FROM TRADITIONAL TO NON-TRADITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT:
How do project leaders and followers make sense of the shift from traditional to non-traditional project management?
February 2020 Isabelle de Harder S2377497 Word Count: 12518 Master thesis
MSc BA: Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen
ABSTRACT
Project management has been under pressure for the last decades. Due to market demands, projects have been challenged to become more flexible, which has led to a shift in management approach and leadership style. This push for change has not only affected the projects’ output, but even more so, the social dynamic within these projects, leaving its people to the task to make sense of it all. As existing literature on sensemaking by leaders and followers in this shift in project management is limited, this study has aimed to gather the first insights on the sensemaking process of both leaders and followers. A multiple-case study was conducted, informed by interviews, observations and documentation at three projects in different companies. The findings show that leaders and followers engage in a sensemaking process that initiates in the pre-implementation phase and continues throughout the implementation. By engaging in a process of weighing the benefits and the costs of the change, as well as its perceived effect on their role and their perceived efficacy, leaders and followers consequently form an attitude towards the change, which results in either change commitment or resistance.
Keywords: Project management, Sensemaking, Attitudes, Change commitment, Leader, Follower, Participation, Efficacy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract………...1
Introduction………....3
Literature Review………..………5
From Traditional to Non-traditional Project Management………..5
Leadership in Project Management………7
Sensemaking in PM Leadership………....10
Methodology………...12
Research Approach: Qualitative Multiple Case Study………..……12
Change Project……….…..13 Data Collection………...14 Data Analysis………...16 Research Quality………..……..17 Results………...17 Discussion……….30 Theoretical Contributions………..…32 Managerial Implications………...……….33
Limitations and Future Research………..….33
Conclusion……….34
References……….35
Appendices………43
Appendix 1 - Interview Protocol……….43
Appendix 2 - Observation Notes Meetings……….44
Appendix 3 - List of Interviewees………..48
Appendix 4 - Background Information Research Sites………...49
Appendix 5- Codebook, Open, Axial and Selective coding………50
INTRODUCTION
Our world is changing, and so are our organisations. Increased global competition, fast moving technological changes and more knowledge-based economies are putting great demands on our organisations. In order to survive and prosper, organisations need to constantly adjust and learn in order to deliver innovative and/or improved products and services (Handzic & Durmic, 2015). This changing environment puts pressure not only on our organisations, but also on the projects incessantly challenged by this constant stream of innovation, and the demand to deliver high quality more quickly and effectively at a reasonable cost (Cummings, 2004). Only by changing constantly, organisations hope to survive (Ewenstein, Smith & Sologar, 2015; McKinsey & Company, 2008). As a result, in order to deal with this increased pace, there has been a shift in project management approaches (PM hereafter), from traditional to non-traditional ones, which consequently translates into new ways of how these projects have been led over the past twenty years (Gablas, Ruzicky, Ondrouchova, 2018; Müller & Turner, 2007a). This shift does therefore not only affect an organisation’s output, but also its innerworkings. Ultimately, this ceaseless push for change challenges the social dynamic within organisations, leaving its people to grapple with the task to make sense of it all. With some researchers claiming that understanding the role of these micro organizational social processes, in specific: sensemaking, might be the answer to understanding different change outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Balogun, Bartunek, & Do, 2015; Sonenshein, 2010; Sonenshein & Dholakia, 2012; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).
goal-seeking and end-item accomplishment (Yeo, 1993). Nowadays, there is a demand for the incorporation of so-called softer approaches into PM practices, which shows an interest in the underlying social processes, combined with an emphasis on learning, a need for participation and the importance of the negotiation of the more ambiguous, ill-defined goals (Pollack, 2007). This soft approach is non-traditional PM, with specific variants such as agile or scrum methodologies (Gablas, Ruzicky & Ondrouchova, 2018; Gonçalves, 2018; Kumar; Singh & Jain, 2019).
As a result of this shift in PM approaches, there is also a need for different ways of leading these projects. The first leadership contingency theories already showed that leadership effectiveness is a function of the interaction between the leader and the situation (Fiedler, 1971; Fiedler, 1978; Saha, 1979) and this appears to be the case as well for project leadership, as research shows that different types of projects also require different management approaches and the right selection of project managers (Müller & Turner, 2007). Furthermore, research stresses the importance of leadership for project success (Anca, 2014; Blaskovics, 2016; DuBois, Koch, Hanlon, Nyatyga & Kerr, 2015; Galvin, Gibbs, Sullivan & Williams, 2014; Kaminsky, 2012), especially in shaping followers responses to change (Herold, Fedor & Liu, 2008).
of sensemaking, which has been defined as “the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” in order to deal with a surprising event, such as this shift in PM, that is associated with uncertainty for those involved (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). This makes the following research question a useful addition to research on leader and follower sensemaking in relation to the transition in PM:
How do project leaders and followers make sense of the shift from traditional to non-traditional project management?
LITERATURE REVIEW From Traditional to Non-traditional Project Management
As mentioned in the introduction, the external environment of organisations is changing, leading to an internal shift in the way we conduct business. In this context, PM has become increasingly important. In order to stay competitive and fulfil the needs of customers, most companies constantly adjust and change (Handzic & Durmic, 2015). As mentioned previously, this change in pace is asking for different approaches to PM. The following section provides insights into the shift from the more traditional and ‘hard’ to non-traditional and ‘soft’ conduct of PM.
