Background

The jury is still out on whether proj-ect management is an art rather thana science. One thing is still true,however, a project can have in placeall the necessary disciplines for goodproject execution - a meaningfulstatement of work, detail schedules,and change management, for exam-ple - and still end in failure.Applying the tools, techniques, andknowledge of project managementdoes not guarantee success. It onlyaffects the likelihood of success,depending on the environment andthe degree that the basic functions ofproject management are applied.

Many of the current theories takeon a psychological rather than socio-logical approach regarding the influ-ence of individuals on just about anyendeavor. Many of these theories arebased upon the Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator, which identifies 16 differ-ent patterns of behavior or tempera-ment action, and the work of DavidMerrill and Roger Reid, which identi-fies four basic social styles basesupon psychological variants [1] [2].

Only recently has the influence ofthe project manager's personality onproject performance received recogni-tion. The Project ManagerCompetency Model of Keane, Inc.attempts to analyze personalityaccording to four clusters: problem-solving, managerial identity, achieve-ment, and influence. Combined,

these four clusters consist of 17 corecompetencies [3].

Such attempts at analyzing theinfluence of the project manager'spersonality do little to account for the"teambuilding" perspective of projectmanages and how they respond tothat environment via the applicationof project management disciplines.

A key variant in managing a proj-ect successfully is the project manag-er's style or approach toward a team-building situation. How project man-agers perceive their environment,respond to events, process informa-tion, and interact with others influ-ence the outcome of projects.

"I Opt"

"I Opt" is a tool to facilitate the team-building process. It focuses on howpeople process information, decide ona course of action, and approachmatters in a work situation thatinvolves teambuilding [4]. [Portionsof the "I Opt" explanations are aderived from work by Gary Salton,Ph.D.]

The tool is not a psychological testthat measures invariant attributes ofan individual. Rather, it is a socio-logical tool emphasizing complemen-tary skills and compatibility. It doesthat by identifying individual prefer-ences in how a person approachesrelevant work situations. It provides

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

JOURNAL

Teambuilding Styles and TheirImpact on Project

Management ResultsBY: Ralph L Kliem & Harris B. Anderson

The Professional Journal of the Project Management Institute

March 1996Volume XXVII, Number 1

This article was a NASA Hotpick for 1997

Teambuilding Styles andTheir Impact on ProjectM anagement ResultsBy Ralph L. Kliem and Harris B. Anderson

insights for project managers todevelop team structures and process-es to improve project management.

Some specific ways project managerscan use "I Opt" to improve projectmanagement include:

• Developing an appreciation and respect of other people's work-related behavioral attributes

• Suggesting how team members effectively allocate responsibilities in various situations or handle particular problems

• Assembling team members with specific capabilities.

"I Opt" identifies four primary stylesin how a person approaches relevantwork situations. Each style reflectsthe person's:

• Goal preferences and needs• Task direction from which he or

she might benefit.• Supervision and organization

preferences• Orientation towards detail• Attitude towards change.

To determine the style of individuals,people complete a questionnaire con-taining 24 items. In the followingexample, the responds select the sin-gle best phrase that describes them:

1. I like my own ideas best.2. It's easy for me to stay on

task.3. I'm very careful.4. I sometimes do things before I think them through.

Upon completing the survey ques-tionnaire, data is compiled and ana-lyzed. An extensive report is printedreflecting the individual's approach toany teambuilding situation.

The Four Primary Styles

The four primary styles are: ReactiveStimulator (RS), Logical Processor(LP), Hypothetical Analyzer (HA),Relational Innovator (RI).

Reactive Stimulator. Pure RS indi-viduals are action-oriented. Theyreact immediately to situations. Theyare highly focused on the immediatetask and typically seek quick results.Now! Is their usual target.

RS individuals have a tremendouscapacity to generate and completework. They typically enjoy change,variety, and prosper under a fast-paced, pressured environment. Theyare fast starters and produce stronginitial results. However, a strong RSmay be inattentive to detail whileaggressively pursuing the immediateresult. Also, a spontaneous, high-energy RS individual may become

bored and frustrated with long-termprojects that require methodical, con-certed actions.

Logical Processor. LP individualsare the "bulldog" of the four "I Opt"types. They are logical, methodical,and not easily deterred. They arenaturally detail-oriented and workbest in situations involving assign-ments that are clear, precise, andhave well-defined expectations. Ineffect, they like assignments reflect-ing their favored work strategy.

