cude, R.L., House, A., Lee, J. & Roth, N.L. (1994). Communication competence in
organizations: Conceptualizations and comparison across multiple levels of analysis. In
L. Thayer & G. Barnett (Eds.) Emerging Perspectives in Organizational Communication
(Vol. 4, pp. 114-140). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Jablin, F. M., & Sias, P. M. (2001). Communication competence. In Jablin, F. M. & Putnam, L.
L. (eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory,
research, and methods (2nd ed.) (pp. 819-864). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jashapara, A. (2004). Knowledge management: An integrated approach. Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Jensen, C., Johansson, S., & Lofstrom, M. (2006). Project relationships–a model for analyzing
interactional uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 4-12.
Kerzner, H. (1979). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and
controlling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kerzner, H., & Thamhain, H. J. (1984). Project management for small and medium size
businesses. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C.
Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 333-375).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. (1969). Organization and environment: Managing
differentiation and integration. Harwood, IL: Irwin.
Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1988). The selection of communication media as an executive skill.
Academy of Management Executive, 2(3), 225-232.
Lewis, L. K. (2000). “Blindsided by that one” and “I saw that one coming”: The relative
anticipation and occurrence of communication problems and other problems in
implementers’ hindsight. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1), 44–67.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational Change: Creating change through strategic
communication. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Little, A. D. (1981). The strategic management of technology. London, UK: European
Management Forum.
Liston, K., Fischer, M., & Kunz, J. (2000, August). Designing and evaluating visualization
techniques for construction planning. In Proc. of the 8th International Conference on
Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBE-VIII), Stanford University,
Stanford, CA (pp. 1293-300).
Liston, K., Fischer, M., & Winograd, T. (2001). Focused sharing of information for
multidisciplinary decision making by project teams. ITcon, 6, 69-82.

68

Lukka, K., & Kasanen, E. (1995). The problem of generalizability: Anecdotes and evidence in
accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(5), 71-90.
Luthans, F., & Lockwood, D. L. (1984). Toward an observation system for measuring leader
behavior in natural settings. In J. G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart
(Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and
leadership (pp. 117-141). New York: Pergamon Press.
Malach-Pines, A., Dvir, D., & Sadeh, A. (2009). Project manager-project (PM-P) fit and project
success. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(3), 268-291.
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A research and
pedagogical perspective. Communication Education, 31(1), 1-7.
Meredith, R., Posner, B. Z., & Mantel, S. J., Jr. (1995). Project management: A managerial
approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, K., Scott, C. R., Stage, C., & Birkholt, M. (1995). Communication and coordination in an
interorganizational system service provision for the urban homeless. Communication
Research, 22(6), 679-699.
Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator
competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. Communication
yearbook 5 (pp. 505-528). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional
approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management,
36(1), 5-39.
Muller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project
type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21-32.
Muller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project
managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 437-448.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 14-37.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1977). Task group structure, communication, and
effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(6), 674-681.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1)
129-141.
Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review
of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108-1136.

69

Pettersen, N. (1991). What do we know about the effective project manager? International
Journal of Project Management, 9(2), 99-104.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Poole, M. S. (2011). Communication. In S. Zedeck (Ed.) APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 3., pp. 249-270). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Assocation.
Raz, T., Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2002). Risk management, project success, and technological
uncertainty. R&D Management, 32(2), 101-109.
Roussel, P. A., Saad, K. N., & Erickson, T. J. (1991). Third generation R&D: Managing the link
to corporate strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive review of theory
and research. New York: Industrial Communication Council.
Rwelamila, P. D. (1989). The construction project manager and human group theories. Cost
Engineering Journal, 31(7), 19-23.
Sadeh, A., Dvir, D., & Shenhar, A. (2000). The role of contract type in the success of R&D
defense projects under increasing uncertainty. Project Management Journal, 31(3), 1422.
Schmid, B., & Adams, J. (2008). Motivation in project management: the project manager's
perspective. Project Management Journal, 39(2), 60-71.
Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. A. (1977). Interorganizational relationships: Patterns and
motivations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2), 220-234.
Scott-Young, C., & Samson, D. (2008). Project success and project team management: Evidence
from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6),
749-766.
Shenhar, A. J. (1998). From theory to practice: toward a typology of project-management
styles. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, 45(1), 33-48.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a typological theory of project management. Research
Policy, 25(4), 607-632.
Sommerville, J., Craig, N., & Hendry, J. (2010). The role of the project manager: all things to all
people? Structural Survey, 28(2), 132-141.
Song, M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on
Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 61-80.

70

Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., & DeFillippi, R. (2004). Project-based organizations, embeddedness
and repositories of knowledge. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1475-1489.
Thamhain, H. J. (1999, January). Effective project leadership in complex self-directed team
environments. In Systems Sciences, 1999, HICSS-32. Paper presented at the Proceedings
of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference (USA), Maui, Hawaii (pp. 1-12).
IEEE.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Leading Technology-Based Project Teams. Engineering Management
Journal, 16(2), 35-42.
Thite, M. (1999, August). Leadership: A critical success factor in IT project management,
technology and innovation management. In Management of Engineering and Technology,
1999, PICMET'99. Paper presented at the Portland International Conference on
Management and Technology (USA), Portland, Orlando (pp. 298-303). IEEE.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. Chicago: McGraw- Hill.
Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge management toolkit: Practical techniques for building a
knowledge management system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
Tsang, E. W. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy
between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 73-89.
Turner, J. R., & Muller, R. (2005). The project manger's leadership style as a success factor on
projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49-61.
Turner, J. R., Muller, R., & Dulewicz, V. (2009). Comparing the leadership styles of functional
and project managers. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(2), 198216.
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational
environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439-465.
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in
Organizational Design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613-624.
Van de Ven, A. L., Delbecq, & Koenig, R., Jr. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes
within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41(2), 322-338.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Walker, G. (1984). The dynamics of interorganizational coordination.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 598-621.
Weiss, J. W., & Anderson, D. (2003, January). CIOs and IT professionals as change agents, risk
and stakeholder managers: A field study. In System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the
36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (3152-3159).

71

Williamson, O. (1975). Market and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York:
Free Press.
Whitley, R. (2006). Project-based firms: new organizational form or variations on a theme?
Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(1), 77-99.
Whyte, J., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M., & Tidd, J. (2008). Visualizing knowledge in project-based
work. Long Range Planning, 41(1), 74-92.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3),
125-145.

72