and interrelated set of activities. It is no longer appropriate to just focus on efficiency, operational performance and the meeting of time and budgetary goals (Shenhar, et al., 2005). In order to bring successful change, numerous management functions need to be combined, such as constant risk monitoring, resource optimisation, taking care of contractual relations, dealing with multi-criteria decision-making, and constant awareness of change (Gablas, Ruzicky, & Ondrouchova, 2018). This shift from traditional to non-traditional PM can not only be seen in practice, but also in the focus of research objectives. Research publications between 1962 and 2012 show a shift from PM in technical and industry-specific issues in the early development of the field to an emphasis on the interpersonal aspects of PM and the role of the field in a broader organizational context. The focus currently is more on PM combined with environmental issues, strategic planning, project managers, knowledge managers and innovation (Pollack & Adler, 2015). This change in PM, and in addition the increased complexity, is making the agile style of project management a very popular one, due to its interactive and flexible nature. The agile approach in PM is derived from methods used for software development, as they enable quick adaptations in the incremental development of a product. However, agile methods are not bound exclusively to the IT sector anymore and are now used in many project cases. They have become prominent in PM, mainly due to their flexibility, dynamics and effectivity; with a focus on individuals and interactions over processes and tools, working software over comprehensive documentation, customer collaboration over contract negotiation and responding to changes, instead of following a predetermined plan (Gablas, Ruzicky & Ondrouchova, 2018).
using softer tools that helps them manage these complex projects (San Cristóbal, Diaz, González, Madariaga, López, & Trueba, 2016).
Evidently, a demand for change in PM alone does not guarantee its successful implementation. As iterated in the introduction, 70% of change implementation still fails. So, why is that? We observe a shift in working methods. We are also aware of the importance of aligning our PM approaches and certain types of leadership. Yet, managers do not always seem to practice what they preach (Papke-Shields, Beise & Quan, 2010). More often than not, PM practices remain focused on the traditional ‘iron triangle’ of time, cost and scope. Moving away from this, and towards the needed, non-traditional focus on practices associated with communications, quality and risk, proves to be easier said than done. Time, cost and scope are among the most well-established areas of PM, with seasoned project managers generally having had more training, experience and feeling more familiar with these traditional dimensions. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the move towards the more unfamiliar, ‘softer’ approaches to PM cannot be expected to be the most natural, let alone, easiest one to carry out (Papke-Shields, Beise & Quan, 2010). This observation implies that, although we might theoretically know what is needed, experienced project leaders and employees have a hard time putting this knowledge into practice, or even just to ‘make sense’ of these new conditions. In order to explore this conundrum further, the following sections will, firstly, delve deeper into the matter of leadership styles within PM, and secondly, look at how the concept of sensemaking can play a crucial part in the shift in PM approaches and leadership styles.
Leadership in Project Management
implementations caused research to focus on leadership directly related to change and PM (Carter et al., 2013; Herold et al, 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2011; Lindgren & Packendorff, 2009). The leadership style of a project manager is vital not only for completing project responsibilities but also for facilitating the problem-solving skills of project team members. Thus, it is imperative to know the needed leadership skills of the project managers for a successful project outcome (Nixon et al., 2012; Toader et al., 2010). However, before looking into the needed skills for non-traditional PM, first an overview will be presented of the development of dominant leadership theories that form the basis of the change- and PM leadership theories, in order to understand leadership in line with the change of focus from traditional- to non-traditional PM.
2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2005). In addition, Shaping behaviours tended to be more encountered in programmatic change approaches, whereas Framing and Creating behaviours were predominantly found within approaches that recognize the change as a complex phenomenon. This is in line with other research that indicates that transformational leadership is preferred and more successful in complex change projects, whereas transactional leadership is best suited for simple, engineering projects (Carter et al., 2012; Muller & Turner, 2007). This distinction between leader-centric, transactional behaviours and group-focused, transformational behaviours, seems to be almost completely congruent with Pollack’s (2007) description of the paradigm shift from hard, traditional PM to soft, non-traditional PM and therefore once more stressing the importance of aligning the leadership style with the type of project.
skills, more focus should be put on the more interpersonal skills and most importantly, we need to realize that a one-size-fits all does not work for modern projects. (Rolstadas et al, 2001; Ramazini & Jergeas, 2015).
Sensemaking in PM Leadership
“How can I know what I think until I see what I say?” (Wallas, 1926, cited in Karl E. Weick, 1995, p. 12)
Weick was the first organisational theorist to provide a coherent theoretical framework for the concept of sensemaking in his work Sensemaking in Organizations (1995). As a concept, sensemaking involves the continuous act of “turning circumstances into a situation that is comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard into action” (Weick et al., 2005, p. 409). It is succinctly defined as “the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” by Weick et al. (2005, p. 409), but Weick’s earlier framework is more elaborate, outlining seven properties of organisational sensemaking: “identity, retrospect, enactment, social contact, ongoing events, cues, and plausibility” (Weick, 1995, p. 3). Identity, first of all, places our view of ourselves in the context of the world around us. According to the subsequent property, we turn our experiences into meaningful patterns based on our retrospective memory. Enactment refers to Weick’s idea that people produce (part of) their own environment: by sharing their preconceptions, they build their own narratives. Therefore, they can organise, predict and control events and outcomes. Social contact refers to the need for organisation to exist, as social collectives can help deal with the complexity of a world undergoing constant change: the aforementioned narratives are both individual as well as collective. This, in turn, refers to Weick’s property of ongoing events: sensemaking is happening constantly, occurring simultaneously with the continuous changes we face, in collaboration with the people surrounding us. Penultimately, cues are what help us make sense from what we register through the senses and perceptions of those constant changes. Finally, plausibility is what makes up for our inability to know everything: the familiarity we build through retrospective patterns often appeases us more than factual accuracy (Czarniawska, 2005; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005).
taking place within PM, combined with its correlated change in leadership styles, could be classified as one such radical change. Change interrupts normal patterns of organisations and calls for participants to enact new patterns, involving an interplay of deliberate and emergent processes that can be highly ambiguous (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). Thus, in times of chaos, it is sensemaking that enables people to deal with change through creating order and understanding through the process of social construction (Weick, 1995).