LP individuals are tireless workers.They stay focused on an objectiveuntil its achievement; they are tidyand accomplish a lot. They are high-ly organized and structures readily, ifperceived as logical. They are loyal topeople and firms who treat them con-sistently and logically. However, LPindividuals may resist change andare generally skeptical in their

approach to work. LP individuals arenot a "natural" in setting longer-range goals and may need encourage-ment to participate in the process.

Hypothetical Analyzer. HA individ-uals are problem- solvers. They ana-lyze problems carefully and ponderthem from multiple viewpoints. Theyenjoy complexity and the challenge ofsolving a difficult problem or perfect-ing a program or process, or both.Their basic strategy is to decomposeproblems into components, anddevelop solutions. Being cautious,they usually have contingency plansready. They mainly focus on plan-ning in a position and may delegateactual execution.

HA individuals are great analyzers,planners, and problem-solvers. Theyare natural teachers, leveraging theirtendency to decompose problems andprocesses into more easily under-stood components. They see the "bigpicture" and maintain perspective.However, analysis and planning takestime and HA individuals appear slowin pace. They focus on the intellectu-al elements of a task, which divertsthem from performing final actions toconclude a project.

Relational Innovator. RI individualstypically deal in ideas and see the"big picture". They quickly see rela-tionships between divergent ideasand situations. RI individuals areinnovative and like to explore alterna-tive ways of doing tasks. They canquickly integrate concepts, ideas, andinnovations into coherent theoriesand systems.

Strong RI individuals are usuallygreat "idea" people. They often gener-ate more ideas in a day than otherpeople do in a month. However, theycan divert themselves into a streamof redefinition's, continuously seeingnew relationships and alternatives.

Table 1. Four Basic Styles

Characteristics Reactive Stimulator Logical Processor Hypothetical Analyzer Relational Innovator

Details

Self-selects goals:Prefers Immediate Ones

Has difficultexpressing orreceiving appreciation

Is highly attentive toplanning detail,becoming inattentivelater to procedures

Does not welcome orenjoy personal comments;appreciates focus on ideasand contributions

Likes to thoroughlyunderstand purpose ofassigned goals

Likes to figure out howto accomplish tasks

Accommodates changebut may be frustrated byfluid situations

Prefers discipline andstructure

Likes to hear about ownideas; does not like tohear about routine workwell done

Needs to understandthe need to pursue agoal

Likes consistency,encouragement andrecognition; not botheredby close supervision

Likes clear specificdirections

Accepts logical,methodical change;uncomfortable in fluid,spontaneous situations

Thrives on detail

Prefers highlyorganized, well-defined,and neat organization

Likes clear andspecific goals; focuseson shorter rangeobjectives

Prefers minimalsupervision; enjoysexploring options

Creates uniquepersonal systems

If committed, veryattentive to details;otherwise, may beinattentive

Prefers creating own ways tocomplete tasks

Likes and needsflexible goals

Responds well tochanging situations; ishighly adaptive andflexible

Likes commentsabout adaptability

Resist rules andspecific direction

Readily acceptschange

Prefers quick and easierways

Prefers organizationand structure to keeptheir task tocompletions

Prefers “easy-going”supervision

Direction

Goals

Supervision

Appreciation

Change

Organization

Progress

Quickly progressestoward an objective

Progresses linearly andsteadily towards anobjective

Progresses slowly inplanning stage

Progresses in a haltingpattern; getssidetracked

The differences among the fourstyles manifest themselves in fourareas: information processing prefer-ences, planning and actions, changeversus stability, and style interac-tions.

Information ProcessingPreferences. RI individuals focus ona mission or at a global problemlevel. They consider a wide variety ofinformation but not in great detail.HA individuals focus on the project ormore local problem level. They mayconsider a variety of related informa-tion. They are very detailed in theanalysis and planning phases but notin the execution phase of a project.LP individuals focus on immediatetasks or multiple duties to achieve anobjective. They focus on detailedinformation in planning and execu-tion phases of a project. RS individu-als concentrate on immediate taskLevels. They are action-oriented anddo not concern themselves with detailor many alternatives.

