Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpromanInternational Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

Intuition in project management and missing links:Analyzing the predicating effects of environment and the

mediating role of reflexivity

Said Elbanna ⁎,1

Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar

Received 11 May 2014; received in revised form 5 February 2015; accepted 11 February 2015Available online 28 February 2015

Abstract

The role of an intuitive cognitive style in project planning may be more complex than prior studies have allowed for. Therefore, we used amodel of the role of environment in intuition and the relationships between intuition, reflexivity, and project outcomes (measured as project successand speed of completion) in order to examine how environment influences intuition; and whether reflexivity mediates the link between intuitionand project outcomes. Our field study incorporates responses from 450 managers representing 410 projects from firms located in the United ArabEmirates. The regression analysis suggests that competition uncertainty and environmental complexity are determinants of intuition; intuitionpromotes team reflexivity and this in turn enhances project outcomes. These results show that the intuitive approach in planning projects and teamreflexivity are complementary foundations for improving different aspects of project performance and, therefore, that models of intuition in projectmanagement should incorporate the effects of reflexivity.© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Intuition; Reflexivity; Project management; Project performance; Environmental uncertainty and complexity; United Arab Emirates

1. Introduction

The past decade has seen an intense interest, conceptuallyand empirically, among researchers of the role of intuition inmanagerial practices (e.g., Elbanna et al., 2013; Hensman andSadler-Smith, 2011). A problem over decision making andproject management, which research has hitherto neglected,

⁎ Tel.: +974 7401 8562.E-mail address: selbanna@qu.edu.qa.

1 The author appreciates the valuable and insightful comments from theEditor, J. Rodney Turner, and three anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts ofthis work. He also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of a NationalResearch Foundation and the UAEU grant (101 NRF-UAEU: 3209-31B014) inthe conduct of this research. My sincere thanks are also due to David Graf forhis great support in conducting this research among others.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.0040263-7863/00/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

however, is that the impact of intuition on organizationaloutcomes such as project performance may be indirect. To date,much of the discourse on intuition within the managementliterature has highlighted the role of intuitive processes inproject/decision outcomes, without offering much enlighten-ment on the mechanics of the indirect effects of intuition (e.g.,Khatri and Ng, 2000).

In contrast to past research, this study did not view intuitionas an antecedent of project performance but as a variable ofconsiderable impact on other determinants of project perfor-mance. A major aim of this study, therefore, was to improve ourunderstanding of the role of intuition by developing ouranalysis of intuition so that we are able to identify a mediator ofits influence, team reflexivity (or the extent to which projectteams reflect upon and modify their functioning). In a projectcontext, reflexivity helps to modify an agreed project plan inorder to properly implement it. Hence, reflexivity can be seenas a functional project process in that it interacts with other

1237S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

decision approaches such as intuition to enhance projectperformance. In other words, this paper argues that projectperformance is affected not by intuition itself but by the waythat intuition affects other project processes.

We posit that our new view of the roles of intuition andreflexivity are theoretically viable and can provide empiricalevidence to support our hypotheses. However, there have beenfew, if any, studies that have examined the relationship betweenintuition and reflexivity in the context of project management.Reflexivity presents teams with clarity, agreement, and a specificchallenge about the need for adaptation, making it more likelythat targeted outcomes will result. Although research interest inreflexivity is increasing in such fields as health management(Schippers et al., forthcoming), information technology (Misuracaet al., 2013), human resources (Pietersea et al., 2011), other fieldssuch as project management are still lagging behind.

This paper makes another contribution to the literature: a smallbut growing body of research suggests that team reflexivity may bean important process in enhancing project outcomes (Schippers etal., 2013). However, one organizational outcome dominates thewritings of researchers who investigate reflexivity, namely,innovation (e.g., Schippers et al., forthcoming; West, 2002). Thisbeing the case, this limitation was remedied by focusing on otherimportant aspects of project performance, namely, project successand speed of completion, which are less researched areas in theliterature on project management.

In terms of the study setting, previous studies have foundthat the particular country of the research setting affects the roleof environment (Elbanna et al., 2015). Similarly, Ochieng et al.(2013) argue that different cultural norms and assumptionsabout the project environment can affect the way project teamscommunicate and behave. For example, increasing numbers ofempirical studies in different countries located in the troubledMiddle East, such as Egypt (Elbanna and Child, 2007) andTurkey (Dayan et al., 2012), report a lack of the moderatingimpact of environment in the planning process–outcomelinkage. Given that research on environmental variables hasshown that perceived environmental uncertainty may operate asan antecedent to the strategy process rather than moderating its

H1a

H1b

H1c

Environmental characteristics

Competition uncertainty

Macro-economicuncertainty

Environmentalcomplexity

Proje

Control variables:Team size; industry; agreement with the project

Intuition

Research m

Fig. 1. Resear

influence on organizational outcomes (Boyd and Fulk, 1996),this study contributes to a different analysis of the role ofenvironment in project management by examining environ-mental features as antecedents of project planning rather thanmoderators (e.g., Meissner and Wulf, 2014).

In conclusion, the aim of the present study was to examine theimpact of environmental characteristics on the level of intuition,the role that intuition plays in reflexivity, and the ways in whichthese two phenomena relate to project performance. The specificresearch questions that we addressed were: (1) what are therelationships between environmental features and intuition; (2)what is the relationship between intuition and reflexivity; (3)what is the impact of reflexivity on project performance; (4) whatis the role of reflexivity in the relationship between intuition andproject performance? These questions are represented diagram-matically in Fig. 1. In view of the new relationships that areexamined in this study, its exploratory nature should be taken intoconsideration.

Answering these questions is significant both for researchersand practitioners because it has the potential to shed light upon theways in which project teams use intuition and reflexive behaviors.This can contribute to renew the theoretical bases of projectmanagement as per recent calls for extending project managementresearch, such as that of Floricel et al. (2014). A contribution of thisstudy lies in its demonstration of the importance of environmentfor the use of intuition. Moreover, by identifying team reflexivityas a mediator of the relationships between intuition and projectoutcomes, we both substantiate the theories of project managementand point to a mediator variable that offers clear opportunities forproject management. This also contributes more generally inexplaining some of the surprising results of related research onintuition; it improves our evolving comprehension of its role inmanagement in general and of project management in particular.

2. Theory and hypotheses

As depicted in Fig. 1, the study model investigates therelationship between environmental characteristics (measuredas competition uncertainty, macro-economic uncertainty and

H3b

H3a

Project outcomes

Projectsuccess

Speed ofcompletion

ct processes

H2

H4

Reflexivity

odel

ch model.

Reflection

Central elements of reflexivity

Planning Adaptation

Feedback

Fig. 2. Central element of reflexivity.

1238 S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

environmental complexity) and intuition, and tests for themediating effect of reflexivity on intuition–outcomes relation-ships. Before presenting the research hypotheses, the centralconstructs in the model are discussed, namely, intuition andreflexivity.

2.1. Conceptualization of the central constructs

2.1.1. IntuitionDane and Pratt (2007: 40) define intuition as “affectively-

charged judgments that arise through rapid, non-conscious, andholistic associations”. Elbanna et al. (2013: 150) regard intuition as“a mental process based on a ‘gut feeling’ as opposed to explicit,systematic analysis, which yields an intuitive insight or judgmentthat is used as a basis for decision making”. At the beginningof this century, researchers embarked on a more scientific type ofintuition research based on theoretical and empirical work (Akinciand Sadler-Smith, 2012). Though it is clear now that managers donot focus entirely on rational approaches (Floricel et al., 2014), thesofter sides of the human intelligence, and specifically, the role ofintuition in managerial actions still provide more questions thananswers (Leybourne and Sadler-Smith, 2006).