However, while sensemaking is well-established in strategic management and organisation studies (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; 2015; Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001; Sonnenhein, 2010), sensemaking is barely touched upon in relation to project-based activity (Alderman, Ivory, McLoughlin, & Vaughan, 2005). Therefore, little is known about the effect of sensemaking in PM. This is rather unfortunate considering that complex projects provide an ideal context for sensemaking, as projects provide an occasion for different actors to create multiple meanings (Thomas, 2000). Nonetheless, while research for organisational change and project change cannot be used wholly interchangeably, for the sake of theoretical comparison, this thesis makes use of pre-existing research on sensemaking in organisational change. Research on sensemaking in strategic, organisational change has shown that the sensemaking process of different actors is important for change success (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Balogun et al., 2015), leaving us with the question whether this phenomenon occurs in PM as well. In this manner, the following section looks at current literature on sensemaking from the perspective of organisational change, whilst keeping in mind the undeniable differences between the two fields.
Sull, 2001). There is a growing body of research showing the effects people outside the senior management team have on strategic change (Balogun & Johnson 2005; Huy, 2002; Jarzabowski, 2004), but understanding how this pluralistic effect on the outcome of a strategy of change comes about remains in an exploratory phase. As mentioned previously, sensemaking’s enactment refers to the idea that people create their own (work) environment (and thus, also the outcome of strategies of change) through communication and narrative. Their individual and collective interpretation of such plans for change, and how they communicate and carry out these interpretations in their professional and social interactions, have been indicated to be crucial (Balogun & Johnson 2005; Brown & Humphreys 2003; Isabella 1990; Labianca et al. 2000).
As this thesis aims to contribute to research on the influence of sensemaking of both leaders and followers in the shift in PM, it will be even more interesting to see how they make sense of a change that seems to be contradictory. On the one hand they will have to make sense of a change that can be seen as quite radical and is known for its high failure rate (Huy, Corley, & Kraatz, 2014; Nag, Corley, & Gioia, 2007) and link to resistance (Ford, Ford, &D’Amelio, 2008). On the other hand, the change involves a shift to more collaboration between the leader and the followers that is known to be vital for a successful change implementation (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). This apparent contradiction will therefore be an interesting ground for the sensemaking of leaders and followers in the shift in PM that this thesis seeks to explore.
METHODOLOGY Research Approach: Qualitative Multiple Case Study
For this study, qualitative research was conducted in order to answer the following research question: How do project leaders and followers make sense of the shift from traditional to non-traditional project management? In consideration of the fact that sensemaking in PM has not been previously addressed in academic literature, a theory development approach is most suitable and will be used in this study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2012). The focus is both on change drivers as well as recipients, and on how they make sense of this transition in PM. Therefore, the research was conducted from the interpretive perspective of inquiry from the inside (Isabella, 1990).
can answer questions about how social experience is created (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994) and ‘can provide thick, detailed descriptions of actual actions in real-life contexts that recover and preserve the actual meanings that actors ascribe to these actions and settings’ (Gephart, p. 455, 2004). Qualitative research has a focus on situational details and provides a narrative of people’s view of reality, allowing for process description (Mason, 2002; Van Maanen, 1998). The qualitative data of this study therefore aided in assessing how project leaders and followers made sense of the transition in PM. Subsequently, a multiple case study was chosen, as this is appropriate for a theory development approach in qualitative research (Van Aken, et al., 2012). Analysis was undertaken on a group level, for the concept of sensemaking cannot occur on its own and is based on social processes. In other words, ‘Sensemaking unfolds as a sequence in which people concerned with identity in the social context of other actors engage ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues and make plausible sense retrospectively, while enacting more or less order into those ongoing circumstances.’ (Weick, et al. 2005, p.409). However, data collection was conducted mostly on the individual level (i.e., individual interviews), except for the three observed group meetings. Senior managers, middle managers and employees were selected as interview subjects, as research shows the importance of the role of both project leaders as well as change recipients in relation to change outcomes (Balogun & Johnson 2005, 2011; Huy, 2002; Jarzabowski, 2004).
Change Project
This study analysed the (post-)implementation phase of three companies transitioning from traditional to non-traditional project management. Although all three companies (BC, RJC and DUO) are service companies with a strong IT component, they fall within different industries. (More information about the companies is presented in Appendix 4.)
Company RJC also started the transition to Agile working about 1 year ago. However, they used a rather slow introduction period. The aim of the company is to become fully agile in all of its departments, thus not solely the IT department. Especially for a mechanical company, the transition towards the IT-originated scrum method is a big transition. Therefore, they decided to take it slow and start their first agile project on an IT-related subject, namely the digitalisation of all repair sign-offs.1 The project team responsible for the digitalisation is the first team working fully on an agile basis. With the arrival of the external scrum master two months before the interviews for this report, the project was mid implementation phase at the time of research.
The project from company DUO also started about a year before the conduct of this study. However, the slow transition towards agile working throughout the entire company started around three years before, but is not implemented in all departments yet. The goal of the company is to be more flexible and better adjusted to the desires of their customers through better communication with all stakeholders. The goal of the project specifically is the digitalisation of school registration for students. The old, paper-based documentation was outdated and schools only got updates about the registration of students once a year. With the aim to digitise all student information and to put it into one data source, information exchange between company DUO and the schools will be much faster and more up to date. Considering that the project is fully working agile, the project itself is in the post implementation phase.
Data collection
The study used both primary data and secondary data to answer the research question, because the usage of different data collection methods (triangulation) ‘provides stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses’ (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 538). Primary, qualitative data in the form of transcripts of semi-structured interviews was collected, together with secondary, archival data as well as participant observation. The reason for choosing semi-structured interviews and an interview protocol (Appendix 1) is to provide some consistency over all
interviews, yet also leaving space for the interviewees to answer according to their own experience (Yin, 2012).