Planning and Action. The RS and LPindividuals share an action orienta-tion, appreciate the concrete ratherthan the theoretical, and generallyfocus on the immediate. Their strate-gy is to optimize within the parame-ters of a situation. their informationneeds are low, the complexity of pro-cessing is minimized and speed ofresponse is high. This kind of pro-cessing pattern is ideal in crisis situ-ations where the speed of response ismore valuable than the optimality ofoutcome.

The RI and HA individuals are per-fectionists. They appreciate the theo-retical, are more comfortable inabstract possibilities, and more easilyaccommodate generalities rather thanspecifics. Their strategy is to focuson how things could be rather thanon the constraints of a situation.

Change Versus Stability. RI and RSindividuals are spontaneous and,consequently, they consider a highvolume of possibilities. Also, theyalmost randomly accept information,augmenting the possibilities they willconsider. Finally, they are open tosuggestion and challenge, readilycontributing to and accepting modifi-cations to their ideas. HA and LPindividuals are structured in theirapproaches to work. They seek andintegrate information related to theirsubject. They apply logic to the infor-mation within their structured,methodical approach. HA individualsare protective while RI individuals areexpressive of their ideas.

Style Interactions. We are usuallycompatible with people whose style islike our own. The RS and LP individ-uals are action-oriented and appreci-ate the concrete rather than theabstract. Their perspectives serve asa foundation for an effective relation-ship. Similarly, RS and RI individu-als are creative and receptive tochange. Their orientations help buildeffective working relationships amongstyles. The challenge is building rela-tionships that between polar oppo-sites. RI individual's' planning ten-dencies, future orientation, unstruc-tured processes, preference forchange, and a more spontaneousstyle may not easily integrate withthe LP persons' structured, methodi-cal, conservative, and action-orientedpreferences. This style interactionprovides a weak basis for shared per-spective.

Nevertheless, differences betweenstyles can provide the basis for effec-tive teambuilding. Their differentstyles can complement one another,providing a balanced variety of per-spectives. To ensure that divergentstyle does not hinder teambuilding,introducing a third style can provebeneficial by serving as a conduit for

shared values. For example, a teamcomposed of Relational Innovatorsand Logical Processors might benefitfrom the introduction of ReactiveStimulators and HypotheticalAnalyzers.

"I Opt" and the ProjectManagement Orientation Criteria

The use of "I Opt" has great utility indetermining the application of projectmanagement functions for a givenproject. The reason is that prefer-ences for planning, organizing, con-trolling, and leading a project reflectthe project manager's style orapproach toward a teambuilding situ-ations.

Before discussing the relationshipbetween "I Opt" and project manage-ment, however, it's important todefine the latter.

Project management consists offour basic functions: planning, organ-izing, controlling, and leading. Eachfunction involves applying certaintools, techniques, and knowledge onprojects.

Planning. This function entailsdeciding in advance what a projectwill achieve, determining the steps forits execution, assigning people andother resources to those steps, andidentifying when the steps must startand stop. Activities subsumed underplanning are defining goals, assessingrisks, estimation, budgeting, allocat-ing resources, defining tasks, andbuilding schedules.

Organizing. This function involvesorchestrating resources cost effective-ly to execute project plans. Activitiessubsumed under organizing are set-ting up effective spans of control,assigning responsibilities, establish-ing communications, teambuilding,and development documentation.

Controlling. This function entailsassessing how well the project usesits plans and organization to achievegoals and objectives. Activities sub-sumed under controlling include set-ting up change control, solving prob-lems, tracking, monitoring, perform-ing contingency planning, andreplanning.

Leading. This function involvesmotivating people to perform satisfac-torily on the job. Activities subsumedunder leading are delegation, commu-nication, and motivating.

Of course, all four functions (plan-ning, organizing, controlling, andleading) do not occur independently.Each overlaps with the other to con-tribute to project completion. Leadingoccurs throughout planning, organiz-ing, and controlling of a project; plan-ning during organizing and control-ling; and organizing during planningand controlling. The result is aninterdependency, or integration, of allfour functions.

At the same time, applying thesefour functions occurs at various lev-els. For example, extensive planningcan occur while organizing does, too,on a much more limited extent. Orextensive planning can occur whilecontrolling does, too, on a more limit-ed extent.