Moreover, in the context of project management, littletheorization and empirical evidence have been available for theantecedents of intuition and the different underlying mecha-nisms by which intuition affects project outcomes. Sonenshein(2007), for example, argues that the determinants of intuitionare not yet well understood. This view assumes that the contextin which projects take place has a marked impact on intuitionand yet has been little researched. The antecedents of intuitionexamined in this study are limited to features of the externalenvironment. As argued by Hough and White (2003), anyexamination of strategic issues that fails to consider environ-mental factors is likely to provide an incomplete picture.Moreover, the intervention by intuition in other processes ispoorly understood by managers and academic researchers alike.Therefore, research investigating the effect of intuition on otherproject processes such as reflexivity could be helpful in thisrespect, as noted earlier and discussed in the next section.

2.1.2. ReflexivityMembers of project teams face obstacles as they try to

coordinate efforts, strengthen interpersonal relationships, andintegrate ideas and hence they need considerable managementto identify frustrations and develop and implement solutions(Tjosvold et al., 2004). West (1996: 559) has labeled this groupmanagement ‘team reflexivity’ and defined it as “the extentto which team members collectively reflect upon the team'sobjectives, strategies and processes as well as their wider orga-nizations and environments, and adapt them accordingly”. Asdiscussed by West (2002), reflexivity has three central elements,namely, reflection, planning, and adaptation, which are shown inFig. 2. Reflection consists of attention to objects or tasks and themonitoring and evaluation of them. Planning is a potentialconsequence of the indeterminacy of reflection, since during thisindeterminacy, courses of action can be considered, intentionsformed, and plans developed. High reflexivity allows detailed

planningwhich considers potential problems, and long- as well asshort-range planning. Finally, adaptation refers to actions taken toachieve the desired changes in team objectives, strategies, andprocesses which are identified by the project team. The reflexivityprocess is interactive.

Reflexivity emphasizes that reflecting on plans allows themto be adapted and thus is an important foundation for highperformance in complex tasks such as important projects(Gurtner et al., 2007). Reflexivity helps those involved to take astep back to evaluate a project's process, plans, and objectives(Pietersea et al., 2011). Reflexive groups discuss as much aspossible how they are doing and whether they are taking thebest approach to the task, what causes mistakes to occur, andhow they can do better (Pietersea et al., 2011). It has beenargued that reflexivity is instrumental in discussing teamprocesses which help team members to better understand theirtasks and share a fuller understanding of project strategies andgoals; hence, it positively affects group processes (van Ginkelet al., 2009) performance (Gurtner et al., 2007) and innovation(Tjosvold et al., 2004). For example, highly reflective BBC TVteams were performing better than low reflective ones (Carterand West, 1998).

2.2. Research hypotheses

2.2.1. Environment and intuitionDiscovering what key factors influence project intuition is

important for teams and organizations. Environmental featuresmay be among such key factors since projects are made inthe context of an organization's environment and the processby which decisions are made during the planning of theseprojects is affected by environmental attributes (Martinsuo etal., 2014; Ochieng et al., 2013). Here, we seek to extendresearch on the role of the environment in project managementby examining the role of two of the most salient factorsinvolved, namely, environmental uncertainty and complexity(McArthur and Nystrom, 1991). The selected features ofenvironmental uncertainty in this study represent two levelsof uncertainty, namely, industry level (competition uncertainty)and societal/nation level (macro-economic uncertainty) (Miller,1993) which can help to better understand the impact of

1239S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

environmental uncertainty on the use of intuition in projectplanning.

Environmental features have major implications for all aspectsof management (Goll and Rasheed, 1997) including projectmanagement (Ochieng et al., 2013). Papadakis et al. (1998),for example, argue that environment may diminish the optionsavailable for managers when deciding on strategic issues. Thecontingency theory in strategic management proposes thatthe dimensions of project process (e.g. intuition) should varyaccording to the environmental features (Goll and Rasheed,1997). In the same vein, Shrivastava and Grant (1985) find thatdifferences in environmental conditions result in variations in theway in which managers process strategic issues.

For example, we can argue that firms which are subject tohigh levels of environmental uncertainty may not have the timeavailable to engage in rational processes because of the needto respond rapidly to competitors' actions. Moreover, the use ofintuition by project teams may be necessary in situations whenenvironmental uncertainty is related to factors which cannotbe known, such as the rates of interest and inflation overthe coming years (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Similarly, accordingto contingency theory, in an unstable environment, incrementalprocesses such as intuition should be adopted (Fredrickson,1983; Khatri, 1994) because unstable or high-velocity environ-ments are characterized by information scarcity at the sametime as rapid change, which may oblige project teams toact quickly on the amount of information currently available(Papadakis et al., 1998). Sonenshein (2007), for example,argues that conditions of uncertainty will increase the relianceon intuition. Thus, it is expected that perceived environmentaluncertainty directly determines the level of intuition in projectplanning.

Most theorists have identified complexity as one of theimportant features of the environment (Cannon & St. John,2007). As argued by Ochieng et al. (2013), complexity is theprime focus in today's project management literature. Environ-mental complexity describes the degree of heterogeneity, thedispersion of an organization's activities and also the number offactors that need to be considered (Child, 1972). It reflectsdecision makers' perceptions regarding the factors whichshould be kept in mind before deciding, and their interconnec-tedness (Smart and Vertinsky, 1984). Complex environmentsdemand greater information processing and may lead to cogni-tive simplifications; they restrict the examination of availablealternatives and options (Goll and Rasheed, 1997) leading to ahigher level of intuitive cognitive style. Mintzberg (1973), forexample, suggests that executives in firms facing complex andrapidly changing environments do not engage in an intensiveplanning process because such environments are impossible topredict and hence it is futile to invest in such intensive pro-cesses. Instead, in such environments, a project team prefersincremental approaches such as intuition (Mintzberg, 1973).Similarly, it has been argued that environmental complexitydirectly influences the amount and nature of information thathas to be processed (Papadakis et al., 1998) and may lead togreater use of cognitive simplification processes (Schwenk,1988).

At the individual level, threat fueled by environmentaluncertainty and complexity causes stress and anxiety, which inturn lowers the capacity for information processing (Bantel andOsborn, 2001). Under such demanding pressures, individualsmay stick to learned behaviors or experiences and knowledgewhich use intuitive processes. Formally, these are as follows.

Hypothesis 1a. Competition uncertainty relates positively tothe use of intuition in planning projects.

Hypothesis 1b. Macro-economic uncertainty relates positivelyto the use of intuition in planning projects.

Hypothesis 1c. Environmental complexity relates positively tothe use of intuition in planning projects.

2.2.2. Intuition and team reflexivityReflexivity may vary widely across teams in organizations

because it is affected by such contextual variables like teamleadership (Pietersea et al., 2011). Developing the confidenceand abilities to reflect successfully can be very challenging. Strongrelationships that foster a capacity to solve problems would appearto be needed for groups to reflect on their experience and change.This article argues that teams with higher levels of intuitionprovide an important foundation for reflexivity by fosteringthe teams' capacity to reflex. Empirical evidence shows thatexperienced project managers improvise more than do those withless experience (Leybourne, 2002). Leybourne and Sadler-Smith(2006) argue that reflexivity is associated with the extent to whichteam members trust their initial feelings, rely upon ‘gut feeling’and have faith in their initial impressions.