For the semi-structured interviews, both project leaders and employees working in three projects of three different companies were interviewed to increase the generalisability (Kelley, 1927). In total, thirteen interviews were conducted with an average length of 40 minutes. Five project leaders (three product owners and two scrum masters) were interviewed, as well as one managing director (senior management), and seven employees (see Appendix 3 for general information interviewees). All interviewees are coded with the company initials, followed by the number 100 for the managing director, the number 110 for the product owners, the number 111 for the scrum masters and everything above (112 and onwards) for the employees or ‘followers’. The interviews took place while the projects were either in the implementation phase, or had recently been finished, in order to get insights in how sensemaking affected the change process and outcomes. Furthermore, all interviews took place after the observation of the stand-up and review meetings, except for the interviews from company DUO. Due to privacy reasons, the observation of a meeting at company DUO could not take place. The interviews were recorded for analysis, then transcribed and made anonymous. The interview protocol is divided in three parts: general questions, sensemaking questions and back-up questions. The first part was to gather general information about the interviewee to be able to place their sensemaking in perspective. An example question is: ‘Have you got experience with traditional project management (e.g. waterfall pm)? If so, how long?’. The second part only included two questions, in order to avoid steering the interviewee into a certain direction and allowing ample space for their individual (sensemaking) experiences. The two questions were: ‘What changed for you specifically and what does this mean for you?’ and ‘How are you dealing with the change?’. Lastly, eleven back-up questions were included, which were aided in guiding the interviewee on their explanation of the sensemaking process when the initial information they shared was sparse. One example of such a question is: ‘What is going well in the transition, and why?’.
meetings, all team members were present. In all of the observations, the researcher’s role was ‘observer as participant’, without active participation in the meeting in order to minimise intrusion (Meriam & Tisdell, 2015). As mentioned previously, attending the same meetings at all three companies for consistency purposes was not possible due to privacy reasons.
Archival data was collected in order to put the company and specific projects more in context, consisting of a powerpoint of company RJC’s mission and project goals, the public yearly key figures of company DUO and lastly, basic information of company BC’s values and goals through their own website (all are available upon request).
Data analysis
After data collection, data analysis was conducted following Eisenhard’s method (1989). The programme Atlas.ti. was used to read, code and interpret the transcribed interviews of each project leader and employee. Before starting the coding process, all interviews were read through in order to detect patterns to aid the process of forming categories. Hereafter, each transcript was coded separately by means of descriptive open coding, in which both inductive and deductive codes were used. Deductive codes were mainly based on the concepts found in the literature review. Following was the process of clustering open codes into categories by means of axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). This coding process was iterative in nature, as it consisted of renaming codes, merging them together and forming sub-categories. Lastly, selective coding was used to group the subcategories of the identified main categories. The codebook containing the open, axial and selective codes can be found in Appendix 5.
The analysis of the observations was done in the same manner as with the interviews. Although the meetings were not recorded, notes were written down during and immediately after the meetings. Hereafter, the notes were coded while using the same open codes as for the interviews. This was done in order to create a deeper understanding of the context and concepts by comparing the observational data with the interviews (Yin, 2009).
Research Quality
One of the main disadvantages of qualitative case study research is the risk of subjectivity in data collection and analysis (Iacono, Brown & Holtham, 2009). Not only can the presence of the researcher influence the behaviour of participants, but also the researcher’s own personal background can influence the way things are interpreted, which can endanger the construct validity. Thus, in order to ensure the research quality, Yin (2009) proposes case study tactics which can not only be used to ensure the construct validity, but also the external validity and reliability of the study.
Construct validity refers to whether the operational measures of the study actually measure the theoretical concept that the researcher hopes to measure (Yin, 2009). In order to ensure construct validity, data triangulation was used in order to minimise the risk of biases.
External validity refers to the extent to whether results of a study can be generalised to other settings (Yin, 2009). As already mentioned in the previous data collection section, the reason for choosing three different projects within three different companies was to increase the generalisability of the study (Kelley, 1927). However, although interviews were conducted at three companies within different industries, caution should be taken regarding the fact that all projects have a strong IT component. The IT-related projects could already attract certain types of people, which could in turn reduce their generalisability.
Lastly, to increase the reliability, an interview protocol and a case study database were used. Reliability is the consistency and repeatability of the research procedures, which refers to whether other researchers can generate the same findings by replicating the study in a different context (Yin, 2009). By including the interview protocol, the interview transcripts and observation notes in the appendices, the reliability is induced for other researchers to be able to follow the same research method.
RESULTS
initial attitudes that are formed before the change implementation. The second phase is during the change implementation and consists of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the change and its perceived effect on their organisational role, plus some transition benefitting factors that are perceived to smoothen the change process. Together, the two phases seem to lead to either change commitment or resistance. The last part is future-directed sensemaking, in which both leaders and followers focus on how they can make the change last. The results from the sensemaking process in part two and three can be found in Figure 1 at the end of the results section to give a visualisation.
As an additional note: while analysing the data, all three projects showed so many similarities that it was decided to present the results together. Only occasionally a distinction is made between the projects, yet a greater focus is laid on the distinction between the leaders and followers, as their perspectives differ more significantly.
The Change Content: Difference between Traditional and Non-Traditional PM Traditional Work Method
Both leaders and followers point out that the traditional work method shows a big difference with the new work method. Traditional PM is mostly focused on projects in which individuals all have their own tasks based on their function. Instead of project-based teams, ‘you had functional divided teams’ (DUO112), without much collaboration. The project tasks were mostly performed in a sequential manner in which a designer would make something, then pass it on to the builder, who in turn would pass it on to the tester and so forth.
‘But I find the difference that you notice with Waterfall, that the project takes a very long time and as a designer you spend your time writing the design at the beginning of the project. That will take you a while to write everything. Then you basically throw it over the wall, on to the next group, the builders, and then you start working on another part’ (DUO113).
‘Then you would make a design with the customer. You would ask everything and write it down. And sometimes you would show the design, so the customer could see whether it is about right and the customer would be happy then. And ten months later he will get it and start using it, and will think: “Well this is not really what I wanted”’ (DUO110).
Non-Traditional Work Method
During the observations of the meetings, it became evident that the project teams consist of different professions, and input from all team members is equally important. Every member, one after another, is asked for input. These findings are confirmed in the interviews, in which all employees stress that the projects are performed while ‘working with different people, more multi-disciplinary and also with intenser collaboration’ (DUO113). The focus is more on roles instead of functions:
‘The intention of scrum is that everyone can perform all issues, so not do not split tasks, like one will only test things and the other will only do front-end. But actually so everyone can do anything’ (BC113).