Applying the activities subsumedunder the four project managementfunctions occurs according to orien-tation or proclivity, reflected in theproject management orientation crite-ria, and manifests itself through theteambuilding style of the projectmanager. Below is a listing of the ori-entations attributed to each functionof project management:

Planning.

1. Concentrating on path or goal. Project managers emphasize the approach to reaching the goal, or the ultimate goal of the project. Examples are project managers perfecting how to reach the goal first, or perfecting the goal first and then choosing the path.

2. Taking a linear or nonlinear approach. Project managers identify and execute only one way to attain the project goal, or they see multiple ways to reach it. Examples are systems developers using the waterfall, or spiral, life cycle, or choosing from several new development life cycles or a combination of them.

3. Developing broad or in-depth plans. Project managers develop "high-level" plans containing minimal detail, or "low-level" plans with great detail. Examples are developing a bar chart based on ahigh-level breakdown structure, or a network diagram based upon a WBS of great detail.

4. Being product- or process driven.Project managers focus on building a quality product regardless of process, or on perfecting the process as a way building a quality product. Examples are eliminating waste (e.g., conducting work flow analysis) in processes before developing a product, or building regardless of inefficient process.

5. Building formal or informal plans.Project managers either treat plans officially or casually. Examples are documenting the plans according to established style and getting buy-off, or "scratching out" the plans and obtaining general approval.

Organizing.

6. Establishing narrow or broad spans of control. Project managers either organize their team with a tight reporting structure with lay ers of management or a wide reporting with layers of manage ment or a wide reporting structure with minimal layers. Anexample is a project would be tenpeople. A narrow span of control would be two leads with one person per five people; a wide span of control would be zero or one lead for the entire team.

7. Employing formal or informal communications. Project managers disseminate information and acquire feedback using standard communications tools, or they rely on more personal approaches. Examples are holding weekly status review meetingsand publishing a project newsletter, or holding ad hoc one-on-onesessions to disseminate information and acquire feedback.

8. Relying on individual performers or teamwork. Project managers identify and rely upon star performers, or they see the team as consistent of constituent parts that collaborate with one another to deliver a product. Examples are relying on one or two individuals to perform 80 percent of the work, or assigning work equitablyso everyone provides a meaningful contribution.

9. Developing minimum or extensivedocumentation. Project managersestablish weak or strong mechanisms for capturing, disseminating, strong mechanisms for capturing, disseminating, and storing data. Examples are a formal documentation structure that includes building and mentation

structure that includes building and main taining project manualsand project history files, or just tracking weekly project progress using a project management software package.

Controlling.

10. Resisting or accepting change control. Project managers view change as threatening to a project or something to manage. Examples are disregarding all changes to a schedule and proceeding ahead, or establishing a change management function to evaluate changes to a schedule.

11. Treating symptoms or sources of problems. Project managers either take a "Band-Aid" or short-term approach to deal with problems, or they invest the time, resources, and effort to address causes. Examples are using overtime to address frequent peakload periods, or investing the time and effort in building a realistic schedule that leads to more efficient and effective use of resources in the long run.

12. Taking formal or informal measurement. Project managers investthe time, effort, and resources to systematically collect, analyze, and evaluate data on project performance, or they take a casual approach that uses minimal tracking and monitoring. Examples are establishing detailed metrics on cost, schedule, and quality performance, or simply holding one-on-one sessions to gauge the status of certain tasks.

Leading.

13. Doing or managing. Project managers do many of the tasks that other team members perform, or project managers manage others doing the work. Examples are managing the administrative functions while team members build elements of the product, or create one of the elements themselves.

14. Taking a task- or people-orientation. Project managers stress doing the work without placing any importance on motivational issues, or they emphasize behavioral issues over completing tasksefficiently and effectively. Examples are estimating time to complete tasks without the input from the people doing the work, or obtaining the feedback from everyone on how to complete tasks.

15. Using formal or informal power. Project managers manage from a structured command and authority perspective or from a relational, interpersonal vantage point. Examples are publishing organization charts of great detail and establishing a highly organizer project office, or using ad hoc meetings and other less official means to manage.

16. Using negative or positive incentives. Project managers employ Theory X (e.g., negative) incentives to ensure completion of tasks or Theory Y (e.g., positive) incentives. Examples are threatening termination of project participation for failure to perform, or providing tasks that increase challenge, responsibility, and a sense of achievement.

