DTU ProjectLab - User contributions [en-gb]

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T21:53:20Z

ChristianBF: /* The link between complexity in project and paradoxes of project management */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref name="complexity_slides_2"> Thuesen, Christian (2023), DTU ProjectLab, Complexity Slides (12-19). </ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==Complexity in project management==
Managing projects is a complex task. Small projects tend to have a low complexity while large projects can have a very high degree of complexity. There are various factors that makes the project complex. As examples can be mentioned: Scoping the project, stakeholder management, resource management, risk management, time management, managing people in the project, ensuring change management and so on. These are but some of the factors that makes the project complex.
A PMI approach to complexity

The PMI institute defines complexity in project management as "the degree to which a project involves uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability"<ref> (PMBOK®, The Project Management Institute 7th edition 2021 page 7-8) </ref>

PMI defines various factors that have influence on the project’s complexity. These are the project's size, technological aspects, organizational structure, stakeholder dynamics, and external influences. Projects that are complex are those that involve multiple variables, dependencies, and interrelationships, and are often characterized by high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. Furthermore, to manage projects with high complexity, it is necessary to have an experienced project manager, who can navigate the high level of uncertainty and ambiguity by applying the right knowledge, strategies and tools to mitigate the risk associated with complexity.

===The link between complexity in project and paradoxes of project management===
As previously mentioned in the article, larger projects tend to be more complex, which can pose challenges for project management. Increased complexity often leads to greater difficulty in managing the project, resulting in a higher number of paradoxes that project managers must navigate. Therefor it is especially interesting to consider paradoxes of project management when dealing with a larger project.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

==General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes==
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.

The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place. This may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all.
The approach is relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox, where a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation, to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review "Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects". This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article.
A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T21:51:54Z

ChristianBF: /* Complexity in project management */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref name="complexity_slides_2"> Thuesen, Christian (2023), DTU ProjectLab, Complexity Slides (12-19). </ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==Complexity in project management==
Managing projects is a complex task. Small projects tend to have a low complexity while large projects can have a very high degree of complexity. There are various factors that makes the project complex. As examples can be mentioned: Scoping the project, stakeholder management, resource management, risk management, time management, managing people in the project, ensuring change management and so on. These are but some of the factors that makes the project complex.
A PMI approach to complexity

The PMI institute defines complexity in project management as "the degree to which a project involves uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability"<ref> (PMBOK®, The Project Management Institute 7th edition 2021 page 7-8) </ref>

PMI defines various factors that have influence on the project’s complexity. These are the project's size, technological aspects, organizational structure, stakeholder dynamics, and external influences. Projects that are complex are those that involve multiple variables, dependencies, and interrelationships, and are often characterized by high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. Furthermore, to manage projects with high complexity, it is necessary to have an experienced project manager, who can navigate the high level of uncertainty and ambiguity by applying the right knowledge, strategies and tools to mitigate the risk associated with complexity.

===The link between complexity in project and paradoxes of project management===
As previously mentioned in the article, larger projects tend to be more complex, which can pose challenges for project management. Increased complexity often leads to greater difficulty in managing the project, resulting in a higher number of paradoxes that project managers must navigate.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

==General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes==
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.

The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place. This may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all.
The approach is relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox, where a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation, to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review "Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects". This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article.
A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T21:50:42Z

ChristianBF: /* Complexity in project management */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref name="complexity_slides_2"> Thuesen, Christian (2023), DTU ProjectLab, Complexity Slides (12-19). </ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==Complexity in project management==
Managing projects is a complex task. Small projects tend to have a low complexity while large projects can have a very high degree of complexity. There are various factors that makes the project complex. As examples can be mentioned: Scoping the project, stakeholder management, resource management, risk management, time management, managing people in the project, ensuring change management and so on. These are but some of the factors that makes the project complex.
A PMI approach to complexity

The PMI institute defines complexity in project management as "the degree to which a project involves uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability"<ref>PMBOK®, The Project Management Institute 2021</ref>

(PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition, p. 7-8). PMI defines various factors that have influence on the project’s complexity. These are the project's size, technological aspects, organizational structure, stakeholder dynamics, and external influences. Projects that are complex are those that involve multiple variables, dependencies, and interrelationships, and are often characterized by high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. Furthermore, to manage projects with high complexity, it is necessary to have an experienced project manager, who can navigate the high level of uncertainty and ambiguity by applying the right knowledge, strategies and tools to mitigate the risk associated with complexity.

===The link between complexity in project and paradoxes of project management===
As previously mentioned in the article, larger projects tend to be more complex, which can pose challenges for project management. Increased complexity often leads to greater difficulty in managing the project, resulting in a higher number of paradoxes that project managers must navigate.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

==General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes==
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.

The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place. This may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all.
The approach is relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox, where a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation, to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review "Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects". This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article.
A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T21:50:21Z

ChristianBF: /* What is a paradox? */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref name="complexity_slides_2"> Thuesen, Christian (2023), DTU ProjectLab, Complexity Slides (12-19). </ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==Complexity in project management==
Managing projects is a complex task. Small projects tend to have a low complexity while large projects can have a very high degree of complexity. There are various factors that makes the project complex. As examples can be mentioned: Scoping the project, stakeholder management, resource management, risk management, time management, managing people in the project, ensuring change management and so on. These are but some of the factors that makes the project complex.
A PMI approach to complexity

The PMI institute defines complexity in project management as "the degree to which a project involves uncertainty, ambiguity, and unpredictability"<ref>PMBOK®, The Project Management Institute 2021)</ref>

(PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition, p. 7-8). PMI defines various factors that have influence on the project’s complexity. These are the project's size, technological aspects, organizational structure, stakeholder dynamics, and external influences. Projects that are complex are those that involve multiple variables, dependencies, and interrelationships, and are often characterized by high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. Furthermore, to manage projects with high complexity, it is necessary to have an experienced project manager, who can navigate the high level of uncertainty and ambiguity by applying the right knowledge, strategies and tools to mitigate the risk associated with complexity.

===The link between complexity in project and paradoxes of project management===
As previously mentioned in the article, larger projects tend to be more complex, which can pose challenges for project management. Increased complexity often leads to greater difficulty in managing the project, resulting in a higher number of paradoxes that project managers must navigate.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

==General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes==
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.

The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place. This may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all.
The approach is relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox, where a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation, to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review "Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects". This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article.
A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T21:43:34Z

ChristianBF: /* The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management? */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref name="complexity_slides_2"> Thuesen, Christian (2023), DTU ProjectLab, Complexity Slides (12-19). </ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

==General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes==
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.

The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place. This may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all.
The approach is relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox, where a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation, to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review "Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects". This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article.
A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T21:13:11Z

ChristianBF: /* Limitations */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

==General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes==
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.

The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place. This may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all.
The approach is relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox, where a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation, to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review "Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects". This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article.
A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T21:12:27Z

ChristianBF: /* General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

==General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes==
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.

The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place. This may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all.
The approach is relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox, where a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation, to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:58:28Z

ChristianBF: /* General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

==General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes==
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:52:28Z

ChristianBF: /* Related wiki-articles */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time. This creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:51:30Z

ChristianBF: /* Annotated bibliography */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict resulting in a paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to gain better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:50:38Z

ChristianBF: /* Annotated bibliography */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

''Control or results? How to manage the paradox and achieve greater project results'' - This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict at a point of paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to achieve better project results.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:48:47Z

ChristianBF: /* The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management? */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref> As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:48:14Z

ChristianBF: /* Related wiki-articles */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective''' <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:47:56Z

ChristianBF: /* Related wiki-articles */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective'''

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:47:41Z

ChristianBF: /* Related wiki-articles */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective'''

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4 - The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective</ref>

<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle</ref>

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:45:05Z

ChristianBF: /* Related wiki-articles */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective'''

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/The_paradox_of_project_planning_from_an_uncertainty_perspective#cite_note-Management_Square-4</ref>

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:44:39Z

ChristianBF: /* What is a paradox? */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective'''

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:43:57Z

ChristianBF: /* Related wiki-articles */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective'''

This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:43:38Z

ChristianBF: /* Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Related wiki-articles==
'''The paradox of project planning from an uncertainty perspective'''
This article discusses the paradox of project planning, which is characterized by the uncertainty and risk associated with early-stage decision making in a project. It explains that decisions made in the early stages are crucial for defining a clear schedule and keeping the project on track, but there is limited knowledge available at that time, which creates a paradox. The article highlights the importance of addressing this paradox for the success of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:42:40Z

ChristianBF: /* Annotated bibliography */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

''The iron triangle'' - This Article explains the Iron Triangle, also known as The Project Triangle or The Magic Triangle, which is a tool used in project management to illustrate the key pillars of time, cost, and quality. The article discusses the importance of understanding the interdependence of these pillars, as well as the limitations of the model.

''Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies'' - This paper is about how companies can achieve innovation by utilizing organizational ambidexterity. The article looks at how seven successful companies in product design achieve this balance. The results of the paper revealed three lessons that highlight the power of paradox.

''Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects'' - This paper investigates paradoxical tension that can arise in megaprojects and approaches to manage them. This can bring lots of benefits, but the paradoxes are also difficult to manage because they involve many different people and ideas. The paper talks about how these megaprojects often have opposite ideas that need to be balanced. Then the paper suggests approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes and finally, the paper suggests ideas for future research on this topic.

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:40:35Z

ChristianBF: /* The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management? */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

Control versus result: This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict at a point of paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to achieve better project results.