Furthermore, instead of long projects with big end goals planned far in the future. The project involves a team planning process with short sprint schedules in which ‘the team decides what will happen in this sprint, what you will do and how long you will do it’ (BC111). Important is input from all team members and during the process itself, there is involvement from all stakeholders, both internal and external:
‘You can see that we closely work together with the people from the floor. They have input in what they want, and we can tell them what we can and cannot do. As a result, you at least speak openly and more transparent about what you are making’ (RJC111).
Traditional Leadership
hierarchical structure of command and control resulted in controlling leaders like RJC110: ‘Before I was continuously controlling and chasing after the content: like this is not good, how far is it’. However, this was not because he wanted to, but mostly because it was simply the structure. This finding is confirmed by DUO110 as well:
‘As change manager it was mostly important that the releases were on time, but what was in there? (..) that did not matter for me. As long as it was on time, because that was what I was held accountable for’.
Consequently, there was not much room for input leading to frustration: ‘Such a project manager walks in, does not even know what AMOS (IT tool) is and a week later he is already telling me what to do’ (RJC112). Furthermore, this also led to an attitude of employees saying: ‘I will do what the boss says’ (RJC100) and not feeling responsible: ‘It is very safe. Like Isabelle you will now do task A and b and if something goes wrong, you will say: “Well listen I only had to do task A and B”’ (RJC111).
Non-traditional Leadership
The first big difference in the new way of leading that stands out during the meetings and in the interviews is the project leader division. Instead of one function, the function of the project leader is now split into two roles:
‘The product owner is responsible for the backlog: what needs to happen and what needs to have priority. He needs to manage the interests of several stakeholders, so in the end everyone is satisfied. And the most important things happen first. (..) And the scrum master is focused on the day-to-day business within the team and making sure the team has everything they need in order to successfully finish the sprint’ (DUO113).
out that the main focus of PM has shifted from a leader to a team focus: ‘We are very autonomous and it is not like we need constant guidance. We have decided it all together, so we will work towards it all together as well’ (BC112).
A Sensemaking Process: Attitudes regarding the Change Phase 1: Before the Change Implementation
Initial Change Attitude
Before the change implementation, all interviewees already formed an opinion about the change. The results show a division between initial scepticism towards the change and already feeling a sense of urgency. Some of the experienced leaders and followers show initial scepticism and do not immediately see the point of the change, while perceiving the change as either unnecessary, not suited to the change or as insignificant. An example is presented below:
‘Well in the beginning we really had to be convinced of the point of the change. Because it has to be finished anyway, so whether we will do it with the scrum method or the waterfall method, well the functionality just has to be ready. So, we did not immediately see the advantages’ (BC110).
However, most of the interviewees, both experienced and inexperienced, already feel a sense of urgency. Where the inexperienced employees see the new PM approach as the most logical step: ‘For software development, scrum is just the logical way of doing it’ (BC113). The experienced employees notice that the old way of working is simply not suitable anymore and seen as outdated. Agile PM is seen as a logical next step: ‘Together with the field, we noticed that the current way of working is often outdated. Once a year, a file is sent back, sometimes even by mail. This is just not possible anymore, or at least not wanted anymore’ (DUO110).
‘Recently I had, he was not here today, a business conflict because you see that the traditional roles like a traditional project leaders logically feel threatened by the whole transformation. They fall back into the Maslow pyramid, to the basis of existential certainty, like: ‘What does it mean for me? I have been doing this for twenty years, PM in the traditional way and now something like agile and scrum comes along’ (RJC111).
Phase 2: During the Change Implementation
When asking both leaders and followers the question: ‘What changed for you specifically and what does this mean for you?, the interviewees talked not only about what changed exactly, but also whether they saw this as positive or negative, and how this affected their role. In addition, they mentioned factors that helped to make the transition easier. The following codes are based on this sensemaking pattern.
Soft Advantages
In the observation of the meetings and in the interviews, the importance of working as a team became evident. Both leaders and followers keep mentioning advantages that underline a team-based focus. One of the leaders says that what changed most is: ‘The way we deal with people (..) a lot more personal and more open. Yes, I like that so much more’ (RJC111). Furthermore, input from the employees and stakeholders, more team autonomy and the leaderstyle of leading by facilitating are all mentioned as very positive advantages of the new PM approach. BC113 mentions that: ‘With scrum there is not much control from above. The team decides what they are going to do and that is of course very special’. These changes also create a stronger team culture and more team commitment. DUO112: ‘You just notice that if you have to discuss a lot together then it becomes a unified team and that is really nice’. This strong team culture and commitment seems to enhance the team members trust in dealing with issues as well:
Hard Advantages
Regarding the work method, the interviewees mention that the projects are easier to plan by cutting the project in smaller pieces. Consequently, they also have a better overview of the tasks and progress:
‘The overview of work you still need to do. I think that this also works as motivation, because you finish things more quickly. There are small pieces, small successes. I think that is a good motivator’ (RJC114).
In addition, the quality of the projects is getting better as well. Due to the shorter sprint schedules and by involving relevant stakeholders, the stakeholders get to see small iterations instead of solely the final product and/or service. This allows for quicker feedback cycles of the new work method and makes it easier for the team to adjust things:
‘Well and then the wishes change again and that is very good about agile. That especially with the wishes of the customers and stakeholders, they mostly change several times. Oh well, then we need to rebuild some things and that is something that you will now find out on time so you can adjust it. That is really, really good about agile’ (BC111).
Soft Disadvantages
Although most interviewees mainly emphasise the perceived advantages and have a harder time coming up with the disadvantages, there still seems to be some disadvantages as well. First of all, the balance between communication and efficiency sometimes seems to be hard to manage. While the meetings are kept as short as possible and lead to less problems during the process, it is sometimes hard to make sure that what is communicated in the meetings is relevant for everyone involved:
Another disadvantage perceived by the leaders is the fact that not everyone wants to be empowered. In the new way of leading, ‘a lot of initiative of every role/member of scrum is asked’ (BC110) leading to more responsibility as well. Although most employees seem to like more responsibility, leaders find it difficult to make room in the project for people that do not:
‘And that is difficult, because the people from the floor are used to getting orders for the last 80 years that they simply have to do. And now they are not getting an order, something that we call a ‘what’ question. Instead they get a ‘how’ and now you have to figure out how you make the whole fleet leave on time’ (RJC100).