Relationship of "I Opt" Styles toProject Management OrientationCriteria

Reactive Stimulators. These individ-uals plan at a very high level and,consequently, spend less time at itthan other styles. They view plans asa way to help set direction and noth-ing more. Getting started on the workis more important than developingelaborate, formal plans.

RS individuals place little emphasis

on establishing a supporting infra-structure for projects. Too muchorganizing of a project slows momen-tum and, with a preference for "saw-ing wood, not talk," frustrates them.Setting up a project history file orlibrary, for example, are nice if timepermits.

They also have little patience withformally controlling projects. Theyprefer moving forward to completetasks, not spending time to collectdata and analyze it. Nor do they take

time to address the causes of prob-lems; doing so only slows projects.They see formal status review meet-ings, for example, as headaches.

RS individuals, with their strongpenchant for action, focus on com-pleting tasks and prefer not dealingwith the delicacies of behavioralaffairs. They are impatient with for-mality in organizations, viewing it asan impediment to taking action. Theyaccept teambuilding activities when itdoesn't directly interfere withprogress, They pride themselves in"kicking butt" to get the job done.

Logical Processors. These individu-als plan at a very detailed level. Howthey achieve a goal is as important asthe goal itself. They must design boththe product and process in greatdetail. They don't begin any actionuntil they define all tasks thoroughly,step-by-step, and linearly. In otherwords, they take a systematic, linearapproach to planning. They producework breakdown structures andschedules of great depth.

They also establish a well-definedorganization for a project. Just abouteverything they develop is highly"rational". They'll produce the finestorganization chart imagined, a com-plete project manual, and a well-organized project history file.

LP individuals ensure that allactivities on the project occur accord-ing to plan. They have little tolerancefor anything that deviates from theplan. They will establish good changemanagement procedures and prac-tices, but such setups are mere for-malities because they seldom wel-come change.

They also prefer to do the workthemselves, not delegating unlessconvinced the delegates can do justas good a job. They also rely on for-

mal authority to complete tasks,placing little faith in interpersonal orbehavioral approaches for motivatingteam members and often relying onthe "stick" to adhere to plans.

Hypothetical Analyzers. These indi-viduals center their plans around thegoal. They plan the goal and the pathto achieving it in considerable detail.However, they immerse themselves indetails, plans get to detailed, givingthe impression that they are morewrapped up in the process for devel-oping a product than the productitself.

They also establish a highly formalorganizational infrastructure. Justabout everything they develop ishighly defined, orderly, and well doc-umented. Unlike the LogicalProcessor, however HypotheticalAnalyzers view everyone on the teamas vital for executing project planssuccessfully. They do not see starperformers; rather, they see everyoneplaying an important role duringproject execution. They produce, forexample, highly interwoven responsi-bility matrices and conduct frequentmeetings.

HA individuals, after developingelaborate plans, resist change.However, to fulfill their desire forthoroughness they institute goodchange control measures to identifyproblems and fix root causes. Thisattention to root causes necessitatesinstituting formal measurement pro-grams. They'll have, for example,excellent metrics to gauge projectperformance in many subject areas.

They see people playing an impor-tant role in successfully completingprojects. They encourage involve-ment, including team and customerbuy-in. They accomplish that throughformal approaches such as signa-tures and regular meetings. They also

Table 2. Matrix Showing Teambuilding Style and Relationship to ProjectManagement Orientation Criteria

Reactive Logical Hypothetical RelationalOrientation Stimulator Processor Analyzer InnovatorPlanning

1. Concentrating on Path Path Goal Goal path or goal

2. Taking a linear or Linear Linear Nonlinear NonlinearNon-linear approach

3. Developing broad or Broad In-depth In-depth Broador in-depth plans

4. Being product or Process-driven Process-driven Product-driven Product-drivenprocess-driven

5. Building formal or Informal Formal Formal Informalinformal plans

Organizing6. Establishing narrow or Broad Narrow Narrow Broad

broad spans of control7. Employing formal or Informal Formal Formal Informal

informal communications8. Relying on individual Individual Individual Teamwork Teamwork

per formers or teamwork9. Developing minimum or Minimum Extensive Extensive Minimum

extensive documentation

Controlling10.Resisting or accepting Accept Resist Resist Accept

change control11.Treating symptoms or Symptoms Sources Sources Symptoms

sources of change12.Taking formal or Informal Formal Formal Informal

informal measurement

Leading13. Doing or managing Doing Doing Managing Managing14. Taking a task – or Task-oriented Task-oriented People-oriented People-oriented

people-oriented15. Using formal or Informal Formal Formal Informal

informal power16. Using negative or Negative Negative Positive Positive

positive incentives

place a high premium on behavioralaspects of managing, e.g., redesigningtasks to engender enthusiasm.