Similarly, the use of intuition may reveal a high level ofconfidence (Leybourne and Sadler-Smith, 2006) which furtherenhances the use of reflexivity. For example, if reflexivity isviewed as discussing objectives, strategies, and processes, onewould expect it to be related to the extent to which individuals drawupon intuition. Hence, we argue that intuition can help teamsengage in productive task reflexivity. In sum, team intuition mayenhancemembers' confidence and ability to reflect upon their teamprocesses and therefore a link between intuition and a tendency toreflect is proposed by advancing the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2. The use of intuition in planning projects relatespositively to team reflexivity.

2.2.3. Task reflexivity and project outcomesIn an era where management was seen as the science of

planned and pre-conceived action, based on rationality andsystematic forecasting, some tension was been caused by theabove view. Similarly, the traditional project paradigm (as inmany other areas of management practice) has been one of‘plan-then execute’, but project management practitioners areaware that in modern, turbulent business environments, the planoften ceases to be effective at precisely the time when one triesto execute it (Tjosvold et al., 2004). One main purpose of thisstudy was, then, to test whether reflexivity would lead to ahigher project performance, and if so, how.

Reflexivity is expected to help project teams to know theiractual workings and develop new understandings and methods

1240 S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

which respond to the emerging conditions and challenges(Carter and West, 1998). It can help also to reduce the barriersto effective cooperation among team members and is expectedthen to weaken the forces that impede team performance on awide range of outcomes (Tjosvold et al., 2003). Reflexiveteams will also reflect critically on ideas and choose toimplement those which seem more promising (Schippers etal., forthcoming). A variety of studies have demonstrated linksbetween reflexivity and team effectiveness (Carter and West,1998; West et al., 1999). Tjosvold et al. (2004), for example,indicate that reflexivity can keep project teams focused andefficient and thus may be expected in turn to promote highlevels of task accomplishments. Task reflexivity is especiallyuseful in complex environments and challenging tasks such ascarrying out important projects. Widmer et al. (2009) suggestthat reflexivity in teams can be fostered in order to improveproject outcomes. In conclusion, reflexivity in this study isrecognized as a means by which project teams contribute to theperformance of projects in organizations.

Another reason for the positive effect that reflexivity may haveon project performance lies in the observation that teams oftenplan early on in the working process and therefore the discussionof plans should be repeated after the team has acquired someexperience with the project (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Insum, as discussed above and reported by a recent review, previousresearch supports the link between team reflexivity and differenttypes of organizational outcomes (Widmer et al., 2009). We,therefore, posit:

Hypothesis 3. Team reflexivity relates positively to (a) projectsuccess and (b) the speed of project completion.

2.2.4. Mediating role of team reflexivityExamining the direct effects of cognitive styles on decision/

project outcomes neglects themediating role of the actual decision/project processes and, hence, researchers should include measuresfor actual decision-making and project processes (Shepherd andRudd, 2014). This means that the impact of a team's cognitivestyle (here, the intuitive cognitive style) on project performancemay not be direct but mediated by other variables which should bescrutinized in order to fully understand the relationships betweenintuitive cognitive style and project performance. The examinationof such intervention is important, since it helps us to identifyand explicate the mechanism or process behind the relationshipbetween intuition and project performance via the inclusion of theproposed mediator, reflexivity.

Research in project management argues that intuition mayinhibit, as well as invite, project processes such as improvisation(Leybourne and Sadler-Smith, 2006). Thus, to further developour conceptual analysis we focused on identifying a relevantmediator (here, reflexivity, as discussed above) of the effects ofintuition. The additional benefit of our focus on reflexivity as amediating factor is that it helps to identify opportunities formanagerial intervention which increases the relevance of thisresearch, when applied (Pietersea et al., 2011).

Previous research shows the relevance of reflexivity and itspotential added value to study the links between project process

and performance. In addition to the argument that team reflexivityis particularly instrumental in affecting project performance, asmall but increasing number of studies is examining the mediatingrole of reflexivity in management practices (e.g., Wong et al.,2007). For example, Gray (2007) argues that reflexivity is seen asone process that mediates the links between actions and outcomes.It can be seen as a transition process (Marks et al., 2001)referring to actions that teams execute after planning andbetween performance episodes. These have a dual focus,namely, reflecting on and interpreting what has beenaccomplished and then planning for future actions (LePine etal., 2008). For example, if project teams have difficulties inimplementing their projects, rethinking and revising thestrategies early adopted, profiting from already acquiredexperience, can help them remedy these shortcomings inorder to foster performance (Gurtner et al., 2007).

Moreover, intuition encourages organizational learning(Hensman and Sadler-Smith, 2011) and therefore enhancesthe ability of teams to reflect. Another explanation for this viewis that intuition manifests itself as tacit knowledge drawn uponunconsciously (Leybourne and Sadler-Smith, 2006) which canhelp managers to be more reflexive than if they were followingthe rigid procedures of rational analysis. Hence, we argue thatintuition would be likely to lead to higher project performancethrough its impact on project reflexivity. This probability seemsparticularly suited in overcoming the issues that we identifiedas a root cause of the failure of related research to consider theeffects of intuition, such as that of Elbanna and Child (2007). Insummary, the above arguments suggest that intuition exerts apositive effect on project outcomes if and because it increasesproject reflexivity. Formally, it is as follows.

Hypothesis 4. Team reflexivity mediates the relationship betweenteam intuition and (a) project success and (b) the speed of projectcompletion.

3. Methodology

The projects to be investigated were selected according to fourcriteria: (1) to minimize memory error, the project had to beimplemented during the last two years; (2) the respondent had tobe fully familiar with the chosen project and closely involved in it;(3) the project had to deal with issues of substantial importance tothe firm, to have had a long-term impact and to be able to affect thefirm as a whole; and (4) the project outcomes were known at thetime when the data were collected.

3.1. Questionnaire design

Our hypotheses were tested using a structured survey method.The first section was devoted to the selection of a recent projectand to general information about firms and respondents. Thesubsequent sections dealt with the study variables. The question-naire was developed in three stages. First, a draft questionnairewas developed in English, since English is the first language ofbusiness community in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) privatesector. The draft questionnaire was next reviewed by five

1241S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

academics. Third, a modified version of it was administered to twoprofessionals to elicit feedback on the intelligibility of thequestionnaire and its relevance to the UAE private sector context,leading to some amendments.

3.2. Data sources and date collection

The questionnaire was collected from firms located in theUAE's three biggest cities, namely, Dubai, Abu Dhabi andSharjah. The sampling population consisted of 500 private firmsemploying fewer than 500 employees. Of the targeted sample,410 firms responded (82% response rate). Multiple respondentsfrom 40 firms were sought, to allow the evaluation of inter-raterreliability (Elbanna, 2009).

The average age of the sampled firms was 16 years; most ofthem are foreign firms (78%); the remaining firms being eitherlocal (15%) or joint venture (7%). The average number ofemployees in the firms sampled is 120. Most of the employees inthe sampled firms were expatriates (93%) and the percentage ofEmirati employees was very low (7%). The above results showthe importance of expatriate employees in the UAE economy.

42% of the firms belonged to manufacturing industries and58% belonged to service industries. Because the industriesrepresented in the sample vary, e.g., manufacturing, IT, importand export, general trading, finance, construction and market-ing, the projects examined varied widely. The database forour analyses consisted of 410 projects, e.g., introducing a newproduct, opening a new branch, constructing a new compound,extending a store warehouse, adding new production facilities,launching a new business, installing new production systems,entering a new market, restructuring, and installing new ITsystems.

Data were collected in the period from April to September2013. Respondents were contacted for appointments to collectdata and their participation was strictly voluntary. Respondentswere provided with examples of important projects as a guidein choosing a project for the study. Data were gathered using afully standardized questionnaire (five-point Likert scale). 92%of the respondents were male and 8% were female. Respon-dents were CEOs, general managers, presidents (27%),division or departmental managers (64%), and branch, project,or area managers (7%); the remaining 2% did not give thisinformation. The average age of respondents was 42 years. 4%of them had high school qualifications, 68% had universitydegrees, and 28% of respondents had graduate degrees,Masters and above.