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:40:05Z

ChristianBF: /* Biblography */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - the iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Annotated bibliography==

Control versus result: This conference paper discusses the trade-off between control and results in project management, and how they can sometimes conflict at a point of paradox. It explores the nature of paradoxes and provides recommendations for managing them to achieve better project results.

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:35:31Z

ChristianBF: /* Conclusion */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - the iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Biblography==

''''
Within every discussed paradox there is a thorough review of the paradox. The review consists of a walkthrough of available literature and further investigation of the paradox. The paradox will, if possible, be linked to other relevant theory within the field of project management and management. Furthermore, this section will look into the insights that these paradoxes provide in order to navigate them as a project leader, project member or stakeholder to a project.
This part will function as the main part of the article.''''

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:32:02Z

ChristianBF: /* Limitations */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - the iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality of the literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Conclusion==

''''
Within every discussed paradox there is a thorough review of the paradox. The review consists of a walkthrough of available literature and further investigation of the paradox. The paradox will, if possible, be linked to other relevant theory within the field of project management and management. Furthermore, this section will look into the insights that these paradoxes provide in order to navigate them as a project leader, project member or stakeholder to a project.
This part will function as the main part of the article.''''

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:31:43Z

ChristianBF: /* Limitations */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - the iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall quality literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Conclusion==

''''
Within every discussed paradox there is a thorough review of the paradox. The review consists of a walkthrough of available literature and further investigation of the paradox. The paradox will, if possible, be linked to other relevant theory within the field of project management and management. Furthermore, this section will look into the insights that these paradoxes provide in order to navigate them as a project leader, project member or stakeholder to a project.
This part will function as the main part of the article.''''

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:30:55Z

ChristianBF: /* Limitations */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - the iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. Three of the fifteen paradoxes presented in the review have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section.

Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes in this article. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

Further more, there are still many unidentified paradoxes that is not encompassed in this article. A last remark of this article is that it does not deal with different levels of complexity that might have an effect on the paradoxes.

==Conclusion==

''''
Within every discussed paradox there is a thorough review of the paradox. The review consists of a walkthrough of available literature and further investigation of the paradox. The paradox will, if possible, be linked to other relevant theory within the field of project management and management. Furthermore, this section will look into the insights that these paradoxes provide in order to navigate them as a project leader, project member or stakeholder to a project.
This part will function as the main part of the article.''''

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:23:55Z

ChristianBF: /* Discussion of the findings */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - the iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Limitations==
The body of this article makes use of the literature review 'Surfacing and responding to paradoxes in megascale projects.' This review is based on the extensive analysis of two individuals of 23 papers that explicitly or implicitly deal with paradoxes in highly complex projects. The method of selecting the papers that discuss the paradoxes has a relatively objective selection approach with a quantitative analysis of words. However, when describing the paradoxes, there seems to be some inconsistency. As already mentioned, three of the fifteen paradoxes have been discarded due to insufficient description in the main paper. Generally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the descriptions of the paper, which to some extent questions the overall well-conducted literature review and is therefore part of the limitations section. Additionally, there is a lack of precise description of how to deal with the different paradoxes. Instead, three general and one specific approach are suggested. This potentially limits the complete applicability of this article as it is not a how-to guide but rather an article that seeks to create awareness of project management paradoxes.

==Conclusion==

''''
Within every discussed paradox there is a thorough review of the paradox. The review consists of a walkthrough of available literature and further investigation of the paradox. The paradox will, if possible, be linked to other relevant theory within the field of project management and management. Furthermore, this section will look into the insights that these paradoxes provide in order to navigate them as a project leader, project member or stakeholder to a project.
This part will function as the main part of the article.''''

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:23:21Z

ChristianBF: /* General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - the iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''

The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''

The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''

An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''

Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Discussion of the findings==
Is it the right way of dividing the paradoxes. Does the article actually provide value for the reader? Is it the right paradoxes that has been chose?

==Conclusion==

''''
Within every discussed paradox there is a thorough review of the paradox. The review consists of a walkthrough of available literature and further investigation of the paradox. The paradox will, if possible, be linked to other relevant theory within the field of project management and management. Furthermore, this section will look into the insights that these paradoxes provide in order to navigate them as a project leader, project member or stakeholder to a project.
This part will function as the main part of the article.''''

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:22:59Z

ChristianBF: /* Paradoxes in project management from a project perspective */

==Abstract==

This article is about understanding the paradox of project management and how it can help project managers deal with the paradoxes when they arise. The paradox of project management is a concept that may seem illogical or counterintuitive but is still considered true. Knowing this concept is important for project managers as it provides insights into the nature of every project. The article explores 12 individual paradox types of paradoxes. Hereafter the article discusses three general and one individual approach on how to deal with the paradoxes. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and applicability of the findings.

==The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management?==

Why is understanding the paradoxes of project management useful? Project management is a very complex discipline. As a Project manager your goal is to deliver a satisfying project. But if the project is not scoped right, this can be impossible. The well-known project triangle presents a trilemma. But this is also a paradox. You cannot have both high quality, low cost, and short execution period. The three pillars of the model are both contradictory and dependent. To be aware of the paradoxes you are faced with helps you navigate the complex environment and enhance your change of delivering a satisfying project. <ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - the iron triangle)</ref> <ref>PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021</ref>. As already stated, it is important to understand the paradoxes that can arise during complex projects in order to better deal with them. Therefor this article seeks to investigate different paradoxes an how to deal with them.

===Structure of the article===
The article first introduces the concept of a paradox. It then provides a brief overview of paradoxes in project management. Next, it presents an overview of the paradoxes, and offers insights that can help project managers in actively addressing these paradoxes in their day-to-day project management practices by discussing approaches on how to deal with the paradoxes when they arise.

==What is a paradox?==
According to oxford dictionary <ref>https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange</ref> a paradox is a thing, that has two opposite features, and therefor seems contradictory. At a glance, paradoxes are not logical. But diving deeper into the science behind, the paradox can be better understood.

===Paradox of project management===
Paradox of project management is a phenomenon within project management that has two or more opposite features that are contradictory. project managers have a complex job to do. And bringing the project to achievement is a difficult task since the project manager needs to navigate conflicting interests, manage trade-offs, and balance competing priorities to achieve project objectives. It is within this complexity, that the project manager encounters the many paradoxes of project management. An example is the paradox of result vs. control. According to Englund, Randall L. <ref>https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984</ref> you can either have control or get results. Controlling the project members and their progress tightly, kills the individual feeling of ownership and innovation.
There lays a great opportunity for project management in identifying paradoxes that can arise. Since paradoxical tensions within organizations can both amplify and hinder organizational outcomes, depending on how effectively they are identified and managed. <ref>C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)</ref>. It is from the understanding of paradoxes in project management, that the project manager can identify the paradoxes and create interventions that to manage the paradoxes <ref>Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022</ref>.

==12 paradoxes==
In the following section the article presents 12 paradoxes that have been chosen from an extensive and systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted by Anna Wiewiora and Kevin C. Desouza and presented in the International Journal of Project Management in April 2022.

Some of the paradoxes consists of two or more sub-paradoxes.
The listed paradoxes are being presented in this section:
#Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Close versus open collaboration ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Relational versus formal governance approach ''(Stakeholder paradox)''
#Flexibility versus control ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Flexibility versus standardization ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Empowering versus directive leadership style ''(Flexibility paradox)''
#Shadow of the past versus promise of the future ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Long- versus short-term focus ''(Temporality paradox)''
#Autonomy versus embeddedness ''(Structure paradox)''
#Power-sharing versus power-keeping ''(Structure paradox)''
#Decision-making paradox
#Identity paradox

====Stakeholder paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions to the stakeholder paradox. The dimensions are (1) including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making, (2) close versus open collaboration, and (3) relational versus formal governance approach.

(1) Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making: including external stakeholders can both be beneficial and problematic, specifically public stakeholders. On one hand engaging the public can provide useful information, build trust and make contacts, however On the other hand, engagement can also be time-consuming, costly, and challenging to manage, and may lead to protests, opposition, and potential project delays. This creates a paradoxical tension between engaging the public (for instance) and not engaging the public. Finding the right balance can be complex task.

(2) close versus open collaboration: The paradox presented in the close versus open collaboration the trade-off between lose collaboration with known partners versus collaboration with new ones. On one hand, close collaboration with known partners can lead to stability and predictability, as there is an established relationship and understanding among the collaborators. On the other hand, collaboration with new partners can increase innovation potential by drawing from a wider range of technical disciplines, but it may also introduce complexities and challenges in managing diverse stakeholders.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the ‘partial’ paradox. The optimal solution may vary depended on the projects objectives. Whether there is a need for open collaboration or closed.

(3) relational versus formal governance approach: The paradox presented is a trade-off between choosing relational collaboration or formal contractual arrangements to manage partnerships. Formal contracts emphasize process compliance and control, while relational contracts are less formalized and emphasize cooperative behavior and trust between partners.
The challenge is to find the right kind of cooperation. Relational governance approach can provide trust, accountability, and innovation however it can be easily lost since the partners are not contractually obligated. If a formal governance structure is chosen, the effect of a contractual commitment would provide control and assurance, but it would also create a rigid and innovation less environment.

====Flexibility paradox====
There has been identified three dimensions of the flexibility paradox. These are (4) flexibility versus control, (5) flexibility versus standardization, and (6) empowering versus directive leadership style.