Relational Innovators. These indi-viduals focus on the goal. They careless about how to attain that goaland will explore alternative ways toachieve it. Hence, they produce high-ly flexible, broad, and not-well-docu-mented plans.

They also put little emphasis onestablishing an organizational infra-structure. They dislike creating layersbetween themselves and the peoplethey manage. They also see items likeproject manuals and project historyfiles as "administrivia". They seeeveryone as a significant contributorto a project, not just a few.

RI individuals are flexible to newideas and welcome change. Ratherthan formally categorize and evaluatea change, they decide its fate as soonas possible with available informa-tion. Often their decision treatssymptoms so as not to impedeprogress toward a goal.

They view people as critical in com-pleting a project. Rather than managepeople formally, however, they preferthe personal touch. They see com-pleting a project with and throughpeople. They value positive incentives(e.g., training and coaching) over neg-ative ones (e.g., criticizing people).

The Project ManagementApplication Typology (PMAT)

Each teambuilding style in "I Opt"has a great influence on how a proj-ect is planned, organized, controlled,and led. This influence becomes sig-nificant when project managers withspecific styles manage in a projectenvironment that agrees or disagreeswith that style.

The PMAT reflects such relationshipswhen applying the four functions to aproject. The PMAT consists of fourquadrants, each representing a spe-cific type of environment. The PMATis created through the intersection oftwo axes, or continuums. This inter-section creates four quadrants.

The X-axis is the level of structurethat exists in an environment.Structure means the degree of for-mality that exists within an environ-ment (e.g., going through administra-tive "hoops" or red tape). The morethe formality, or rules to follow, themore structure. For example, a high-structure environment requires aconsiderable number of reviews,approvals, and forms completion; alow-structure environment wouldhave less of those items.

The Y-axis is the level of change thatexists in an environment. At one end,the environment is very static;change only occurs as frequently asearthquakes on the eastern seaboardof the United States. At the otherend, the environment is very dynam-ic; change occurs so frequently thatbaselining anything is like shootingat a moving target. For example, adynamic environment has a consider-able number of changes to the budg-et, schedule, processes, require-ments, and product design; a staticenvironment would have few changesto those items.

Basic Activities of Each Function

The intersection of these axes cre-ates four quadrants, each represent-ing a project environment. The inter-section of the two continuums(Static-Dynamic and Low-HighStructure) creates four basic ideas.

Table 3. Project Manager’s Application Theory

Dynamic Environment (DE)

Static Environment (SE)

Low Structure (LS) High Structure (HS)

Quadrant I (DE-LS)Planning1. Concentrating on path2. Taking a linear approach3. Developing broad plans4. Being process-driven5. Building informal plansOrganizing6. Establish broad span of control7. Employing informal communications8. Relying on individuals9. Developing minimum documentationControlling10. Accepting Change11. Treating symptoms of problems12. Taking informal measurementsLeading13. Doing14. Taking a task-orientation15. Using informal power16. Using negative incentives

Best Suited: Reactive StimulatorLeast Suited: Hypothetical Analyzer

Quadrant II (DE-HS)Planning1. Concentrating on goal2. Taking a nonlinear approach3. Developing in-depth plans4. Being product-driven5. Building formal plansOrganizing6. Establish narrow span of control7. Employing formal communications8. Relying on teamwork9. Developing extensive documentationControlling10. Resisting change11. Treating sources of problems12. Taking formal measurementLeading13. Managing14. Taking a people-orientation15. Using formal power16. Using positive incentives

Best Suited: Hypothetical AnalyzerLeast Suited: Reactive Stimulator

Quadrant IV (SE-HS)Planning1. Concentrating on path2. Taking a linear approach3. Developing in-depth plans4. Being process-driven5. Building formal plansOrganizing6. Establish narrow span of control7. Employing formal communications8. Relying on individuals9. Developing extensive documentationControlling10. Resisting change11. Treating symptoms of problems12. Taking formal measurementLeading13. Doing14. Taking a task-orientation15. Using formal power16. Using negative incentive

