Effective Project Leadership in Complex Self-Directed Team Environments

Project performance is not determined merely by the type of management tools and processes used, but depends largely on the way in which these tools are integrated with the work process and the project team to support the activities toward scope, quality, time and cost objectives. Based on field research of best-in-class practices, the paper discusses leadership style effectiveness, including the criteria for using management tools and techniques effectively in team-centered work environments. The paper concludes that project performance is strongly influenced by leadership style and the integration of the management tools with the team and the project management process. A New Business Environment For several decades, the complexities of our business environment and its projects have steadily increased, both in work and organizational dimensions, requiring strong multidisciplinary job skills, evolving solutions, innovation, cross-functional teamwork and decision-making, intricate multicompany alliances and highly complex forms of work integration (Barner, 1997; Marshall, 1994). Project success relies to a considerable extent on member-generated performance norms and work processes, rather than supervision, policies and procedures (Zenger, 1989). Further, self-directed teams are gradually replacing the traditional, more hierarchically structured project team (Engel, 1997; Fisher, 1993; Shonk, 1996), and have become an important vehicle for orchestrating and managing these projects. In addition, companies are investing heavily in new project management tools and techniques (Rigby, 1995; Thamhain, 1997), ranging from computer software for sophisticated schedule and budget tracking to intricate organizational process designs, such as concurrent engineering and stage-gate protocols (Thamhain, 1996). While this shift to more sophisticated tools and processes is the result of changing business cultures, project complexities, technological capabilities, and market structures, it also requires radical departures from traditional management philosophy and operating practices on organization, motivation, leadership and project control (Gupta & Wilemon, 1996; Shaw & Randolph, 1991). As a result, traditional management tools and processes, designed largely for top-down control and centralized command and communications, are no longer sufficient for generating satisfactory results. The new project management tools that evolved are often more integrated with the business process and offer more sophisticated capabilities for project tracking and control in an environment that is not only different in culture, but also has to deal with a broad spectrum of contemporary challenges, such as time-to-market, accelerating technologies, innovation, resource limitations, technical complexities, project metrics, operational dynamics, risk, and uncertainty (Trichy & Ulrich, 1984; Thamhain, 1997). Yet, many managers find that these modern tools also requires new skills and a more sophisticated management style. All of this has a profound impact on the way project leaders must manage and lead. The methods of communication, decision making, soliciting commitment, and risk sharing are shifting constantly away from a centralized, autocratic management style to a team-centered, more self-directed form of project control. Equally important, project control has radically departed from its narrow 0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE 1 Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1999 Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1999 focus of satisfying schedule and budget constraints to a much broader and more balanced managerial approach which focuses on the effective search for solutions to complex problems. This requires trade-offs among many parameters, such as creativity, change-orientation, quality and traditional schedule and budget constraints (Hatfield, 1995). Control also relies on team members’ accountability and commitment toward the project objectives (Shonk, 1996; Trichy & Ulrich, 1984). Responding to the challenges of today’s project undertakings and the limitations of traditional controls, a large number of new concepts, tools, and techniques evolved, promising more effective alternatives and enhancements to traditional forms of project control. Moreover, manageral focus has shifted from the mechanics of controlling projects according to established schedules and budgets, to the challenges of integrating project management tools effectively with the project team. Success for today’s projects often depends on innovative solutions to complex problems, and flexible change-oriented implementation of the project plan. Field studies consistently show that traditional methods with their strict focus on schedule/budget tracking and control are often useless and can be even counterproductive to overall project performance (Cash & Fox, 1992; Hatfield, 1995, Thamhain, 1996). An Increased Focus on Team Building Teamwork is not a new idea. The basic concepts of organizing and managing teams go back in history to biblical times and teamwork has long been considered an effective device to enhance organizational effectiveness. Since the discovery of the importance of social phenomena in the classic Hawthorne studies by Roethlingsberger and Dickinson (1939), management theorists and practitioners have tried to enhance group identity and cohesion in the workplace (Dyer, 1977). In fact, much of the human relations movement that occurred in the decades following Hawthorne is based on a group concept. McGregor’s (1960) theory Y, for example, spells out the criteria for an effective work group, and Likert (1961) called his highest form of management the participating group or system 4. However, the process of team building becomes more complex and requires more specialized management skills as bureaucratic hierarchies decline and teams operate more as cross-functional networks. In these organizations, horizontally oriented work teams became increasingly important to effective project management (Fisher, 1993; Marshall, 1995; Shonk, 1996). These teams became the conduit for transferring information, technology, and work concepts across functional lines quickly, predictably, and within given resource restraints. Typical examples of such contemporary teams range from dedicated venture groups, often called skunk works, to product development teams, process action teams, and focus groups. These team concepts are being applied to different forms of project activities in areas of products, services, acquisition efforts, political election campaigns, and foreign assistance programs. For these kinds of highly multifunctional and nonlinear processes, researchers stress the need for strong integration and orchestration of cross-functional activities, linking the various work groups into a unified project team that focuses energy and integrates all subtasks toward desired results. Further, the life cycle of these teams often spans across the complete project, not just the phase of primary engagement. For example, the primary mission of the product development team may focus on the engineering phase, but the team also supports activities ranging from recognition of