(4) flexibility versus control: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and control in managing contractual arrangements and approaches to manage relationships between project partners. On one hand, the use of control measures in contractual arrangements may minimize risks such as scope creep, cost overruns, and unauthorized activities. Control measures are seen as a way to reduce uncertainty in complex projects. However, on the other hand, control measures can have negative consequences such as minimized communication, collaboration, and learning. Imposing strict control measures in an environment that requires constant adaptation and adjustment can be counterproductive and increase project risk.

(5) flexibility versus standardization: there is paradoxical tension between flexibility and standardization in projects.
On one hand, there is a need for flexibility to address emerging needs and challenges, and to accommodate innovative requirements of projects. Flexibility allows for responsiveness to changing conditions, and it can lead to effectiveness in the project outcomes. On the other hand, there is also a need for standardization to support transparency in managing projects, especially when working interorganizational. Standardization can provide generic solutions that can be reused. Standardization can also be helpful for managing risks.

Both conditions needs to exist in large projects. Sometimes manager must make a decision of keeping the current routines or change them to keep up with the pace change.

(6) empowering versus directive leadership style: This paradox represents the tension between having an empowering leadership style and a more directive leadership style. The empowering leadership style focuses on increasing engagement and participation by empowering the team, which leads to more engaged project members and a quicker formation of the project identity. However, this leadership style can also lead to less organized team members and unclear direction, potentially resulting in concrete project objectives not being met.

The directive leadership style provides clear directions that keep team members focused, ensuring that the project is executed with efficiency. However, it may also restrict team members' innovation and ideation in finding innovative solutions, preventing novel ideas from emerging and creating disengaged team members.

Each leadership style has both positive and negative consequences. Leaders need to manage project constraints while creating innovative solutions, which requires flexibility and empowerment. Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to be able to oscillate between the two different styles when there are different needs in the project.

====Temporality paradox====
There are two interesting temporality paradoxes to mention: (7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future, and (8) long- versus short-term focus.

(7) shadow of the past versus promise of the future: The paradox of the "shadow of the past" versus the "promise of the future" presents the tension between negative past experiences and future possibilities in the project partnerships. The "shadow of the past" refers to the cumulative negative experiences with project participants, while the "promise of the future" represents the positive expectations for future work with these participants.

Research has shown that going into a new partnership with a contractor the organization has shared past positive experiences with increase flexibility. It has also been found that when project partners focus on the future it increases the interaction is more likely to have a positive outcome.

Both having positive past experiences and a focus on the future promotes a positive attitude in the partners, resulting in more flexibility and collaboration. As a project manager, it is important to be aware of the nature of this phenomena since it might limit the manager’s perspective and decision-making when choosing a project partner. Past experiences might overshadow the possibilities for the future, but it is not given that bad past experiences might limit future collaboration when managed correctly.

(8) Long- versus short-term focus: the paradox focuses on the tension between having a long-term focus on project objectives, such as long-term performance and preparing for the future, versus focusing on short-term objectives, such as daily operations or immediate project goals.

The paradox occurs when trying to balance daily operations with planning for the future, which can create additional tasks that may disrupt daily operations. On one hand, there is the need to ensure project efficiency, like meeting the frequent targets set. On the other hand, it is important to take the project's future demands and long-term impact into account.

The paradox has been referred to as a paradox of myopic decisions since the goal is to ensure the project's long-term success, but due to a short planning horizon, suboptimal choices are made.

====Structure paradox====
The structure paradoxes focus on the tension between providing sufficient management processes and at the same time permitting flexibility when unforeseen changes occur. The paradoxes that has been identified in relation to structure are (9) autonomy versus embeddedness and (10) power-sharing versus power-keeping.

(9) autonomy versus embeddedness: The paradox of autonomy versus embeddedness describes the tension between allowing project partners to contribute their expertise, while also ensuring the project is well integrated and coordinated in the organization.
Having a lot of autonomy allows for specialized expertise and flexibility in project work, leading to innovative and efficient outcomes. However, it can also create challenges in aligning and coordinating different project stakeholders within an interorganizational context.

The opportunity of embeddedness is that it enables interorganizational coordination and integration of project activities, which is essential for large-scale interorganizational projects such as megaprojects. However, the challenge is that it can limit organizational autonomy, which is necessary for project partners to contribute with their specialized expertise.

(10) power-sharing versus power-keeping: This paradox is about the tension between having a strong hierarchy with power-keeping versus having a weak hierarchy with power-sharing.

Power-keeping allows for faster development of the project. However, conflicts that emerge in a weak hierarchy with power-sharing can be dealt with in a more creative ways that produces a more innovative solution.

This paradox suggests while it can be more efficient to have power-keeping in the project development process, the project can produce better solutions with a weaker project structure focusing on power-sharing.

(11) Decision-making paradox: This paradox focuses on different aspects of the decision-making process, including the decision-making process itself and the information process. These processes have one thing in common - the process of opening and closing or diverging versus converging.

Decision-making requires both widening and closing of the process. It is essential to avoid tunnel vision by widening the decision-making process, but considering too many options can also create an inadequate decision-making process. Decision-makers need to use both decision-making processes.

The information used to make a decision is also crucial. The same concept of widening and closing the process applies here. Information can be diverging or converging. Information divergence means decision-makers should consider different perspectives and information to build consensus, while information convergence means finding common ground to build consensus.

Gathering too little information about the decision to be made can lead to poor decisions, while gathering too much information can create confusion and lead to an imprecise understanding of the situation. Therefore, decision-making and information-gathering, viewed as one, are faced with the paradox of opening and closing. If the process becomes too open, the decisions made can be slow and based on an imprecise foundation. However, if the decision-making and information-gathering are too closed, the process will be fast but not well-considered.

====Identity paradox====
(12) Identity paradox: This paradox highlights the tension between a weak and strong project identity.

Lack of project identity can create conflicts within a team when working on a project involving participants from different organizations with different values and ways of working. Therefore, it is important to construct a project identity. However, it needs to be done in a balanced way. Having a strong project identity can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as neglecting organizational strategic directions or failing to recognize red flags in the project. But having a weak project identity is also not favorable. A weak project identity can lead to to low commitment and a reduced sense of belonging. This can potentially result in lack of commitment and poor performance. Thus, lowering the likelihood of project success.

===General and specific approaches on how to deal with paradoxes===
Research has identified three general approaches to dealing with paradoxes based on review of 16 papers covering the topic. These approaches are unity approach, separation approach and adaptive mindset. Additionally other more specific approaches have also been identified for dealing with specific paradoxes. This article mainly focuses on the approach on how to deal with the stakeholder management paradox.

The article presents the approaches in the same structure as listed by the introduction to this section.

'''Unity approach'''
The unity approach is a way to deal with conflicting ideas or goals in large projects. It involves finding a way to incorporate both extremes and allowing them to coexist. Several articles have discussed how the unity approach has been used successfully in megaprojects. An example is using a variety of governance models to deal with different issues in different phases of the project life cycle, allowing for better control and flexibility to adapt to changes.

'''Separation approach'''
The separative approach involves separating two competing extremes, either temporarily or physically, to allow both extremes to coexist. Temporal separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different phases of the project, while spatial separation involves emphasizing one extreme over the other in different parts of the project.
The decision paradox is an example of a paradox where the separation approach can be used. Sometimes the decision-maker needs divergent decision-making, other times convergent decision-making is the most appropriate. The convergent approach can be used when there is urgency in making a decision. In contrast the divergent approach can be used when the decision-maker needs to make informed decisions that take different viewpoints into account. The separation approach can be effective when one extreme of the paradox is likely to bring positive outcomes in a specific temporal or spatial dimension.

'''Adaptive mindset'''
An adaptive mindset involves being flexible and adaptable when dealing with paradoxes in. It means recognizing that paradoxes are not simply black or white, either-or situations, but rather possibilities that can coexist in an and-both manner. By adopting an adaptive mindset, decision makers can better evaluate both extremes of a paradox and select appropriate responses. This approach requires allowing mental space to identify and understand the paradox, imagine its possible impact on the project, and consider the consequences of that impact. An adaptive mindset is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables decision makers to navigate emerging tensions and adapt to changing circumstances.

'''Early stakeholder management'''
Early stakeholder management is an approach that involves involving stakeholders in the decision-making process early on in the project. This approach helps in dealing with paradoxical tensions that may arise during the project. By involving stakeholders early on, their input and discussions can take place, and this may lead to the co-creation of a new solution that is more likely to be accepted by all. This approach is particularly relevant when dealing with the stakeholder paradox and decision-making paradox. Involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the project allows for diverse information and knowledge creation to help manage uncertainty about the project and agree on the most effective solution design and choices of concept. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement is relevant when dealing with the identity paradox. By engaging with project stakeholders early on, it can help in dealing with the identity paradox of belonging to the project and creating a new identity versus retaining identities of the different partnering organizations.

==Discussion of the findings==
Is it the right way of dividing the paradoxes. Does the article actually provide value for the reader? Is it the right paradoxes that has been chose?

==Conclusion==

''''
Within every discussed paradox there is a thorough review of the paradox. The review consists of a walkthrough of available literature and further investigation of the paradox. The paradox will, if possible, be linked to other relevant theory within the field of project management and management. Furthermore, this section will look into the insights that these paradoxes provide in order to navigate them as a project leader, project member or stakeholder to a project.
This part will function as the main part of the article.''''