Best Suited: Logical ProcessorLeast Suited: Relational Innovator

Quadrant III (SE-LS)Planning1. Concentrating on goal2. Taking a nonlinear approach3. Developing broad plans4. Being product driven5. Building informal plansOrganizing6. Establish broad span of control7. Employing informal communications8. Relying on teamwork9. Developing minimum documentationControlling10. Accepting change11. Treating sources of problems12. Taking informal measurementLeading13. Managing14. Taking a people-orientation15. Using informal power16. Using positive incentives

Best Suited: Relational InnovatorLeast Suited: Logical Processor

Quadrant I: Dynamic Environment-Low Structure (DE-LS)

Quadrant II: Dynamic Environment-High Structure (DE-HS)

Quadrant III: Static Environment-Low Structure (SE-LS)

Quadrant IV: Static Environment-High Structure (SE-HS)

Each quadrant reflects a unique envi-ronment, being either static or dynamicand either low or high structure. Withineach quadrant are the four functions ofproject management. Each function, inturn, consists of activities.

Quadrant 1 (Dynamic Environment-Low Structure). This environment istypically where high-tech startup firmsand research and development firmsconduct their projects. Change occursrapidly and administrative operationsare often overlooked or viewed as a nec-essary evil. The focus is on pursuingthe shortest path to the goal.

Planning. The goal is achieved in theshortest, quickest way possible. Plansappear broad while emphasizing theprocess rather than the product. Hence,planning occurs more informally and ata high level. Little effort is spent, forexample, on building detailed workbreakdown structures and reliable esti-mates.

Organizing. A broad span of controlexists, communications is informal,reliance is on individual performers,and formal documentation is minimal.Establishing project history files, creat-ing organization charts, and publishingproject manuals receive little emphasis.

Controlling. Change is normal andgood. When problems arise, however,emphasis is on fixing the symptoms tomeet schedule and budget milestones.Formality takes a backseat.Measurements on project performance

are informal, change control occursmore in a casual setting, and a flexi-ble response to change is of morevalue than following an elaboratechange procedure.

Leading. Project managers take amore task-oriented approach whendealing with all project participantsvia an informal setting that stressesinterpersonal relationships. Theystress negative rewards as an inven-tive to complete a project successful-ly. The overall leadership style tendsto be authoritarian, even autocraticat times, but in a benevolent way.

Project managers who are ReactiveStimulators function best in thisenvironment. Their action orientationand low tolerance for bureaucracygive them the opportunity to movequickly toward project completion.Project managers who areHypothetical Analyzes are least suitedfor this environment due to their pen-chant to collect a variety of informa-tion and to perfect everything beforetaking action.

Quadrant II (DynamicEnvironment-High Structure). Thisenvironment is typically where manu-facturing firms conduct their proj-ects. Change occurs but not as rapid-ly as in the Low Structure-DynamicEnvironment. The environment ismore stable and an appreciation foradministrative operations is greater.The focus is on the means by exam-ining multiple ways to build a prod-uct.

Planning. Emphasis is initially onextensively defining the goal and thenshifts to defining in detail the tasksfor achieving it. This shift exploresdifferent approaches to achieving thegoal. Extensive efforts are taken toensure that the plans, once agreedupon, are approved and formalized.

Organizing. An extensive, formal-ized organization exists that estab-lishes a narrow span of control,requires extensive documentation,and encourages formal communica-tions. Reliance is on teams to com-plete significant tasks.

Controlling. Every effort is make toregulate the occurrence and impactof change. Formal, even elaborate,measures exist and often thesebecome more important than changeitself, and treating sources of prob-lems become more important thandelivering the product on time andwithin budget. This often leadstoward concentrating on technicalprocesses rather than on scheduleand budget performance.

Leading. Formalization and struc-ture exist to such a degree that proj-ect managers are merely overseers orfigureheads for ensuring the projectcompletes, and not necessarilyaccording to plan. Project managersfunction in positions of accountabili-ty; the loss of a particular projectmanager makes little difference to theoutcome of the project. The overallleadership style tends to be demo-cratic, focusing on obtaining the bestcontributions from the people withoutdisrupting the organizational struc-ture.