3.3. Measures

Because projects vary in terms of their size, uniqueness andcomplexity (Mir and Pinnington, 2014), the processes andoutcomes of projects within the same firm are expected to differfrom one project to another (Müller and Turner, 2007), andtherefore this study uses the project as its unit of analysis andassesses all measures at the project level. All the questions in thequestionnaire represent scales from papers published in topmanagement journals. Appendix 1 has all the items for the scales

used in this study. Each construct was measured using multipleitems on a five-point scale, except for team size (number of people)and industry type (a dummy variable to show manufacturing orservice). Project success was measured across four dimensions, asfollows: achieving project objectives; solving its main problem,stakeholders' satisfaction, and its impact on firm performance(Lipovetsky et al., 1997; Rodrigues and Hickson, 1995). Thespeed of project completion was measured by using three-itemscales adopted from related research (Dayan and Elbanna, 2011;Lynn et al., 2000). Intuition was measured by using five-itemscales, following Scott and Bruce (1995). Conducting a factoranalysis led to removing one item from the scale because ofpoor psychometric properties (the participants in planning thisproject relied upon their instincts). To measure reflexivity, the fourmeasurement scales of Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006) were used.To measure environmental uncertainty, four-item scales of bothcompetition and macro-economic uncertainties were adopted fromMiller (1993).

We controlled for the effect of three variables, namely, teamsize, industry type and the level of agreement with the project.Team size was used as a control variable because the projectmanagement literature revealed that project process and out-comes are influenced by the size of the team (Akgün et al., 2007).Because the relationship between project process and perfor-mance may also vary across industries, industry type was addedas a control variable to lessen the ambiguity of the results (Dayanand Elbanna, 2011). Finally, the answers of respondents may beaffected by the degree to which they agreed with the projectduring its planning. For example, respondents who did not agreewith a project may tend to devalue its outcomes. Hence, aquestion was added to assess the level of agreement with theexamined projects (Elbanna et al., 2013).

3.4. Non-response bias, common method bias, and recallinginformation bias

The data on 90% of the examined projects in this study werecollected from single respondents, which may lead to differenttypes of bias such as incomplete recall and retrospectiverationalization. We attempted to reduce this limitation beforeand after data collection. Before data collection, we (1) assuredrespondents of complete anonymity and confidentiality; (2)reversed scale anchors in several places; (3) used objectivedata to measure team size and industry type; (4) organized thesurvey so that the independent variables were separate from thedependent variables, thus preventing respondents from devel-oping their own theories about possible cause–effect relation-ships; (5) examined complex relationships (mediation effects)which survey respondents were unable to guess; and (6)examined recent projects only.

After data collection, several tests were used to examinethe possibility of bias. First, we analyzed both responses in the40 firms where we collected data from a second respondent andfound that our data enjoy a strong level of inter-rater reliabilitywhere 38 out of the 40 cases with two informants demonstratedsignificant correlations at the 1 percent level or better andthe remaining two cases show significant correlations at the

1242 S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

5 percent level with an average of correlation coefficients in the40 cases of 0.61 (correlation coefficients range from 0.26 to0.87). Second, Harman's single-factor test of common methodbias was performed using exploratory factor analysis. The resultsof the factor analysis show that the first factor explained only14% of the variance in the data, which is well below the cut-offpoint of 30%. Hence, a very little common method variance canbe shown (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Third, confirmatory factoranalysis was applied to Harman's single-factor model to furtherassess common method bias (Sanchez and Brock, 1996). Themodel fit indices of χ2 (65) = 1.234, NFI = 0.39, IFI = 0.40,CFI = 0.40, RMSEA = 0.21 and SRMR = 0.15 were unaccept-able and significantly worse than those of the measurementmodel. This suggests that a single factor model is not acceptable;thus, any potential common method bias is small (Zhao et al.,2011). Given the above results, we can safely believe that therelationships observed in this study represent substantive ratherthan artificial effects.

3.5. Internal consistency and validity

The coefficients of both Cronbach α and composite reliabilityranged between 0.71 and 0.86, which shows a satisfactory degreeof internal consistency for all the study variables. Table 1 showsthe correlation among all 10 variables. The relatively low tomoderate correlations between similar constructs provided evi-dence of discriminant validity, with the highest correlationbetween independent variables being 0.29, between dependentvariables being 0.37, and between independent and dependentvariables being 0.58 (Hair et al., 2009). As discussed above,conducting factor analysis led to removing one item fromthe intuition scale. The results of exploratory factor analysisusing a principal component with a Varimax rotation and aneigenvalue of one for the remaining items show a pattern ofloadings consistent with our theoretical expectations. Each scale

Table 1Descriptive scales and construct correlations, and reliability estimates.

Mean S.D. Variables 1 2 3

3.88 0.62 1. Project success 13.31 0.75 2. Speed of completion 0.37 ⁎⁎⁎ 13.45 0.69 3. Intuition 0.25 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.26 ⁎⁎⁎ 13.68 0.68 4. Reflexivity 0.58 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.29 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.23.07 0.78 5. Competition uncertainty −0.03 0.13 ⁎⁎ 0.13.17 0.78 6. Macro-economic uncertainty −0.02 −0.06 0.03.64 0.85 7. Environmental complexity 0.10 0.22 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.26.06 3.66 8. Team size 0.05 −0.04 0.01.59 0.49 9. Industry 0.14 ⁎⁎ −0.04 0.13.73 1.11 10. Agreement with project 0.12 ⁎ −0.06 0.0

Cronbach α 0.83 0.71 0.7Composite reliability 0.82 0.72 0.7

Notes: NA = not applicable.⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b .01.⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

demonstrated unidimensionality, with only minimal cross-loadingand no item cross-loaded significantly on an alternative scale.Moreover, producing a factor analysis for each set of the itemsmaking up one construct confirms the unidimensionality for eachconstruct.

Following the procedures of Hu and Bentler (1999), a sub-sequent confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using theAMOS 18 software and the Maximum Likelihood parameterestimation method to assess the resulting scales by using theComparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index(TLI) as indicators of incremental fit, and the Root MeanSquared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Standard-ized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) as indicators ofabsolute fit. The measurement model produced a good fit withCFI of 0.95; TLI of 0.92; RMSEA of 0.07; and a SRMR of0.04. Other fit indices such as χ2 = 145.37 with degrees offreedom (df) = 50, p b .01, χ2/df = 2.91 are also acceptable,and all parameter estimates were significant at the 0.001 level(Hair et al., 2009). Moreover, all item measures had standard-ized factor loadings (SFLs) of more than 0.60 (ranging between0.61 and 0.95) which well exceeded the recommendedthreshold of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2009). The above results showthat the measurement model is acceptable and indicate accept-able unidimensionality.

4. Analysis and results

Table 1 summarizes the means, standard deviations, andcorrelations among the research variables at the project level.To test the hypothesized relationships, we performed hierar-chical regression analysis and ran six regression models (seeTable 2).

The results show no issues of multicollinearity, since thehighest correlation among the central variables of the study, asshown in Table 1, is well below 0.80 (i.e., 0.29) and the variance

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 ⁎⁎⁎ 19 ⁎⁎⁎ −0.11 ⁎ 10 0.14 ⁎⁎ 0.18 ⁎⁎⁎ 14 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 0.28 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.03 10 –.06 0.02 −0.08 −0.05 14 ⁎⁎ 0.12 ⁎ −0.13 ⁎⁎ −0.02 −0.01 0.05 19 0.16 ⁎⁎ −0.29 ⁎⁎⁎ −0.12 ⁎ −0.09 0.00 −0.02 11 0.77 0.84 0.86 NA NA NA NA1 0.77 0.84 0.86 NA NA NA NA

Table 2Regression models.