==Final conclusion on the relevance of understanding the paradoxes as a project leader, project member or otherwise interested==
== References ==
<References/>

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:21:26Z

ChristianBF: /* Flexibility paradox */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:17:52Z

ChristianBF: /* Flexibility paradox */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:17:43Z

ChristianBF: /* Flexibility paradox */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:16:48Z

ChristianBF: /* Flexibility paradox */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:15:55Z

ChristianBF: /* Stakeholder paradox */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:15:35Z

ChristianBF: /* Stakeholder paradox */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:14:20Z

ChristianBF:

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:10:04Z

ChristianBF: /* Structure of the article */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:09:39Z

ChristianBF:

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:07:31Z

ChristianBF: /* The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management? */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:03:35Z

ChristianBF: /* The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management? */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T20:01:26Z

ChristianBF: /* The Big Idea: Why understand paradoxes of project management? */

The paradoxes of project management

2023-05-09T19:59:37Z

ChristianBF: /* Abstract */

Micro management in project management

2023-05-07T10:00:31Z

ChristianBF: /* The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation */

==Abstract==
This article will go into detail abound micromanagement in project management, and which negative effects it can have on project success.
Everybody knows the term micromanagement and that it can seriously affect many factors at an workplace and thereby also in project management.
<blockquote>''“79% have experienced micromanagement from their current or past managers.”<ref>Chambers, Harry E. My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide. Vol. 13. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2009.</ref>''</blockquote>
This meant that even if a team leader or manager thinks that they are not micromanaging there is still a high chance that it’s still happening.
Therefore it’s important for all team leaders and members to know abound micromanagement and its negative impacts. These includes reduced team morale, decreased motivation, increased stress levels, and a less successful project result.
To avoid micro-management, project managers should strike a balance between control and autonomy and whit this delegate responsibilities, thereby boosting team innovation.
By considering the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty), this article will give project managers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of micro-management and what tools can be used to avoid Micromanagement.

__TOC__

==Definition of micro management==

===What is Micromanagement===
Micromanagement is a management style where a manager or project manager exerts excessive control over their team, often getting involved in even the smallest of tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, micro-management is "the act of controlling every part of a situation, including small details." <ref>"micromanagement." Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/micromanagement</ref>. While some may see micromanagement to ensure high levels of productivity and quality, it can have a negative impact on employee morale and creativity.
In regards to project management, especially employee morale will effect the creativity of a team that can have a impact on the solution space of a project.

===Understanding micromanagement===

Understanding the impact of micromanagement is crucial for effective project management.
While micromanagement can have some short-term advantages in certain situations, such as training new team members, increasing productivity on certain tasks, and controlling high-risk issues, the long-term costs can be excessive and significantly affect a project. These long-term disadvantages could be low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity, and dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
In fact, micromanagement is among the top three reasons employees quit.<ref>Collins, Sandra K, and Kevin S Collins. “Micromanagement--a costly management style.” Radiology management vol. 24,6 (2002): 32-5. </ref> Ultimately, micromanagement leads to long-term decreased growth potential in a department, hindering progress and success.

==Symptoms of Micromanagement==
By knowing the symptoms and impacts of micro-management, a project managers can try avoid its by knowing what to look out for.
Symptoms of Micromanagement refer to the excessive supervision and control that a manager puts on their employees. The following points<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref> are some common signs of a micro-manager exhibits in their approach to managing employees and projects.
*Micromanagers oversee their workers too closely and spend an excessive amount of time supervising a particular project and telling people exactly what to do and how to do it.
*They are control freaks, often Type A personalities who are fundamentally insecure and afraid to trust the performance of those below them.
*Micromanagers typically go alone to the bosses office, as they do not wish subordinates to gain credit. They become irritated when others make decisions without consulting them. They explode when their bosses bypass them and go directly to one of their subordinates.
*Micromanagers are obsessed with meaningless details. They love numbers, lots of them. They confuse accuracy with precision.
*Micromanagers come in earlier than their employees and stay later. Employees at first feel guilty, but no matter how late they stay, the micro-boss stays later.
*Micromanagers dictate time, often creating deadlines for deadlines' sake. They demand overly frequent and unnecessary written status reports. They are so busy that delays happen frequently, while people wait for their input or signoff.
*Micromanagers stretch themselves too thin and take on too many projects. They move from one to another without completing any of the jobs. They are too busy to meet with subordinates and not available to provide guidance.
*Micromanagers abhor mistakes. Seldom praising, they consider their employees incompetent and soon lose the respect of coworkers and employees. While quick to blame, they seldom admit their own mistakes and shortcomings.

==The impacts of micro management on project management==
Micro-management can have an impact on many areas, which can be within all areas of project management, such as project success or efficiency, but it can also have an impact on the people involved. This section will go through some of the most impactful areas within project management.

===Team morale and motivation===
Micromanagement has negative impacts on employees. It reduces job satisfaction and makes them feel like they have no autonomy. Constant supervision and criticism create a stressful work environment that affects mental and physical health. This makes employees become less motivated and their creativity suffers. Being monitored damages there trust in the manager and creates a negative work environment.

"morale suffers as subordinate employees feel the administration does not trust their ability and competency as corrections officers, effectively driving a wedge between management and subordinates" <ref>Shuford, John A. "Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale." Corrections Today 81.5 (2019): 36-41.</ref>

===Project progress and efficienty===
Micromanagement can have a significant impact on project progress, both positively and negatively. Micromanagement can ensure that tasks are completed on time and at high standard due to high amounts of checkups from a project manager.
This can also prevent errors and misunderstandings, leading to a more streamlined project process. However, this may only work for a short period since the long-term effect of micromanagement from a project manager can give employees the feeling of low autonomy, thereby decreasing problem-solving capabilities. This can leads demotivation and a decrease in productivity.
"Our research suggests that leaders can help their employees in hands-on and meaningful ways […]thus being a hands-on manager in such situations is critical" <ref>Harvard Business Review. “How to Help Without Micromanaging.” Harvard Business Review, 22 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2021/01/how-to-help-without-micromanaging.</ref> and "Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."
<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

===Project success===
Project success means completing a project according to the agreed-upon terms, which include factors like time, budget, scope, and quality. While some factors like budget and quality can be closely managed under micromanagement and have positive impacts, excessive micromanagement can hinder the overall project's success. "Empowered employees are engaged employees. They have all the tools they need to learn and grow, connect with colleagues and others throughout the company, make their own decisions, be leaders, and contribute to the success"<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref> Put another way "Empowerment is a key driver of engagement."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==The use of micro management under a crises==
During a crisis, it is essential to ensure that critical tasks are completed on time and to a high standard. This could be due to a project being behind schedule or unexpected problems arising during the project. Micro-management can be a valuable tool during a crisis, as it allows project managers to efficiently and quickly complete a particular task. However, it is crucial to avoid excessive micro-management and allow team members to rest after a period of micromanagement. Micro-management should only be used as a short-term, high-intensity boost to a project and limited to crisis situations to avoid long term effects on the employs.
"Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==Strategies for avoiding micromanagement==
By doing organisational changes micromanagement can be avoided. These doings can help top managers create a more productive and good work environment. Thus creating a workplace efficient and innovative and thereby solve projects even better.

===Delegating responsibilities by promoting===
By promoting certain people in your team, you can delegate some tasks. In this way, as a head manager, you don't have full control and say in sub-projects. But don't just delegate for the sake of delegating; it's important to choose the right people who can manage correctly and not just do their old job.
"Because it is often more difficult to manage a job than to do it yourself, many people cannot make the transition from worker to supervisor, and if incapable of doing their new job, they micromanage those doing their old job."
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Clear understanding of tasks===
If no guidance is given or if the goals of a project or task are unclear, it is common for micromanagers to emerge. Since managers do not know the exact purpose of a task or project, they do not know when their task is done. And they may never feel like they have provided what top management asked for. Therefore, giving clear guidance and defining the purpose of a task can reduce micromanagement.
"Often micromanagement is created when managers are unclear about their duties. With no guidance from above, they never know when they have done enough and have no idea how their performance is being judged."
<ref>
Hymowitz, C. “The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.” Wall Street Journal. 241. (March 11, 2003), B1.
</ref>

===Encourage managers to delegate===
The best skill for a manager is to effectively delegate tasks. However, this can also be challenging for some. Therefore, helping managers at multiple levels of a project or a organisation learn the skill of giving away power is key to avoiding micromanagement and can help build even better trust within a team. When all participants know that tasks are handled well and correctly, it can enhance trust and improve teamwork.
"To some, handing over control is horrifying, but they must soon learn that delegation is one of the most important productivity skills a manager can master. When properly exercised, delegation establishes responsibility and accountability, and builds mutual trust and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates." <ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

=== Allow mistakes ===
Allowing innovation and being creative is highly important to avoid micromanagement. However, since being innovative and thinking outside the box can result in mistakes, it's important to accept that these mistakes happen. Getting a better result doesn't happen by doing the same thing all the time, but it happens by being creative and open to new solutions that have not been tested, even if there is a risk involved.
"Create an organizational environment that is open to innovation and new ideas. When mistakes happen then you know employees have been empowered with decision making authority and are taking risks. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Flatten the hierarchy of a organisation===
Allowing more people to make autonomous decisions and making the hierarchy of your organization flatter can lead to more efficiency, increased agility, greater customer contact, reduced costs, and increased innovation, while avoiding micromanagement. This can also enhance employee skills, which can further improve the organization.
"A flat management structure allows decisionmaking and operations to happen at approximately the same level, increasing contextual transparency and improving results. When higherlevel leadership is part of the daily goings on at the ground floor, they’re better equipped to evaluate employee performance, notice and understand operational faults and formulate solutions to company problems."
<ref>
Mercer. "World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017." Mercer, 2017, https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/webcasts/global-talent-trends-2017-europe.pdf
</ref>
<ref>
Forbes Human Resources Council. "Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship." Forbes, 5 April 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/04/05/down-with-the-hierarchy-how-flat-management-fosters-employee-entrepreneurship/?sh=410e129f120d.
</ref>

===Self reflect===
Even after attempting to reducing micromanagement in your organization, it's important to reflect on yourself and consider that if none of the tools or methods mentioned above helped, the main culprit of the problem might actually be you, the top manager.
<blockquote>''You never know if the main problem is staring back at you in the mirror.
''</blockquote>
"We need to ask ourselves if we have met the enemy [the evil micromanager], and if so, is he us. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>
In this case, self-reflection and thinking of how to use the different strategies on oneself to reduce micromanagement is key to further success.

==Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty)==
Micromanagement can have impacts in many areas but it will have a impact on all parts of a project management. Based on the theory and until know found problems it noticeable that Micromanagement will have a impact all main parts of project management Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty. A run-through of the findings and the impact on these areas are now to be analysed.

===Purpose===
The purpose of a project is the main focus for why a project is executed.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Even if a project is external and the purpose is set by an external stakeholder, an aggressive project manager can have an impact on the stakeholder, causing a change in the main purpose of the project or pushing it in a direction that the project manager believes is the right one from his perspective. This can have a huge impact on the end results of the product and the overall success of the project, since the main goal that the external stakeholder had in mind may not even be resolved. Tight boundaries for the project can also impact the solution space and have an impact on the end solution that should solve the main purpose of the project. This can also result in non-returning customers due to dissatisfaction.

===People===
The people are all the individuals involved in the project, from the people setting the purpose of the project, often external stakeholders, to the teams executing the project and working on it on a daily basis. This can be shorted into "Whom are we doing this for?" and "Who is doing it?". <ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Since micro-management is a way of managing people, the impact on the people part of a project will therefore be substantial. The low autonomy that micro-management imposes on employees will affect employee morale, make them stressed, and decrease innovation. This will lead to a demotivated team and may even result in unforeseen team turnover. The longterm effect on a project execution team may even lead to impacts across multiple projects if the stress is carried over to new projects.

===Complexity===
The complexity of a project is part of actually solving the main purpose, this includes creating work breakdown structures, schedules, contracts, and dividing work.<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
In the case of micro-management, if a manager doesn't delegate work tasks and manages even the smallest decisions in sub-tasks, the project might take a longer time to complete because of all the small decisions that have to be approved by the micro-manager. These micro-decisions will also decrease the solution space and innovation, which can lead to decreased project success.

===Uncertainty===
The uncertainty of a project is the navigation within problems with limited information. Making the right decisions can be challenging, but the learning opportunities that arise from these problems can have long-term benefits for team members.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
A micromanager can take steps to override opinion and decision for the project and force it in a certain direction, which may be beneficial in the short term. However, the long-term effect can remove the agility of the team and have an impact on innovation, as employees may not be challenged in a creative way.

==Analysis of a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation==
[[File:DD micro mangment influcence.png|thumb|right|400px|The stages of management styles are illustrated by the Double Diamond model. Diagram is created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.]]

In management, and therefore also in project management, it is necessary to strike the right balance between micro-management and no management. As mentioned in the sections above, micro-management can be beneficial in ensuring that project sub-tasks are completed on schedule and to quality standards. It allows project managers to closely monitor the progress of the project, identify issues early, and take action to keep the project on track. However, too much micro-management can have an impact on creativity and innovation, leading to disengagement and low morale among team members.

On the other hand, no management can lead to chaos and confusion, resulting in missed deadlines, poor quality, and ultimately project failure. Without any structured approach to managing a project, team members lack clear direction, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. Therefore, the balance between micro-management and no management in project management is critical.

At the same time, project managers should avoid micromanaging and give team members the autonomy to make decisions and solve problems. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among team members, leading to greater engagement, innovation, and ultimately project success.

This is also illustrated by '''the diagram''' using the double diamond model<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Double_diamond</ref> at different levels of management. It is noted that the more micro-management, the smaller the solution space becomes, and vice versa, less management opens up the solution space, but the amount of the solution may become difficult to grasp. The digram and this analyses was created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.

==Final conclusion==
Based on the theory and research that has been found it can be concluded that micromanagement in project management will have negative effects on project success. But project success is not everything, micromanagement will also demotivate team members, reduce innovation, create unnecessary delays, increase stress levels, and cause unassay problems that can affect both team members but also external stakeholders.
Therefore, good project management is based on a work environment where team members are empowered and take ownership of their tasks there’s an effective delegation, clear communication, and setting realistic expectations for the teams members. This should help towards achieving the ultimate project success.
Project managers should only focus on monitoring progress and providing support to the team members, rather than getting involved in every subtask and sub decisions. They should also establish a culture of trust, open communication, and accountability to ensure that team members feel valued and motivated to contribute their best and not being afraid of making mistakes.
In conclusion, while micromanagement may seem like an effective way to ensure project success and high quality, it can often do more harm than good. Effective project management requires a balance between providing guidance and support to team members while allowing them autonomy and freedom to complete their tasks and achieve project success.

==Annotated Bibliography==
*'''My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide''' is a book about micromanagement and helps in identifying a micromanager. It also provides tools to evaluate whether a manager is a micromanager. The book is written by Harry E. Chambers, who has worked with clients such as IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

*'''Cambridge English Dictionary''' is the Dictionary of university press of the University of Cambridge and is a good way the get a definition of word.

*'''Micromanagement a costly management style''' by Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S Collins is a article about micromanagement in a radiology department and discusses the problems it can cause in terms of results. Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S. Collins have both written numerous articles on management in the healthcare sector.

*'''The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure''' is an article that goes into the depths of identifying symptoms of micromanagement in an organization. It helps to figure out where the root problems come from and gives tools and actions to avoid and suppress micromanagement. The article is written by Richard D. White, Jr. who has a PhD in Public Administration and has written many articles in regard to public management.

*'''Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale''' is article written at the American Correctional Association, that is a Non-Profit and Non-Gov association. The author of the article is John A. Shuford an correctional training coordinator in the department of prisons of North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He has written numerous feature articles for national publications and developed and delivered innovative staff development trainings for 25 years for many governmental agencies in the US.

*'''“How to Help Without Micromanaging”''' is a article, published by Harvard Business Review, discusses the appropriate times for small amounts of micromanagement. The magazine is a general management publication that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University.

*'''Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management''' is an article written by the Project Management Institute (PMI). This article explores the effects of micromanagement on project teams and proposes a shift towards empowerment. The article also discusses the benefits of empowerment, such as increased innovation, creativity, and employee satisfaction. PMI has over 10,000 articles from subject matter experts on project management.

*'''http://wiki.doing-projects.org''' is a wiki from the Technical University of Denmark's ProjectLab, aimed at providing project management education and enabling access for everyone. The articles featured on the wiki are the sole results of students who have completed an advanced project management course at DTU.

*'''The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much''' is a articel from the Wall Street Journal. thats also cited in ''"The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure"'', the article is written by Carol Hymowitz who went to Stanford's Center on Longevity is a former editor and writer at Bloomberg and a former editor and columnist a the Wall Street Journal.

*'''World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017''' is an article written by the American consulting firm Mercer that goes into detail about how different management styles impact certain areas of a business.

*'''Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship''' is an article written by John Pierce, the Head of Business Development at the Forbes Human Resources Council. The invite-only platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people and share knowledge across businesses.

*'''https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives''' is a website that offers courses and research on project management at the Technical University of Denmark. The courses are designed for engineers and range from online courses for curious engineers to advanced Master courses and PhD projects. The website is run by a team of professors and researchers with interests in various aspects of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

Micro management in project management

2023-05-07T09:57:22Z

ChristianBF: /* Final conclusion */

==Abstract==
This article will go into detail abound micromanagement in project management, and which negative effects it can have on project success.
Everybody knows the term micromanagement and that it can seriously affect many factors at an workplace and thereby also in project management.
<blockquote>''“79% have experienced micromanagement from their current or past managers.”<ref>Chambers, Harry E. My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide. Vol. 13. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2009.</ref>''</blockquote>
This meant that even if a team leader or manager thinks that they are not micromanaging there is still a high chance that it’s still happening.
Therefore it’s important for all team leaders and members to know abound micromanagement and its negative impacts. These includes reduced team morale, decreased motivation, increased stress levels, and a less successful project result.
To avoid micro-management, project managers should strike a balance between control and autonomy and whit this delegate responsibilities, thereby boosting team innovation.
By considering the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty), this article will give project managers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of micro-management and what tools can be used to avoid Micromanagement.

__TOC__

==Definition of micro management==

===What is Micromanagement===
Micromanagement is a management style where a manager or project manager exerts excessive control over their team, often getting involved in even the smallest of tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, micro-management is "the act of controlling every part of a situation, including small details." <ref>"micromanagement." Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/micromanagement</ref>. While some may see micromanagement to ensure high levels of productivity and quality, it can have a negative impact on employee morale and creativity.
In regards to project management, especially employee morale will effect the creativity of a team that can have a impact on the solution space of a project.

===Understanding micromanagement===

Understanding the impact of micromanagement is crucial for effective project management.
While micromanagement can have some short-term advantages in certain situations, such as training new team members, increasing productivity on certain tasks, and controlling high-risk issues, the long-term costs can be excessive and significantly affect a project. These long-term disadvantages could be low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity, and dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
In fact, micromanagement is among the top three reasons employees quit.<ref>Collins, Sandra K, and Kevin S Collins. “Micromanagement--a costly management style.” Radiology management vol. 24,6 (2002): 32-5. </ref> Ultimately, micromanagement leads to long-term decreased growth potential in a department, hindering progress and success.