Project managers who areHypothetical Analyzers function bestin this environment. Their desire toformalize, even standardize, and useteambuilding works well in a bureau-cratic institution facing a changingcompetitive environment. Projectmanagers who are ReactiveStimulators are lease suited for thisenvironment because they dislikebureaucratic formalities and can eas-ily go astray in a changing environ-ment.

Quadrant III (Static Environment-Low Structure). This environment istypically where insurance firms con-duct their projects. The environmentis very stable. Both means and endsare fairly predictable and routine;administrative operations are good"things" to do but not the important.

Planning. This function is not for-malized or detailed. Emphasis in onachieving goals, not perfectingprocesses. The work is highly routineand insulated and, consequently,does not require elaborate planning.

Organizing. A broad span of controlexists with people working together ina non-bureaucratic environment;meaning few layers of managementand minimum departmentalization ofresponsibilities. Communications,like meetings and documentation, aredone informally and on an ad hocbasis.

Controlling. Change is seen as anatural phenomena but not commonand, therefore, rigid controls areunnecessary. Some measurementsmay exist but are informal andviewed as gauges rather than evalua-tion tools.

Leading, Project managers mainlyfacilitate to ensure that plans arebasically followed. Their profile onprojects, therefore, are low-key andoften function as focal points forhelp. Project managers delegate will-ingly and frequently. The overall lead-ership style tends to be democratic,even laissez faire at times, and bal-ance self-satisfaction with achievingthe goals of the project.

Project managers who areRelational Innovators function best inthis environment. The low-structureenables them the freedom to experi-ment with new ideas while at thesame time the environment stays sta-

ble enough to allow them to "bluesky". Project managers least suitablefor this environment are LogicalProcessors because of the lack of for-malization of everything and theirdesire to "follow the rules".

Quadrant IV (Static Environment-High Structure). This environment istypically where construction firmsconduct their projects. The environ-ment does not change that often; themeans and the ends pretty much arerepeatable and lend themselves tostepwise refinement.

Planning. This function is strongbut in a straight, simplistic manner.The project goal is identified and in-depth plans are generated to achieveit. Often the plan has been formal-ized, used and tested repeatedly; itsemployment is with some measure ofreliability.

Organizing. A highly narrow spanof control exists along with formalmechanisms to communicate with allparticipants. Documentation is highlyformalized and detailed.

Controlling. Great effort is under-taken to control the occurrence andimpact of change. Often elaboratemeasures are employed. The desire tocontrol change results in elaborateefforts to identify the cause, addressit, and not proceed until everything is"perfect" again.

Leading. The desire to keep every-thing well organized within the pres-ence of detailed plans often has proj-ect managers doing the work them-selves. Project managers rely on for-mal power and are willing to applynegative incentives; hence, the overallleadership style is often authoritari-an.

Project managers who are LogicalProcessors function best in this envi-

ronment. The high structure andstatic environment affords them theopportunity to define and formalizeeverything. Project managers who areRelational Innovators are least suitedfor this environment because every-thing moves too slowly due to toomany rules and is filled with redtape, which constrains experimenta-tion.

Do It With Style

Many companies apply project man-agement practices in a random, evenbrute force manner. As a result,applying some functions may beunderkill or overkill.

Knowing the type of environmentand the teambuilding style for theproject manager increases the oppor-tunities for selecting the right personfor the position and applying theright project management practices toincrease the likelihood of completingprojects cost-effectively.

References

1. Kiersey, David, and Bates, Marilyn.1984. Please Understand Me:Character and Temperament Types.Del Mar, Calif.: Prometheus NemesisBook Company.

2. Bolton, Robert, and Bolton,Dorthy. 1984. SocialStyle/Management Style. New York:AMACOM.

3. Edgemon, Jim. 1995. Right Stuff:How to Recognize It When Selecting aProject Manager. ApplicationDevelopment Trends (May), 37-42.

4. Salton, Gary.; 1996.Organizational Engineering; AnnArbor, Mich.: ProfessionalCommunications Inc.

“This article is reprinted from the ProjectManagement Journal, March 1996 with

permission from the Project ManagementInstitute, 130 South State Road, Upper

Darby,PA 19082, a world wideorganization of advancing the state-of-

the-art in project management.”