In relation to the difficulty the leaders experience with empowerment, employees sometimes do miss a leader that can take the final responsibility: ‘With the project-based approach, you sometimes see that it is not running smoothly. The product owners also took responsibility, but sometimes it seems to fall between two stools’ (DUO112).
Hard Disadvantages
Although the short sprint schedules are mostly perceived as an advantage, some employees do still experience some difficulty with estimating the planning: ‘You sometimes wrongly estimate an issue and then it will take a lot longer than planned.(...) and that can be frustrating for the stakeholders (BC113). Another disadvantage perceived by both leaders and followers is the difficulty of balancing project- and routine work responsibilities. For agile to work optimally, you want fully committed teams. However, this is not constantly possible:
‘As application manager it is kind of difficult, because your daily routine jobs also continue. So you cannot commit to something for 100 percent. There is always something that can come in between, something that breaks down and needs your attention. Then this (referring to the project) needs to be put aside for a while’ (RJC112).
sometimes hard to know the end goal: ‘I struggle a little bit with the bigger picture. It is clear you want to go somewhere, but when you will get there and how you organise that, that is still unclear.’ (BC111). In addition, employees sometimes also struggle with keeping an overview of all departments. When all agile project teams can decide how and with what they want to work, this sometimes has consequences for the collaboration with other departments:
‘Teams have quite some freedom here, but company-wide, there are also certain things they want. Thus, as an example: imagine working as a designer using a certain method, then it would be practical when you join another team that they at least sort of design in the same way. So, there are of course certain manuals and guidelines, but sometimes with the freedom of teams this is difficult’ (DUO113).
Perceived effect on organisational role
When hearing all the interviewees speak about their experiences with the change it becomes evident that both the leaders and employees value the effects of the change on their role. All interviewees are very positive about the change, in spite of also seeing some disadvantages, as can be concluded from the previous section. Both the new way of leading together, as the work method are perceived as positive. The employees see their changed role from simply obeying to having input as very positive: ‘In itself, I find agile a very pleasant way of working. It gives more freedom to the employees themselves’ (DUO113). Also, the leaders with experience with traditional PM see their transition as positive. All four experienced leaders find it easier, because as a team you can use the wisdom of the crowd, instead of having to do it alone. Examples are presented below:
‘You notice that fundamental changes are taking place, also in hierarchy. I really do not believe in that anymore, the world has become so complex. The jobs I need to do here or at ground services, that is so complex that I believe you need the wisdom of the crowd’ (RJC111).
They find it ‘Better that you can discuss with a lot of people, instead that from above is decided what your role is. You are a lot more flexible this way in how you manage the work activities’ (DUO110). In addition, one leader also mentions that it is nicer to be able to focus on the bigger picture, instead of simply controlling his employees: ‘Before I was continuously controlling and chasing after the content: like this is not good, how far is it. And now I can focus much more on the bigger picture, so the progress and guarding the priorities. And that is a lot nicer (..) because I want to focus on strategy and enabling people’ (RJC110).
Transition Benefitting Factors
Although most interviewees mainly focused on the positive and negative effects of the new PM approach itself and how this affected them, in all projects also factors were mentioned that helped to smoothen the transition. Examples are a slow transition, training and the benefit of having employees or agile coaches with experience. Quotes below support this finding:
‘And then we started very slowly picking up more and more things. So first the stand-up. Well the stand-up was useful, so after that we tried the planning session and that also went well. So every time more..’ (BC110).
‘Within DUO there have been awareness sessions and every employee was invited. It was then explained what scrum means and what the benefits are. To let the people get acquainted with agile working. And what you also see is that there are agile coaches within the organisation and they are trying very hard together with the employees to prepare the organisation so they will embrace agile’ (DUO110).
Focus on the Future: How to make the Change last? Phase 3: During and post Change Implementation
In the previous section, the interviewees’ sensemaking was focused on how they initially saw the change, how it benefited their role and what helped in the transition. This section is focused on how to make the change last. Although project RJC is still in the middle of the implementation phase and the projects of company BC and DUO are in the post-implementation phase, all interviewees show a focus on the future. While they talk a lot about their positive attitude about the change, they also focus on what can be better. Interesting is the different focus of the employees and the leaders. Although the previous sections showed that they are ‘leading together’, the employees mainly have a project focus whereas the leaders also have an organisational focus. The employees mostly talk about what is needed in the project for agile to work better. Whereas the leaders mainly question what they need to do to make the change last organisation wide. As a result, there is still a different role for the leaders, who are expected to think about the bigger picture while the employees focus on input at the project level.
Follower Project Focus
When looking at the change, most employees do not only mention what is important at the moment, but also what needs to be improved in order for agile to work better. In the review meeting from RJC, team members underline the importance of the right tools. This is supported in the interviews for the other projects as well. In the beginning, all three teams struggle with finding a tool that works for Agile working: ‘The tooling was Jira. I do not know whether you know it? Really a monster that thing, like what is the point of that thing? Then it is more of a discouragement, instead of thinking, well this is convenient’ (RJC113). In addition, they sometimes wish that all the training was more focused on agile in practice. Having the entire training focus on the theory can be quite overwhelming, especially when trying to understand later how it works in practice: ‘You see that the theory describes it beautifully but try to get that put to practice’ (DUO112).
Leader Organisational ‘Soft’ Focus
leading. According to BC110: ‘You need to learn to let go of the fact that you cannot control everything and also that you cannot determine everything’ in agile. Also, RJC100 noticed that mostly the employees in positions of power find it hard to let go of control:
‘Sometimes people find it very hard to let go. I sometimes say that if you look at tasks, authorisations and responsibilities, then you see that we delegate tasks but authority not so quickly. And if you do not do that, then most of the time you cannot perform a task. So if you delegate a task, you also need to give someone the money, the budget, the time and the manpower. But that is scary and something we do not do often’.