==Symptoms of Micromanagement==
By knowing the symptoms and impacts of micro-management, a project managers can try avoid its by knowing what to look out for.
Symptoms of Micromanagement refer to the excessive supervision and control that a manager puts on their employees. The following points<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref> are some common signs of a micro-manager exhibits in their approach to managing employees and projects.
*Micromanagers oversee their workers too closely and spend an excessive amount of time supervising a particular project and telling people exactly what to do and how to do it.
*They are control freaks, often Type A personalities who are fundamentally insecure and afraid to trust the performance of those below them.
*Micromanagers typically go alone to the bosses office, as they do not wish subordinates to gain credit. They become irritated when others make decisions without consulting them. They explode when their bosses bypass them and go directly to one of their subordinates.
*Micromanagers are obsessed with meaningless details. They love numbers, lots of them. They confuse accuracy with precision.
*Micromanagers come in earlier than their employees and stay later. Employees at first feel guilty, but no matter how late they stay, the micro-boss stays later.
*Micromanagers dictate time, often creating deadlines for deadlines' sake. They demand overly frequent and unnecessary written status reports. They are so busy that delays happen frequently, while people wait for their input or signoff.
*Micromanagers stretch themselves too thin and take on too many projects. They move from one to another without completing any of the jobs. They are too busy to meet with subordinates and not available to provide guidance.
*Micromanagers abhor mistakes. Seldom praising, they consider their employees incompetent and soon lose the respect of coworkers and employees. While quick to blame, they seldom admit their own mistakes and shortcomings.

==The impacts of micro management on project management==
Micro-management can have an impact on many areas, which can be within all areas of project management, such as project success or efficiency, but it can also have an impact on the people involved. This section will go through some of the most impactful areas within project management.

===Team morale and motivation===
Micromanagement has negative impacts on employees. It reduces job satisfaction and makes them feel like they have no autonomy. Constant supervision and criticism create a stressful work environment that affects mental and physical health. This makes employees become less motivated and their creativity suffers. Being monitored damages there trust in the manager and creates a negative work environment.

"morale suffers as subordinate employees feel the administration does not trust their ability and competency as corrections officers, effectively driving a wedge between management and subordinates" <ref>Shuford, John A. "Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale." Corrections Today 81.5 (2019): 36-41.</ref>

===Project progress and efficienty===
Micromanagement can have a significant impact on project progress, both positively and negatively. Micromanagement can ensure that tasks are completed on time and at high standard due to high amounts of checkups from a project manager.
This can also prevent errors and misunderstandings, leading to a more streamlined project process. However, this may only work for a short period since the long-term effect of micromanagement from a project manager can give employees the feeling of low autonomy, thereby decreasing problem-solving capabilities. This can leads demotivation and a decrease in productivity.
"Our research suggests that leaders can help their employees in hands-on and meaningful ways […]thus being a hands-on manager in such situations is critical" <ref>Harvard Business Review. “How to Help Without Micromanaging.” Harvard Business Review, 22 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2021/01/how-to-help-without-micromanaging.</ref> and "Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."
<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

===Project success===
Project success means completing a project according to the agreed-upon terms, which include factors like time, budget, scope, and quality. While some factors like budget and quality can be closely managed under micromanagement and have positive impacts, excessive micromanagement can hinder the overall project's success. "Empowered employees are engaged employees. They have all the tools they need to learn and grow, connect with colleagues and others throughout the company, make their own decisions, be leaders, and contribute to the success"<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref> Put another way "Empowerment is a key driver of engagement."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==The use of micro management under a crises==
During a crisis, it is essential to ensure that critical tasks are completed on time and to a high standard. This could be due to a project being behind schedule or unexpected problems arising during the project. Micro-management can be a valuable tool during a crisis, as it allows project managers to efficiently and quickly complete a particular task. However, it is crucial to avoid excessive micro-management and allow team members to rest after a period of micromanagement. Micro-management should only be used as a short-term, high-intensity boost to a project and limited to crisis situations to avoid long term effects on the employs.
"Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==Strategies for avoiding micromanagement==
By doing organisational changes micromanagement can be avoided. These doings can help top managers create a more productive and good work environment. Thus creating a workplace efficient and innovative and thereby solve projects even better.

===Delegating responsibilities by promoting===
By promoting certain people in your team, you can delegate some tasks. In this way, as a head manager, you don't have full control and say in sub-projects. But don't just delegate for the sake of delegating; it's important to choose the right people who can manage correctly and not just do their old job.
"Because it is often more difficult to manage a job than to do it yourself, many people cannot make the transition from worker to supervisor, and if incapable of doing their new job, they micromanage those doing their old job."
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Clear understanding of tasks===
If no guidance is given or if the goals of a project or task are unclear, it is common for micromanagers to emerge. Since managers do not know the exact purpose of a task or project, they do not know when their task is done. And they may never feel like they have provided what top management asked for. Therefore, giving clear guidance and defining the purpose of a task can reduce micromanagement.
"Often micromanagement is created when managers are unclear about their duties. With no guidance from above, they never know when they have done enough and have no idea how their performance is being judged."
<ref>
Hymowitz, C. “The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.” Wall Street Journal. 241. (March 11, 2003), B1.
</ref>

===Encourage managers to delegate===
The best skill for a manager is to effectively delegate tasks. However, this can also be challenging for some. Therefore, helping managers at multiple levels of a project or a organisation learn the skill of giving away power is key to avoiding micromanagement and can help build even better trust within a team. When all participants know that tasks are handled well and correctly, it can enhance trust and improve teamwork.
"To some, handing over control is horrifying, but they must soon learn that delegation is one of the most important productivity skills a manager can master. When properly exercised, delegation establishes responsibility and accountability, and builds mutual trust and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates." <ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

=== Allow mistakes ===
Allowing innovation and being creative is highly important to avoid micromanagement. However, since being innovative and thinking outside the box can result in mistakes, it's important to accept that these mistakes happen. Getting a better result doesn't happen by doing the same thing all the time, but it happens by being creative and open to new solutions that have not been tested, even if there is a risk involved.
"Create an organizational environment that is open to innovation and new ideas. When mistakes happen then you know employees have been empowered with decision making authority and are taking risks. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Flatten the hierarchy of a organisation===
Allowing more people to make autonomous decisions and making the hierarchy of your organization flatter can lead to more efficiency, increased agility, greater customer contact, reduced costs, and increased innovation, while avoiding micromanagement. This can also enhance employee skills, which can further improve the organization.
"A flat management structure allows decisionmaking and operations to happen at approximately the same level, increasing contextual transparency and improving results. When higherlevel leadership is part of the daily goings on at the ground floor, they’re better equipped to evaluate employee performance, notice and understand operational faults and formulate solutions to company problems."
<ref>
Mercer. "World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017." Mercer, 2017, https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/webcasts/global-talent-trends-2017-europe.pdf
</ref>
<ref>
Forbes Human Resources Council. "Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship." Forbes, 5 April 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/04/05/down-with-the-hierarchy-how-flat-management-fosters-employee-entrepreneurship/?sh=410e129f120d.
</ref>

===Self reflect===
Even after attempting to reducing micromanagement in your organization, it's important to reflect on yourself and consider that if none of the tools or methods mentioned above helped, the main culprit of the problem might actually be you, the top manager.
<blockquote>''You never know if the main problem is staring back at you in the mirror.
''</blockquote>
"We need to ask ourselves if we have met the enemy [the evil micromanager], and if so, is he us. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>
In this case, self-reflection and thinking of how to use the different strategies on oneself to reduce micromanagement is key to further success.

==Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty)==
Micromanagement can have impacts in many areas but it will have a impact on all parts of a project management. Based on the theory and until know found problems it noticeable that Micromanagement will have a impact all main parts of project management Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty. A run-through of the findings and the impact on these areas are now to be analysed.

===Purpose===
The purpose of a project is the main focus for why a project is executed.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Even if a project is external and the purpose is set by an external stakeholder, an aggressive project manager can have an impact on the stakeholder, causing a change in the main purpose of the project or pushing it in a direction that the project manager believes is the right one from his perspective. This can have a huge impact on the end results of the product and the overall success of the project, since the main goal that the external stakeholder had in mind may not even be resolved. Tight boundaries for the project can also impact the solution space and have an impact on the end solution that should solve the main purpose of the project. This can also result in non-returning customers due to dissatisfaction.

===People===
The people are all the individuals involved in the project, from the people setting the purpose of the project, often external stakeholders, to the teams executing the project and working on it on a daily basis. This can be shorted into "Whom are we doing this for?" and "Who is doing it?". <ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Since micro-management is a way of managing people, the impact on the people part of a project will therefore be substantial. The low autonomy that micro-management imposes on employees will affect employee morale, make them stressed, and decrease innovation. This will lead to a demotivated team and may even result in unforeseen team turnover. The longterm effect on a project execution team may even lead to impacts across multiple projects if the stress is carried over to new projects.

===Complexity===
The complexity of a project is part of actually solving the main purpose, this includes creating work breakdown structures, schedules, contracts, and dividing work.<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
In the case of micro-management, if a manager doesn't delegate work tasks and manages even the smallest decisions in sub-tasks, the project might take a longer time to complete because of all the small decisions that have to be approved by the micro-manager. These micro-decisions will also decrease the solution space and innovation, which can lead to decreased project success.