Dependent variables Intuition Reflexivity Project success Speed of competition Project success Speed of competition

Variables/models Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Intuition 0.28 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.24 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.22 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 0.14 ⁎⁎

Reflexivity 0.56 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.30 ⁎⁎⁎

Competition uncertainty 0.16 ⁎⁎ −0.16 ⁎⁎ −0.04 0.05 0.05 0.09Macro-economic uncertainty −0.04 0.19 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.01 −0.08 −0.10 ⁎ −0.13 ⁎⁎Environmental complexity 0.19 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.07 0.07 0.16 ⁎⁎ 0.03 0.14 ⁎⁎

Team size 0.00 −0.03 0.05 −0.04 0.07 −0.03Industry −0.16 ⁎⁎ −0.08 −0.11 ⁎ 0.06 −0.07 0.09Agreement with project −0.03 0.17 ⁎⁎ 0.14 ⁎⁎ −0.02 0.05 −0.07R2 0.10 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.16 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.10 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.37 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.18 ⁎⁎⁎

Adjusted R2 0.09 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.14 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.09 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.09 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.36 ⁎⁎⁎ 0.16 ⁎⁎⁎

ΔR2 from Model 3 to Model 5 0.27 ⁎⁎⁎

ΔR2 from Model 4 to Model 6 0.07 ⁎⁎⁎

⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b .01.⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

1243S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

inflation factor (VIF) analysis is well below 10 (i.e., all VIFs werebelow 1.30). Hypothesis 1a, Hypothesis 1b and Hypothesis 1cposit that environmental characteristics act as antecedents to theintuitive cognitive style of planning. The findings of Model 1,where we regress intuition on the three control variables and thethree environmental features, explain 10% (p b 0.001) of thevariance in intuition. In Model 1, both competition uncertainty(β = 0.16, p b 0.01) and environmental complexity (β = 0.19,p b 0.001) positively relate to intuition; while macro-economicuncertainty does not (β = −0.04, N.S.). These results supportHypotheses 1a and 1c only and thus provide partial support forthe first hypothesis.

The impact of intuition on team reflexivity was tested inModel 2 where reflexivity was regressed on the six control andenvironmental variables in addition to the predictor, intuition.The variables incorporated in Model 2 explain 16% (p b 0.001)of the variance in reflexivity and intuition positively relates toreflexivity (β = 0.28, p b 0.001), which fully supports thesecond hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3 proposes that team reflexivity relates positive-ly to (a) project success and (b) the speed of project completion.The results show that reflexivity is a significant predictor ofboth project success (β = 0.56, p b 0.001; Model 5) and speedof completion (β = 0.30, p b 0.001; Model 6). These findingsprovide strong support to the third hypothesis.

Finally, Hypothesis 4 posits that the relationship between teamintuition and project outcomes are mediated by team reflexivity.These mediating effects were examined according to the protocolsuggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). They propose that avariable acts as a mediator if it meets four conditions. These are (1)the independent variable (intuition) significantly affects the medi-ator variable (reflexivity); (2) the independent variable signifi-cantly affects the dependent variables (project success and speed ofcompletion); (3) the mediator variable significantly affects thedependent variables; and (4) when both the independent andmediator variables are considered together, the impact of the

independent variable on the dependent variable is either reduced(partial mediation) or no longer significant (full mediation).

As shown above, the first condition was achieved, sinceintuition significantly affects reflexivity, the mediator (β = 0.28,p b 0.001; Model 2). Intuition also significantly influencesthe dependent variables, namely, project success (β = 0.24,p b 0.001; Model 3) and speed of completion (β = 0.22,p b 0.001; Model 4), which meet the second condition of amediating effect. The regression analyses indicate that when bothintuition and reflexivity are incorporated in the same model(Models 5 and 6), reflexivity is significantly related to projectsuccess (β = 0.56, p b .001; Model 5) and speed of completion(β = 0.30, p b .001; Model 6) and hence the third condition of amediating effect is achieved. However, when the mediatingvariable (reflexivity) is included in the regression analysis,intuition is no longer a significant predictor of project success(β = 0.08, NS; Model 5; full mediation); while its explanatoryvalue of speed of completion is decreased (β = 0.14, p b .01;Model 6) compared to its explanatory value in Model 4(β = 0.22, p b .001; partial mediation). In conclusion, theabove results show both full and partial mediation effects ofreflexivity on the relationship between intuition and decisionoutcomes and hence, the last hypothesis is supported.

4.1. Additional analysis

Do environmental features interact with intuition as jointdeterminants of project performance? To answer this question,six hierarchical moderated regression models were generated.The procedures of this analysis for each model are in two steps.The first step was to enter the main effects of intuition, reflexivityand the control and moderating factors as one block. This steprepresents the base model. The second step involved three furthermodels that each entered the interaction term, which werecalculated as the product of intuition and a moderating variable.This analysis was conducted twice, one for each project outcome,

1244 S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

namely, project success and speed of completion. Out of the sixregression models, there was only one significant relationshipwhere the interaction between macro-economic uncertainty andintuition significantly contributed to the base model of projectsuccess (ΔR2 = 0.02, p b .001). Following Sharma et al. (1981),these results confirm the hypotheses that the three environmentalfeatures in this study are antecedents of project intuition, with oneexception only. This is that macro-economic uncertainty is a puremoderator of the relationship between intuition and projectsuccess, since it interacts significantly with intuition and at thesame time it is not significantly related to intuition or projectsuccess (Sharma et al., 1981).

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical implications

As organizations get involved in more and more projects andteams are more often used as their basic units to work on theseprojects, the study of what affects team functioning andperformance, as done in this study, is gaining in importance(Pietersea et al., 2011). In this spirit, our theoretical frameworkwas developed around an integration of research in decisionmaking styles and project processes in order to explore the roleof intuition as a cognitive style of project planning which isaffected by environmental characteristics and enhanced byreflexivity. A strength of the current study is the fact that weused field data including a large number of projects (410projects) and check them for the inter rater reliability of 40projects. Results driven from the analyses of these projectssupport the study's overall model of the antecedents andconsequences of intuition and reflexivity. They show that bothcompetition uncertainty and environmental complexity areessential determinants of intuition; intuition is an importantpredictor of team reflexivity; reflexivity relates positively toproject performance (success and speed of completion); the roleof reflexivity in the relationship between intuition and projectperformance is important for team functioning.

Given that few empirical studies can be found on the role ofenvironment in the use of intuition during project planning and thatthose available in related fields such as decision making seem tohave produced contradictory results (Shepherd and Rudd, 2014),our conceptualization of environmental features as determinants ofthe level of intuition can contribute to future theorization on therole of environment in project planning. An unexpected outcomefrom this study was the lack of any statistically significant relation-ship between macro-economic uncertainty and intuition, whichshows that environmental features may influence project processesdifferently and hence provides extra support to our use of environ-ment as a multi-dimensional construct which is necessary beforecoming to any conclusions (Miller, 1993).

These results suggest that deficits in the way in whichenvironment is conceptualized and used within the decision orproject process–performance relationship can contribute to explainthe mixed results found in previous research (Forbes, 2007). Forexample, Meissner and Wulf (2014) suggest that there is a need torethink the role of environment in the decision process. They

proposed conceptualizing environmental features such instabilityperceived by managers as a predictor of decision process ratherthan as a moderator of the relationship. Moreover, environmentalfeatures have been conceptualized and measured in previousstudies on the basis of a multitude of different constructs whichmay have biased results and makes comparisons between studiesdifficult (Forbes, 2007). At the same time, the types of environ-mental features used, such as uncertainty, and their variant impactshave received little attention (Elbanna et al., 2014). Consideringthese factors, however, may play a crucial role in overcoming thedivergent results in the field.