Thus, what puzzles the leaders is how do you get everyone on board and how do you make them see the value of agile? So far, RJC started to give training to focus on the soft skills: ‘We started with the relation between the management team and the team managers. To focus on how we work together. If we expect this from you, what do you need to be able to do that or do you even understand what we ask of you? Finally, also the question arises about whether there is still a role for middle management with agile. With the introduction of basically self-steering teams with product owners and a scrum master as facilitators, a middle management layer seems to disappear:
‘The lines to the top are hugely changed as well. Everything is more diffuse, the new and traditional way of working. Because we are moving towards an organisation in which the question arises: what is the role of a manager then?’ (DUO110).
Leader Organisational ‘Hard’ Focus
Another point of focus for the leaders of RJC is in line with a hard disadvantage, namely in order for agile to work the whole organisation needs to be agile. The example below shows why: ‘If you still have structures of yearly meetings and you need to have approval for something, but that meeting is in two months, well if you do not change those structures then you will never be able to work agile’ (RJC100).
‘The big plan of how you can make the whole organisation agile and train everyone or at least the relevant players, certainly in management? We are still searching for someone who can help us with that. Because how can you do that?
DISCUSSION
As the role of sensemaking in the paradigm shift in project management has yet to be explored, the aim of this thesis is to answer the research question: ‘How do project leaders and followers make sense of the shift from traditional to non-traditional project management? This study detected three phases in the sensemaking process of its interviewees: the pre-implementation phase, where interviewees formed an initial attitude towards the change ahead, the implementation phase, where interviewees reflected on the actual effects of the change, and the third and final phase of future-based sensemaking where interviewees focus on making the change last, starting towards the end of the implementation phase. The following section will discuss the key findings of each of these phases in greater detail and link them where possible to pre-existing literature.
Throughout the study, it became evident that the sensemaking process of the leaders and followers started before the change implementation and thus, also prior to the beginning of this study. Therefore, the interpretation of the interviewees sensemaking process has been based on what information was shared during the interviews. As the results suggest, engaging in a sensemaking process of the ‘why’ of change was important for the forming of initial attitudes towards the change. Interviewees felt either a bit sceptical or open towards the change, but all developed a positive attitude regarding the change initiative which eventually led to a sense of change commitment. Not surprisingly, the belief that change is needed (also known as a sense of urgency or discrepancy (Kotter, 1996; Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993)), was found to be significant to most interviewees in creating a certain openness or readiness for change. However, as the initially sceptical interviewees also eventually arrived at a stage of active change commitment, the results seem to show that a sense of urgency can be important, but not necessarily vital for change commitment.
new PM approach: a strong team culture due to increased, interdisciplinary collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders, empowerment of all employees, team autonomy and the presence of a facilitating leader. This shift in focus towards a more ‘soft’ side seems to be positively influencing the interviewees’ attitudes regarding the change and is in line with organisational change research that shows the importance of participation, empowerment and facilitating leadership for change commitment (Bartunek et al., 2006; Herold et al, 2008; Weber & Manning, 2001). Also research in PM supports this finding, while showing that IT projects often encounter problems due to their emphasis on performance instead of ‘people’ issues (Thiry, 2002). Employee involvement seemed furthermore to not only result in a positive attitude towards the change, but the work in a multidisciplinary team and the involvement of stakeholders also induced feelings of efficacy, as overall project quality could improve due to the continuous feedback of stakeholders throughout. As highlighted by Garrety, Robertson & Badham (2004, p. 351): ‘The success of complex technology development projects depends heavily on the ability of team members to interact productively so that relevant knowledge can be acquired, generated and circulated in a timely and cost-effective fashion (Garrety, Robertson, & Badham, 2004, p351). This is supported by research by Brusoni & Prencipe (2001) showing that projects benefit from the integration of expertise from different specialisations, including potential users. Overall, these findings seem to contribute to a positive effect on the role of the leaders and followers: leaders generally feel more effective in their new facilitative role, as opposed to controlling and chasing the work of their employees within traditional PM, whereas followers gain a greater sense of responsibility and satisfaction about the improved quality of their work.
responsibility and more risk, explaining some of the followers’ reluctance to accept not only responsibility, but also accountability for the outcome. The three observed phases of sensemaking thus show similarities across both project leaders and followers, with a nuance in focus during the latter phase.
Theoretical Contributions
This thesis offers a first insight into the minds of both leaders and followers whilst they make sense of a radical change in their approach as well as leadership style to project management. It combines qualitative data through first-hand interviews with both project leaders and followers from three different companies, first-hand observations through participation as well as an in-depth analysis of pre-existing research, and in doing so, opens up a previously untouched, academic facet of sensemaking in project management. This mixed methods approach (data triangulation) revealed three phases of sensemaking (the pre-implementation, implementation, and future-directed sensemaking phases) within each radical change of PM, allowing for more specific classification of sensemaking phenomena within each phase. The findings provide new understandings of how project members arrive at change commitment by showing the sensemaking process of attributing positive or negative feelings to the change. This is done through the process of evaluating the change’s advantages and disadvantages, its effect on their role as well as their perceived efficacy.
Managerial Implications
The findings of this study hold some important, practical implications for (project) managers involved in the transition towards non-traditional PM. In a transition resulting in a completely different work method and a different way of leadership, managers are advised to enhance the overall feelings of efficacy of the project members. In order to do so, attention should be paid to the so-called perceived soft advantages of the new PM approach. Analysis of the sensemaking process showed that despite existing disadvantages of the change, positive change attitudes and change commitment can be achieved when project members feel empowered through participation, there is involvement of all stakeholders and when there is a feeling of a strong team culture, where both leaders and followers feel like they are in it together. Important for achieving a strong team culture is, among other things, communication and a focus on a leader who is facilitating, as both leaders and employees showed to be very positive towards these changes. Furthermore, the results suggest the importance of a multidisciplinary team for efficacy, as it allows for team learning. Finally, managers should realise that despite these findings, a one-size fits all approach is never the solution. Not all employees like to be empowered, or at least to a certain degree, nor does the data suggest that every leader likes the shift towards a more facilitative role. Therefore, apart from focusing on the project team as a whole, attention should be given to the individual in order to find out what they need to feel comfortable with the change.