===Uncertainty===
The uncertainty of a project is the navigation within problems with limited information. Making the right decisions can be challenging, but the learning opportunities that arise from these problems can have long-term benefits for team members.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
A micromanager can take steps to override opinion and decision for the project and force it in a certain direction, which may be beneficial in the short term. However, the long-term effect can remove the agility of the team and have an impact on innovation, as employees may not be challenged in a creative way.

==The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation==
[[File:DD micro mangment influcence.png|thumb|right|400px|The stages of management styles are illustrated by the Double Diamond model. Diagram is created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.]]

In management, and therefore also in project management, it is necessary to strike the right balance between micro-management and no management. As mentioned in the sections above, micro-management can be beneficial in ensuring that project sub-tasks are completed on schedule and to quality standards. It allows project managers to closely monitor the progress of the project, identify issues early, and take action to keep the project on track. However, too much micro-management can have an impact on creativity and innovation, leading to disengagement and low morale among team members.

On the other hand, no management can lead to chaos and confusion, resulting in missed deadlines, poor quality, and ultimately project failure. Without any structured approach to managing a project, team members lack clear direction, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. Therefore, the balance between micro-management and no management in project management is critical.

At the same time, project managers should avoid micromanaging and give team members the autonomy to make decisions and solve problems. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among team members, leading to greater engagement, innovation, and ultimately project success.

This is also illustrated by '''the diagram''' using the double diamond model<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Double_diamond</ref> at different levels of management. It is noted that the more micro-management, the smaller the solution space becomes, and vice versa, less management opens up the solution space, but the amount of the solution may become difficult to grasp. The digram and this analyses was created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.

==Final conclusion==
Based on the theory and research that has been found it can be concluded that micromanagement in project management will have negative effects on project success. But project success is not everything, micromanagement will also demotivate team members, reduce innovation, create unnecessary delays, increase stress levels, and cause unassay problems that can affect both team members but also external stakeholders.
Therefore, good project management is based on a work environment where team members are empowered and take ownership of their tasks there’s an effective delegation, clear communication, and setting realistic expectations for the teams members. This should help towards achieving the ultimate project success.
Project managers should only focus on monitoring progress and providing support to the team members, rather than getting involved in every subtask and sub decisions. They should also establish a culture of trust, open communication, and accountability to ensure that team members feel valued and motivated to contribute their best and not being afraid of making mistakes.
In conclusion, while micromanagement may seem like an effective way to ensure project success and high quality, it can often do more harm than good. Effective project management requires a balance between providing guidance and support to team members while allowing them autonomy and freedom to complete their tasks and achieve project success.

==Annotated Bibliography==
*'''My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide''' is a book about micromanagement and helps in identifying a micromanager. It also provides tools to evaluate whether a manager is a micromanager. The book is written by Harry E. Chambers, who has worked with clients such as IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

*'''Cambridge English Dictionary''' is the Dictionary of university press of the University of Cambridge and is a good way the get a definition of word.

*'''Micromanagement a costly management style''' by Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S Collins is a article about micromanagement in a radiology department and discusses the problems it can cause in terms of results. Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S. Collins have both written numerous articles on management in the healthcare sector.

*'''The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure''' is an article that goes into the depths of identifying symptoms of micromanagement in an organization. It helps to figure out where the root problems come from and gives tools and actions to avoid and suppress micromanagement. The article is written by Richard D. White, Jr. who has a PhD in Public Administration and has written many articles in regard to public management.

*'''Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale''' is article written at the American Correctional Association, that is a Non-Profit and Non-Gov association. The author of the article is John A. Shuford an correctional training coordinator in the department of prisons of North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He has written numerous feature articles for national publications and developed and delivered innovative staff development trainings for 25 years for many governmental agencies in the US.

*'''“How to Help Without Micromanaging”''' is a article, published by Harvard Business Review, discusses the appropriate times for small amounts of micromanagement. The magazine is a general management publication that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University.

*'''Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management''' is an article written by the Project Management Institute (PMI). This article explores the effects of micromanagement on project teams and proposes a shift towards empowerment. The article also discusses the benefits of empowerment, such as increased innovation, creativity, and employee satisfaction. PMI has over 10,000 articles from subject matter experts on project management.

*'''http://wiki.doing-projects.org''' is a wiki from the Technical University of Denmark's ProjectLab, aimed at providing project management education and enabling access for everyone. The articles featured on the wiki are the sole results of students who have completed an advanced project management course at DTU.

*'''The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much''' is a articel from the Wall Street Journal. thats also cited in ''"The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure"'', the article is written by Carol Hymowitz who went to Stanford's Center on Longevity is a former editor and writer at Bloomberg and a former editor and columnist a the Wall Street Journal.

*'''World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017''' is an article written by the American consulting firm Mercer that goes into detail about how different management styles impact certain areas of a business.

*'''Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship''' is an article written by John Pierce, the Head of Business Development at the Forbes Human Resources Council. The invite-only platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people and share knowledge across businesses.

*'''https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives''' is a website that offers courses and research on project management at the Technical University of Denmark. The courses are designed for engineers and range from online courses for curious engineers to advanced Master courses and PhD projects. The website is run by a team of professors and researchers with interests in various aspects of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

Micro management in project management

2023-05-07T09:57:06Z

ChristianBF: /* The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation */

==Abstract==
This article will go into detail abound micromanagement in project management, and which negative effects it can have on project success.
Everybody knows the term micromanagement and that it can seriously affect many factors at an workplace and thereby also in project management.
<blockquote>''“79% have experienced micromanagement from their current or past managers.”<ref>Chambers, Harry E. My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide. Vol. 13. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2009.</ref>''</blockquote>
This meant that even if a team leader or manager thinks that they are not micromanaging there is still a high chance that it’s still happening.
Therefore it’s important for all team leaders and members to know abound micromanagement and its negative impacts. These includes reduced team morale, decreased motivation, increased stress levels, and a less successful project result.
To avoid micro-management, project managers should strike a balance between control and autonomy and whit this delegate responsibilities, thereby boosting team innovation.
By considering the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty), this article will give project managers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of micro-management and what tools can be used to avoid Micromanagement.

__TOC__

==Definition of micro management==

===What is Micromanagement===
Micromanagement is a management style where a manager or project manager exerts excessive control over their team, often getting involved in even the smallest of tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, micro-management is "the act of controlling every part of a situation, including small details." <ref>"micromanagement." Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/micromanagement</ref>. While some may see micromanagement to ensure high levels of productivity and quality, it can have a negative impact on employee morale and creativity.
In regards to project management, especially employee morale will effect the creativity of a team that can have a impact on the solution space of a project.

===Understanding micromanagement===

Understanding the impact of micromanagement is crucial for effective project management.
While micromanagement can have some short-term advantages in certain situations, such as training new team members, increasing productivity on certain tasks, and controlling high-risk issues, the long-term costs can be excessive and significantly affect a project. These long-term disadvantages could be low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity, and dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
In fact, micromanagement is among the top three reasons employees quit.<ref>Collins, Sandra K, and Kevin S Collins. “Micromanagement--a costly management style.” Radiology management vol. 24,6 (2002): 32-5. </ref> Ultimately, micromanagement leads to long-term decreased growth potential in a department, hindering progress and success.

==Symptoms of Micromanagement==
By knowing the symptoms and impacts of micro-management, a project managers can try avoid its by knowing what to look out for.
Symptoms of Micromanagement refer to the excessive supervision and control that a manager puts on their employees. The following points<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref> are some common signs of a micro-manager exhibits in their approach to managing employees and projects.
*Micromanagers oversee their workers too closely and spend an excessive amount of time supervising a particular project and telling people exactly what to do and how to do it.
*They are control freaks, often Type A personalities who are fundamentally insecure and afraid to trust the performance of those below them.
*Micromanagers typically go alone to the bosses office, as they do not wish subordinates to gain credit. They become irritated when others make decisions without consulting them. They explode when their bosses bypass them and go directly to one of their subordinates.
*Micromanagers are obsessed with meaningless details. They love numbers, lots of them. They confuse accuracy with precision.
*Micromanagers come in earlier than their employees and stay later. Employees at first feel guilty, but no matter how late they stay, the micro-boss stays later.
*Micromanagers dictate time, often creating deadlines for deadlines' sake. They demand overly frequent and unnecessary written status reports. They are so busy that delays happen frequently, while people wait for their input or signoff.
*Micromanagers stretch themselves too thin and take on too many projects. They move from one to another without completing any of the jobs. They are too busy to meet with subordinates and not available to provide guidance.
*Micromanagers abhor mistakes. Seldom praising, they consider their employees incompetent and soon lose the respect of coworkers and employees. While quick to blame, they seldom admit their own mistakes and shortcomings.

==The impacts of micro management on project management==
Micro-management can have an impact on many areas, which can be within all areas of project management, such as project success or efficiency, but it can also have an impact on the people involved. This section will go through some of the most impactful areas within project management.

===Team morale and motivation===
Micromanagement has negative impacts on employees. It reduces job satisfaction and makes them feel like they have no autonomy. Constant supervision and criticism create a stressful work environment that affects mental and physical health. This makes employees become less motivated and their creativity suffers. Being monitored damages there trust in the manager and creates a negative work environment.