The findings reported in the previous section justify our callfor reflexivity as a necessary step towards advancing the un-derstanding of the impact of intuition within projects. Theresults demonstrate that intuition does indeed play a role inteam functioning, i.e., reflexivity, and consequently in projectperformance. Perhaps intuition, informed by the use of gutfeeling, sense and judgment, which are built up over time,encourages reflexivity, which lessens the impact of unrealisticgoals, and irrelevant strategies. The fact that intuition wasunrelated to project success when reflexivity was incorporatedin the research model, tentatively suggests that reflexivity maybe a more important influence on project performance thanintuition per se. Clearly, future replications and extensions areneeded to bolster this conclusion.

Our results also show the necessity to consider themulti-dimensionality of project performance. This can be en-hanced further by examining the trade-offs which project teamsmay need to make between competing outcomes in addition toaddressing less examined outcomes such as project propitious-ness, project disturbance, project effectiveness, implementationsuccess and learning (e.g., Dean and Sharfman, 1996; Elbannaet al., 2013; Rodrigues and Hickson, 1995).

5.2. Limitations

This study has certain limitations, which pave the way for newlines of research. First, the three key deliverables of a project aretime, cost and scope (Leybourne and Sadler-Smith, 2006). Theoperationalization of project performance, in this study, addressestwo out of these three dimensions, namely, time (speed ofcompletion) and scope/what is to be delivered (project success).However, the third, cost has not been examined, a limitation whichfuture research needs to consider. Second, given that intuition andreflexivity may vary across different types of project as well assector, future research may focus upon a specific sector, e.g., theconstruction sector (e.g., Ling et al., 2009), or project type, e.g.,new product development (e.g., Dayan and Elbanna, 2011), tocontrol for their effects. Third, while an obvious strength of thisstudy is its big sample size, it should be recognized that onlyexperimental studies speak to the causality implied in our researchmodel, and therefore, future research could use field-experimentalresearch designs to establish the relationships examined in thisstudy (Schippers et al., forthcoming).

An important limitation of this study and related ones is thelack of a theoretically compelling and empirically sound schemefor operationalizing environmental complexity (Cannon & St.

1245S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

John, 2007) and hence researchers should consider specifying amultidimensional measure of environmental complexity whichreflects its different sources (see the measure developed byCannon & St. John, 2007). For example, as stated by Ochieng(2008), project complexity can be examined at three levels,namely, inside the project, outside the project, and in theenvironment outside the project.

Fifth, while the results show evidence for the impact of teamreflexivity, we do not know about the content of this process.That is, we do not know if and how often reflexive sessions tookplace during the project implementation, what was discussedwhen the teams reflected, and how these discussions led to betterproject outcomes (Schippers et al., forthcoming). While suchevidence is not a prerequisite for testing our hypotheses, suchinformation would be helpful in further developing the under-standing of the role of reflexivity in project management and itmay also point to possible contingencies of reflexivity in relationto project outcomes (Schippers et al., forthcoming).

5.3. Future research

Evolving research is needed to explain and contextualizeintuition and reflexivity in project management. There is a pressingneed for considering other antecedents of intuition such as these ofhuman factors, e.g., personal skills, experience, trust and teamempowerment. Moreover, the important role which diversity playsin group functioning (Pietersea et al., 2011) demonstrates the needto examine the impact of different types of diversity on teamintuition, for example, demographic and functional diversity. Thelink between the level of confidence and the use of intuition maybe another avenue for future research (e.g., Leybourne andSadler-Smith, 2006). Similarly, researchers in project managementcan extend their knowledge of reflexivity by examining otherpredictors such as trust, psychological safety, a shared vision,diversity and leadership style, as well as other consequences suchas innovation (see a review on reflexivity research by Widmer etal., 2009).

It would be valuable if further research empirically exploredthe impact of other mediating factors in the link betweenintuition and project performance, not only because it wouldprovide further validation for the current analysis, but alsobecause it would more firmly open the door to an integration ofresearch on intuition and decision/cognitive styles, on the onehand, and research on project processes, on the other. Forexample, research investigating the effect of intuition on lessexamined project processes such as improvisation could behelpful in this respect.

Some research has suggested that the moderating roles ofcontingencies, such as teams' prior performance and learning,should be considered when examining the reflexivity–perfor-mance relationship because reflexivity is an energy-consumingactivity (Schippers et al., 2013). This is another importantavenue for future research which can help to illuminate thesituations under which reflexivity is cost-effective.

This study has attempted to capture environmental influenceson project intuition in terms of environmental attributes, uncer-tainty and complexity. Future research needs to extend the scope of

this study so as to incorporate either other environmental featuressuch as hostility or the role of external parties, such as govern-mental agencies and customers (Dean and Sharfman, 1993). Givenrelated research (Dayan et al., 2012;McArthur andNystrom, 1991;Sharma et al., 1981), contingency theories should seek to simulta-neously examine both key interactions between environmentalfeatures and managerial processes and/or cognitive styles andalso the direct impact of environment, rather than continuing thepast practice of examining one type of relationship only, either amoderating or a direct impact. This is another researchimplication that concerns the future development of contingencytheories.

5.4. Practical implications

In addition to developing theoretical understanding, the supportfor our hypotheses may have important practical implications formanaging projects and improving their outcomes. The findingsshow that intuition is affected by environmental features, drivesproject teams to reflect and has an effect on project outcomeswhich is mediated by the level of reflexivity.

This allows us to claim that intuition and reflexivity themselvesrequire considerable skill and sensitivity from the project team.Reflexivity, however, is not a process that comes naturally tomanymanagers and may have to be learned or facilitated, either ina formal classroom context or through learning processes such ascoaching, mentoring and action learning in addition to the useof tools such as reflective metaphors, critical incident analysis,reflective journals and concept mapping (for more details on thesetools and processes see, Gray, 2007). Similarly, project teamsneed to recognize intuition as a legitimate mental function that isparticularly useful for some situations (Elbanna et al., 2013) andnot something requiring post hoc rationalization or secrecy(Reynolds, 2006).

Moreover, intuition and reflexivity measures can be given toproject teams in order to identify barriers to successful projectoutcomes. Training, in particular for teams rated low on intuitionand reflexivity, can be provided to develop members' intuitionand reflexivity capabilities (Okhuysen and Eisenhardt, 2002).This can help to bring such concepts ‘out of the closet’, for onceunderstood they can be more effectively practiced (Leybourneand Sadler-Smith, 2006). Gurtner et al. (2007), for instance, showthat general training can encourage teams to reflect on what theyhave done so far, and how they could improve their strategies inthe future, which has clear effects on team performance. This isimportant, because guided reflection is a method that can beapplied fairly easily by many different teams in many differentsituations and does not require extended task-analysis and specif-ic training procedures. Similarly, intuition can form part of themanagement training and education curriculum (Elbanna et al.,2013). For example, team members need to recognize how theinteraction between intuition and team reflexivity can counteractthe negative effects of formal planning in project managementand highlight the fact that reflexivity may explain the missing roleof intuition in related research on decision/project outcomes (e.g.,Elbanna and Child, 2007).