Limitations and Future Research
resisting’ employees, and over the entire period of the sensemaking process. In this way, a more complete picture could be formed of the factors involved in the sensemaking process. This thesis however did not allow for this, due to its limited scope. Thirdly, caution should be taken with regard to the generalisability of the study, as all three projects have a strong IT component which could attract a certain type of person to the project. Furthermore, the concept of cognitive dissonance could have influenced the interviewees’ opinions about the change. Cognitive dissonance is described as the psychological state in which the individual’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are conflicting, leading to a feeling of mental discomfort (Festinger, 1957; Elliot & Devine, 1994). In order to dispose of these feelings of discomfort, individuals can be motivated to alter their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours in order to arrive at congruence (Festinger, 1957; Elliot & Devine, 1994). Ultimately, one should not underestimate the power of marketing. Lately, there has been a hype around agile PM. Every company is urged to become agile to keep up with the market demands. If you are not agile by now, you are believed to be doomed (Mandir, 2018). This could lead to people feeling they have to like agile PM over more traditional methods of PM: everyone is supposed to want to work flexibly and autonomously, without taking into consideration personal differences and preferences regarding work methods.
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Alderman, N., Ivory, C., McLoughlin, I., & Vaughan, R. (2005). Sense-making as a process within complex service-led projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 380-385.
Anca, V. (2014). Leadership - a necessity in projects. Studies in Business & Economics, 9(2), 128–134.
Ancona, D., Malone, T.W., Orlikowski, W.J., & Senge, P.M. (2009). In praise of the incomplete leader. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 37(3), pp. 29-37.
Andersen, E.S., Dyrhaug, Q.X., Jessen, S.A. (2002). Evaluation of Chinese projects and comparison with Norwegian projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(8), 601–609.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of change management, 9(2), 127-142.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 1-23.
Balogun, J., Bartunek, J., & Do, B. (2015). Senior Managers’ Sensemaking and Responses to Strategic Change. Organization Science, 26(4), 960-979. doi:10.1287/orsc.2015.0985
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. 2005. From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization studies, 26(11), 1573-1601.
Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & DePalma, J. A. (2006). On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 42(2), 182-206.
Blaskovics, B. (2016). The impact of project manager on project success—The case of ICT sector. Society & Economy, 38(2), 261-281. doi:10.1556/204.2016.38.2.7425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.148.
Brown, A.D. & Humphreys, M. (2003). Epic and tragic tales. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(2), pp. 121-146.
Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2001). Unpacking the black box of modularity: technologies, products and organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(1), 179-205.
Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and Failure In Organizational Change: An exploration of the Role of Values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133-162.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1080/14697017.2010.524655
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., & Mossholder, K.W. (2013). Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous
incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 942-958.
Crawford, L. & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 645-653.
Czarniawska, B. (2005) Karl Weick: Concepts, style and reflection. Sociological Review, 53(1), pp. 267-278.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin &Y. W. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research: 1-17. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage
DuBois, M., Koch, J., Hanlon, J., Nyatuga, B., & Kerr, N. (2015). Leadership styles of effective project managers: Techniques and traits to lead high performance teams. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance & Marketing, 7(1), 30–46.
Elliot, A.J., & Devine, P.G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382–394.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management. Review,14(4), 532- 550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Sull, D.N. (2001) Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 106-117.
Ewenstein, B., Smith, W., & Sologar, A. (2015). Changing change management. The McKinsey Quarterly, July, 1-4. Retrieved from https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fiedler, F. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership
effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128-148
Fiedler, F. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 59-112). New York: Academic Press.
Galvin, T., Gibbs, M., Sullivan, J., & Williams, C. (2014). Leadership competencies of project managers: An empirical study of emotional, intellectual, and managerial dimensions. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance & Marketing, 6(1), 35–60.
Garrety, K., Robertson, P.L., & Badham, R. (2004). Integrating communities of practice in technology development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22(5), 351-358.
Gephart, Jr., R. P. 2004. Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.
Gonçalves, L. (2018). Scrum: the methodology to become more agile. Controlling & Management Review, 62, 40-42.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1007/s12176-018-0020-3
Handzic, M., & Durmic, N. (2015). Knowledge management, intellectual capital and project management: Connecting the dots. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 51–61.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346–357.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.346
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All Change Great and Small: Exploring Approaches to Change and its Leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121-151. https://doi- org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1080/14697010500082902
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully? A study of the behaviours of successful change leaders. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309-335.
Huy, Q.N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the Contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31-69.
Huy, Q.N., Corley, K.G. & Kraatz, M.S. (2014). From support to mutiny: Shifting legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1650-1680.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0074
Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89-101.
Isabella, L.A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7-41.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529-560.
Kaminsky, J. B. (2012). Impact of nontechnical leadership practices on IT project success. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 30–49. http://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21226.
Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kumar, R., Singh, K. & Jain, S. (2019). Development of a framework for agile manufacturing. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 16(4), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-05-2019-0022
Labianca,G., Gray, B. & Brass, D.J. (2000) A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment.Organization Science, 11(2), 235-257.
Leonard, D., & Coltea, C. (2013). Most change initiatives fail but they don't have to. Business Journal of the Gallup News website retrieved from http://news.gallup.com
Lindgren, M. & Packendorff, J. (2009). Project leadership revisited: towards distributed leadership perspectives in project research. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 1(3), 285-308
Mandir, E. (2018, Jan 24). Going agile? The excitement won’t last. Retrieved from: https://medium.com
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