1246 S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

6. Conclusion

Recent research has shown the important role of team intui-tion in project management (Baldacchino, 2013; Elbanna et al.,2015; Leybourne and Sadler-Smith, 2006). The present studyextends and develops this emerging research by using a modelof environmental uncertainty and complexity, project manag-ers' intuitive decision making, the use of reflexivity and projectperformance in order to examine the impact of environment onthe use of intuition, how intuition relates to reflexivity and howintuition and reflexivity are linked to project outcomes. Theanalysis has shown that both competition uncertainty andenvironmental complexity are related to the use of intuition, therelation between team intuition and team reflexivity isimportant for team functioning and that conscious reflectionon team functioning is a necessary step towards understandingthe impact of intuition within strategic projects. Moreover,reflexivity being especially needed and helpful to detect andimprove strategies, implement them and improve projectperformance.

Our theory and results have important implications for therole of environment in project management. Although priorresearch has examined implications of environmental condi-tions for project management and strategy development, littletheorizing and empirical research has examined how environ-ment can influence the project or strategy process (Elbanna etal., 2014). Our results indicate that there is a need to rethink therole of environment in the project process by using it as anantecedent of this process which can contribute to explain themixed results found in previous research (Forbes, 2007;Meissner and Wulf, 2014).

Our use of reflexivity as a means to understand the effects ofintuition in project performance can contribute to furtherdevelop management theory and open up promising futureresearch opportunities. In particular, such approach can help torenew the theoretical bases of project management in order tofocus on what happens in project management, turn away fromthe problems that stem from the application of methods basedon decision-rationality models, and understand the alternative“rationalities” involved in project management (Floricel et al.,2014). For example, intuition represents a distinctive aspect ofthe processing of information which in turn influencesmanagerial actions such as reflexivity rather than directlyaffects project outcomes. By showing that the effects ofintuition on project performance are contingent upon teamreflexivity, our study develops and extends team intuitiontheorization and we, hence, encourage project teams to reflecton their project plans. Of course, these results are exploratory,and they should be treated with caution until they are replicated.

Finally, we hope this study among others in the future willresult in reflexivity becoming more widely accepted as amanagerial capability which can assist in different aspects ofmanagement such as business planning, project managementand strategic decision-making. This movement can alsocontribute to solving the long-standing dilemma of thefunctionality of intuitive approaches, and show how they cancontribute to organizational outcomes.

Conflict of interest

None.

Appendix 1. Measurement scales.

Variables

Items

Project success

1. Our firm was successful in achieving the originalobjectives of this project.2. The problem(s) which made this project necessary was(were) solved by its implementation.3. Stakeholders were satisfied with the outcomes of thisproject.4. How would you describe the impact of this project onthe performance of your firm?5. In general, how do you assess this project now?

Speed of completion

1. This project was completed in less time than what wasconsidered normal and customary for our firm.2. This project was completed on or ahead of the originalschedule developed at initial project go-ahead.3. Top management was pleased with the time it took usto implement this project.

Intuition

1. Participants in planning this project tended to rely ontheir intuition.2. Participants in planning this project generally made thedecisions that felt right to them.3. It was more important for participants in planning thisproject to feel their decisions are right than to have arational reason for them.4. Participants in planning this project trusted their innerfeelings and reactions

Reflexivity

1. The team investigated and observed the context and theprogress of the project (e.g., task performance strategies,goals, project requirements, the organizational context,etc.).2. The team adjusted its task performance strategies inresponse to changes in the context and progress of theproject.3. The team spent an adequate amount of timeconsidering the likely consequences of its task activities(e.g. considerations regarding usefulness of the project,compatibility with other projects, cost, etc.)4. Strategies and work approaches chosen were laterchecked for their appropriateness by the project team.

Competitionuncertainty

(1) Easy to predict, (5) difficult to predict.1. Changes in competitors' prices2. Changes in competitors' strategies3. Entry of new competitors4. Changes in the markets

Macro-economicuncertainty

(1) Easy to predict, (5) difficult to predict.1. Inflation rate2. Exchange rate with foreign currencies3. Interest rate4. Economic stability

Environmentalcomplexity

Complex environment is characterized by rapid changeand containing a large number of factors to beconsidered. Considering this definition, how complexwas your firm's environment during this project? (1) verysimple, (5) very complex

References

Akgün, A.E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J., Imamoglu, S.Z., 2007. Antecedents andconsequences of team potency in software development projects. Inf.Manag. 44 (7), 646–656.

1247S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

Akinci, C., Sadler-Smith, E., 2012. Intuition in management research: ahistorical review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 14 (1), 104–122.

Baldacchino, L. 2013. Entrepreneurial experience and opportunity identifica-tion: the role of intuition and cognitive versatility. Unpublished PhD thesis,University of Warwick, Warwick.

Bantel, K.A., Osborn, R.N., 2001. The influence of performance, environmentand size on the identifiability of firm strategy. Br. J. Manag. 6, 235–248.

Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinctionin social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statisticalconsiderations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173–1182.

Boyd, B.K., Fulk, J., 1996. Executive scanning and perceived uncertainty: amultidimensional model. J. Manag. 22 (1), 1–21.

Cannon, A.R., John, C.H.St., 2007. Measuring environmental complexity: atheoretical and empirical assessment. Organ. Res. Methods 10 (2), 296–321.

Carter, S.M., West, M.A., 1998. Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health inBBC-TV production teams. Small Group Res. 29 (5), 583–601.

Child, J., 1972. Organisational structure, environment and performance: the roleof strategic choice. Sociology 6 (1), 2–22.

Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., 1986. Organisational information requirements, mediarichness and structural design. Manag. Sci. 32 (5), 554–571.

Dane, E., Pratt, M., 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decisionmaking. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (1), 33–54.

Dayan, M., Elbanna, S., 2011. Antecedents of team intuition and its impact onthe success of new product development projects. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 28(S1), 159–174.

Dayan, M., Elbanna, S., Benedetto, C.A.D., 2012. Antecedents and conse-quences of political behavior in new product development teams. IEEETrans. Eng. Manag. 59 (3), 470–482.

Dean, J.W., Sharfman, M.P., 1993. Procedural rationality in the strategicdecision making process. J. Manag. Stud. 30 (4), 587–610.

Dean, J.W., Sharfman, M.P., 1996. Does decision process matter? A studyof strategic decision making effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (2),368–396.

Elbanna, S., 2009. The impact of affective conflict on firm performance.Management Research News 32 (9), 789–803.

Elbanna, S., Child, J., 2007. Influences on strategic decision effectiveness:development and test of an integrative model. Strateg. Manag. J. 28 (4),431–453.

Elbanna, S., Child, J., Dayan, M., 2013. A model of antecedents andconsequences of intuition in strategic decision-making: evidence fromEgypt. Long Range Plan. 46 (1–2), 149–176.

Elbanna, S., Thanos, I.C., Papadakis, V., 2014. Understanding how thecontextual variables influence political behaviour in strategic decision-making: a constructive replication. J. Strategy Manag. 7 (3), 226–250.

Elbanna, S., Di Benedetto, C.A., Gherib, J., 2015. Do environment and intuitionmatter in the relationship between decision politics and success? J. Manag.Organ. 21 (01), 60–81.

Floricel, S., Bonneau, C., Aubry, M., Sergi, V., 2014. Extending projectmanagement research: insights from social theories. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32(7), 1091–1107.

Forbes, D.P., 2007. Reconsidering the strategic implications of decisioncomprehensiveness. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (2), 361–376.

Fredrickson, J.W., 1983. Strategic process research: questions and recommen-dations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 8 (4), 565–575.

Goll, I., Rasheed, A.A., 1997. Rational decision-making and firm performance:the moderating role of environment. Strateg. Manag. J. 18 (7), 583–591.

Gray, D.E., 2007. Facilitating management learning: developing criticalreflection through reflective tools. Manag. Learn. 38 (5), 495–527.

Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N.K., Nägele, C., 2007. Getting groups todevelop good strategies: effects of reflexivity interventions on team process,team performance, and shared mental models. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.Process. 102 (2), 127–142.

Hackman, J.R., Wageman, R., 2005. A theory of team coaching. Acad. Manag.Rev. 30 (2), 269–287.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2009. Multivariate dataanalysis. 7th ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hensman, A., Sadler-Smith, E., 2011. Intuitive decision making in banking andfinance. Eur. Manag. J. 29, 51–66.

Hoegl, M., Parboteeah, K.P., 2006. Team reflexivity in innovative projects.R&D Manag. 36 (2), 113–125.

Hough, J.R., White, M.A., 2003. Environmental dynamism and strategicdecision-making rationality: an examination at the decision level. Strateg.Manag. J. 24, 481–489.

Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariancestructure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling: Multidiscip. J. 6 (1), 1–55.

Khatri, N. 1994. Strategic decision processes and organizational performance.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The State University of New York,Buffalo.

Khatri, N., Ng, H.A., 2000. The role of intuition in strategic decision making.Hum. Relat. 53 (1), 57–86.

LePine, J.A., Piccolo, R.F., Jackson, C.L., Mathieu, J.E., Saul, J.R., 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model andrelationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers. Psychol. 61, 273–307.

Leybourne, S. A. 2002. Project management and the implementation ofstrategic change within the UK financial services sector. Unpublished PhDthesis, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff.

Leybourne, S., Sadler-Smith, E., 2006. The role of intuition and improvisationin project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (6), 483–492.

Ling, F.Y.Y., Low, S.P., Wang, S.Q., Lim, H.H., 2009. Key projectmanagement practices affecting Singaporean firms' project performance inChina. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (1), 59–71.

Lipovetsky, S., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Shenhar, A., 1997. The relativeimportance of projects success dimensions. Res. Des. Manag. 27 (2),97–106.

Lynn, G.S., Reilly, R.R., Akgun, A.E., 2000. Knowledge management in newproduct teams: practices and outcomes. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 47,221–231.

Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., Zaccaro, S.J., 2001. A temporally based frameworkand taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26, 356–376.

Martinsuo, M., Korhonen, T., Laine, T., 2014. Identifying, framing and managinguncertainties in project portfolios. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5), 732–746.

McArthur, A.W., Nystrom, P.C., 1991. Environmental dynamism, complexityand munificence as moderators of strategy–performance relationships.J. Bus. Res. 23, 349–361.

Meissner, P., Wulf, T., 2014. Antecedents and effects of decision comprehen-siveness: the role of decision quality and perceived uncertainty. Eur. Manag.J. 0.

Miller, K.D., 1993. Industry and country effects on managers' perceptions ofenvironmental uncertainties. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 24 (4), 693–714.

Mintzberg, H., 1973. Strategy making in three modes. Calif. Manag. Rev. 16(2), 44–53.

Mir, F.A., Pinnington, A.H., 2014. Exploring the value of project management:linking project management performance and project success. Int. J. Proj.Manag. 32 (2), 202–217.

Misuraca, G., Codagnone, C., Rossel, P., 2013. From practice to theory andback to practice: reflexivity in measurement and evaluation for evidence-based policy making in the information society. Gov. Inf. Q. 30(Supplement 1), S68–S82.

Müller, R., Turner, R., 2007. The influence of project managers on projectsuccess criteria and project success by type of project. Eur. Manag. J. 25 (4),298–309.

Ochieng, E. G. 2008. Framework for Managing Multicultural Project Teams.Unpublished PhD thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough.

Ochieng, E.G., Price, A.D.F., Ruan, X., Egbu, C.O., Moore, D., 2013. Theeffect of cross-cultural uncertainty and complexity within multiculturalconstruction teams. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 20 (3), 307–324.

Okhuysen, G.A., Eisenhardt, K.M., 2002. Integrating knowledge in groups:how formal interventions help enable flexibility. Organ. Sci. 13 (4),370–386.

Papadakis, V.M., Lioukas, S., Chambers, D., 1998. Strategic decision-makingprocesses: the role of management and context. Strateg. Manag. J. 19 (2),115–147.

Pietersea, A.N., Knippenberg, D.v., Ginkel, W.P.v., 2011. Diversity in goalorientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organ. Behav. Hum.Decis. Process. 114 (2), 153–164.

1248 S. Elbanna / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1236–1248

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature andrecommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.

Reynolds, S.J., 2006. A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-makingprocess: implications for study and practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 737–748.

Rodrigues, S.B., Hickson, D.J., 1995. Success in decision making: differentorganizations, differing reasons for success. J. Manag. Stud. 32 (5),655–678.

Sanchez, J.I., Brock, P., 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination amongHispanic employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?Acad. Manag. J. 39 (3), 704–719.

Schippers, M.C., Homan, A., van Knippenberg, D., 2013. To reflect or not toreflect: prior team performance as a boundary condition of the effects ofreflexivity on learning and final team performance. J. Organ. Behav. 34 (1),6–23.

Schippers, M.C., West, M.A., Dawson, J.F., 2015. Team reflexivity andinnovation: the moderating role of team context. J. Manag http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441210 (forthcoming).

Schwenk, C.R., 1988. The essence of strategic decision making. LexingtonBooks, Lexington, MA.

Scott, S.G., Bruce, R.A., 1995. Decision-making style: the development andassessment of a new measure. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 55 (5), 818–831.

Sharma, S., Durand, R.M., Gur-Arie, O., 1981. Identification and analysis ofmoderator variables. J. Mark. Res. 18, 291–300.

Shepherd, N.G., Rudd, J.M., 2014. The influence of context on the strategicdecision-making process: a review of the literature. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 16(3), 340–364.

Shrivastava, P., Grant, J., 1985. Empirically derived models of strategicdecision-making processes. Strateg. Manag. J. 6, 97–113.

Smart, C., Vertinsky, I., 1984. Strategy and the environment: a study ofcorporate responses to crises. Strateg. Manag. J. 5 (3), 199–213.

Sonenshein, S., 2007. The role of construction, intuition, and justification inresponding to ethical issues at work: the sensemaking-intuition model.Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (4), 1022–1040.

Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., Yu, Z., 2003. Conflict management and task reflexivityfor team in-role and extra-role performance in China. Int. J. Confl. Manag.14 (2), 141–163.

Tjosvold, D., Tang, M.M.L., West, M., 2004. Reflexivity for team innovation inChina: the contribution of goal interdependence. Group Organ. Manag. 29(5), 540–559.

van Ginkel, W.P., Tindale, R.S., van Knippenberg, D., 2009. Team reflexivity,development of shared task representations, and the use of distributedinformation in group decision making. Group Dyn. 13, 265–287.

West, M.A. (Ed.), 1996. The handbook of work group psychology. John Wiley,Chichester.

West, M.A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative modelof creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Appl. Psychol.51 (3), 355–387.

West, M.A., Patterson, M.G., Dawson, J.F., 1999. A path to profit? Teamworkat the top. Centrepiece 4, 6–11.

Widmer, P.S., Schippers, M.C., West, M.A., 2009. Recent developments inreflexivity research: a review. Psychol. Everyday Act. 2 (2), 2–11.

Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., Su, F., 2007. Social face for innovation in strategicalliances in China: the mediating roles of resource exchange and reflexivity.J. Organ. Behav. 28, 961–978.

Zhao, X., Huo, B., Selen, W., Yeung, J.H.Y., 2011. The impact of internalintegration and relationship commitment on external integration. J. Oper.Manag. 29 (1–2), 17–32.