"morale suffers as subordinate employees feel the administration does not trust their ability and competency as corrections officers, effectively driving a wedge between management and subordinates" <ref>Shuford, John A. "Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale." Corrections Today 81.5 (2019): 36-41.</ref>

===Project progress and efficienty===
Micromanagement can have a significant impact on project progress, both positively and negatively. Micromanagement can ensure that tasks are completed on time and at high standard due to high amounts of checkups from a project manager.
This can also prevent errors and misunderstandings, leading to a more streamlined project process. However, this may only work for a short period since the long-term effect of micromanagement from a project manager can give employees the feeling of low autonomy, thereby decreasing problem-solving capabilities. This can leads demotivation and a decrease in productivity.
"Our research suggests that leaders can help their employees in hands-on and meaningful ways […]thus being a hands-on manager in such situations is critical" <ref>Harvard Business Review. “How to Help Without Micromanaging.” Harvard Business Review, 22 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2021/01/how-to-help-without-micromanaging.</ref> and "Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."
<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

===Project success===
Project success means completing a project according to the agreed-upon terms, which include factors like time, budget, scope, and quality. While some factors like budget and quality can be closely managed under micromanagement and have positive impacts, excessive micromanagement can hinder the overall project's success. "Empowered employees are engaged employees. They have all the tools they need to learn and grow, connect with colleagues and others throughout the company, make their own decisions, be leaders, and contribute to the success"<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref> Put another way "Empowerment is a key driver of engagement."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==The use of micro management under a crises==
During a crisis, it is essential to ensure that critical tasks are completed on time and to a high standard. This could be due to a project being behind schedule or unexpected problems arising during the project. Micro-management can be a valuable tool during a crisis, as it allows project managers to efficiently and quickly complete a particular task. However, it is crucial to avoid excessive micro-management and allow team members to rest after a period of micromanagement. Micro-management should only be used as a short-term, high-intensity boost to a project and limited to crisis situations to avoid long term effects on the employs.
"Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==Strategies for avoiding micromanagement==
By doing organisational changes micromanagement can be avoided. These doings can help top managers create a more productive and good work environment. Thus creating a workplace efficient and innovative and thereby solve projects even better.

===Delegating responsibilities by promoting===
By promoting certain people in your team, you can delegate some tasks. In this way, as a head manager, you don't have full control and say in sub-projects. But don't just delegate for the sake of delegating; it's important to choose the right people who can manage correctly and not just do their old job.
"Because it is often more difficult to manage a job than to do it yourself, many people cannot make the transition from worker to supervisor, and if incapable of doing their new job, they micromanage those doing their old job."
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Clear understanding of tasks===
If no guidance is given or if the goals of a project or task are unclear, it is common for micromanagers to emerge. Since managers do not know the exact purpose of a task or project, they do not know when their task is done. And they may never feel like they have provided what top management asked for. Therefore, giving clear guidance and defining the purpose of a task can reduce micromanagement.
"Often micromanagement is created when managers are unclear about their duties. With no guidance from above, they never know when they have done enough and have no idea how their performance is being judged."
<ref>
Hymowitz, C. “The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.” Wall Street Journal. 241. (March 11, 2003), B1.
</ref>

===Encourage managers to delegate===
The best skill for a manager is to effectively delegate tasks. However, this can also be challenging for some. Therefore, helping managers at multiple levels of a project or a organisation learn the skill of giving away power is key to avoiding micromanagement and can help build even better trust within a team. When all participants know that tasks are handled well and correctly, it can enhance trust and improve teamwork.
"To some, handing over control is horrifying, but they must soon learn that delegation is one of the most important productivity skills a manager can master. When properly exercised, delegation establishes responsibility and accountability, and builds mutual trust and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates." <ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

=== Allow mistakes ===
Allowing innovation and being creative is highly important to avoid micromanagement. However, since being innovative and thinking outside the box can result in mistakes, it's important to accept that these mistakes happen. Getting a better result doesn't happen by doing the same thing all the time, but it happens by being creative and open to new solutions that have not been tested, even if there is a risk involved.
"Create an organizational environment that is open to innovation and new ideas. When mistakes happen then you know employees have been empowered with decision making authority and are taking risks. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Flatten the hierarchy of a organisation===
Allowing more people to make autonomous decisions and making the hierarchy of your organization flatter can lead to more efficiency, increased agility, greater customer contact, reduced costs, and increased innovation, while avoiding micromanagement. This can also enhance employee skills, which can further improve the organization.
"A flat management structure allows decisionmaking and operations to happen at approximately the same level, increasing contextual transparency and improving results. When higherlevel leadership is part of the daily goings on at the ground floor, they’re better equipped to evaluate employee performance, notice and understand operational faults and formulate solutions to company problems."
<ref>
Mercer. "World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017." Mercer, 2017, https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/webcasts/global-talent-trends-2017-europe.pdf
</ref>
<ref>
Forbes Human Resources Council. "Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship." Forbes, 5 April 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/04/05/down-with-the-hierarchy-how-flat-management-fosters-employee-entrepreneurship/?sh=410e129f120d.
</ref>

===Self reflect===
Even after attempting to reducing micromanagement in your organization, it's important to reflect on yourself and consider that if none of the tools or methods mentioned above helped, the main culprit of the problem might actually be you, the top manager.
<blockquote>''You never know if the main problem is staring back at you in the mirror.
''</blockquote>
"We need to ask ourselves if we have met the enemy [the evil micromanager], and if so, is he us. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>
In this case, self-reflection and thinking of how to use the different strategies on oneself to reduce micromanagement is key to further success.

==Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty)==
Micromanagement can have impacts in many areas but it will have a impact on all parts of a project management. Based on the theory and until know found problems it noticeable that Micromanagement will have a impact all main parts of project management Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty. A run-through of the findings and the impact on these areas are now to be analysed.

===Purpose===
The purpose of a project is the main focus for why a project is executed.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Even if a project is external and the purpose is set by an external stakeholder, an aggressive project manager can have an impact on the stakeholder, causing a change in the main purpose of the project or pushing it in a direction that the project manager believes is the right one from his perspective. This can have a huge impact on the end results of the product and the overall success of the project, since the main goal that the external stakeholder had in mind may not even be resolved. Tight boundaries for the project can also impact the solution space and have an impact on the end solution that should solve the main purpose of the project. This can also result in non-returning customers due to dissatisfaction.

===People===
The people are all the individuals involved in the project, from the people setting the purpose of the project, often external stakeholders, to the teams executing the project and working on it on a daily basis. This can be shorted into "Whom are we doing this for?" and "Who is doing it?". <ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Since micro-management is a way of managing people, the impact on the people part of a project will therefore be substantial. The low autonomy that micro-management imposes on employees will affect employee morale, make them stressed, and decrease innovation. This will lead to a demotivated team and may even result in unforeseen team turnover. The longterm effect on a project execution team may even lead to impacts across multiple projects if the stress is carried over to new projects.

===Complexity===
The complexity of a project is part of actually solving the main purpose, this includes creating work breakdown structures, schedules, contracts, and dividing work.<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
In the case of micro-management, if a manager doesn't delegate work tasks and manages even the smallest decisions in sub-tasks, the project might take a longer time to complete because of all the small decisions that have to be approved by the micro-manager. These micro-decisions will also decrease the solution space and innovation, which can lead to decreased project success.

===Uncertainty===
The uncertainty of a project is the navigation within problems with limited information. Making the right decisions can be challenging, but the learning opportunities that arise from these problems can have long-term benefits for team members.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
A micromanager can take steps to override opinion and decision for the project and force it in a certain direction, which may be beneficial in the short term. However, the long-term effect can remove the agility of the team and have an impact on innovation, as employees may not be challenged in a creative way.

==Final conclusion ==
Based on the theory and research that has been found it can be concluded that micromanagement in project management will have negative effects on project success. But project success is not everything, micromanagement will also demotivate team members, reduce innovation, create unnecessary delays, increase stress levels, and cause unassay problems that can affect both team members but also external stakeholders.
Therefore, good project management is based on a work environment where team members are empowered and take ownership of their tasks there’s an effective delegation, clear communication, and setting realistic expectations for the teams members. This should help towards achieving the ultimate project success.
Project managers should only focus on monitoring progress and providing support to the team members, rather than getting involved in every subtask and sub decisions. They should also establish a culture of trust, open communication, and accountability to ensure that team members feel valued and motivated to contribute their best and not being afraid of making mistakes.
In conclusion, while micromanagement may seem like an effective way to ensure project success and high quality, it can often do more harm than good. Effective project management requires a balance between providing guidance and support to team members while allowing them autonomy and freedom to complete their tasks and achieve project success.

==Annotated Bibliography==
*'''My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide''' is a book about micromanagement and helps in identifying a micromanager. It also provides tools to evaluate whether a manager is a micromanager. The book is written by Harry E. Chambers, who has worked with clients such as IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

*'''Cambridge English Dictionary''' is the Dictionary of university press of the University of Cambridge and is a good way the get a definition of word.

*'''Micromanagement a costly management style''' by Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S Collins is a article about micromanagement in a radiology department and discusses the problems it can cause in terms of results. Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S. Collins have both written numerous articles on management in the healthcare sector.

*'''The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure''' is an article that goes into the depths of identifying symptoms of micromanagement in an organization. It helps to figure out where the root problems come from and gives tools and actions to avoid and suppress micromanagement. The article is written by Richard D. White, Jr. who has a PhD in Public Administration and has written many articles in regard to public management.

*'''Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale''' is article written at the American Correctional Association, that is a Non-Profit and Non-Gov association. The author of the article is John A. Shuford an correctional training coordinator in the department of prisons of North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He has written numerous feature articles for national publications and developed and delivered innovative staff development trainings for 25 years for many governmental agencies in the US.

*'''“How to Help Without Micromanaging”''' is a article, published by Harvard Business Review, discusses the appropriate times for small amounts of micromanagement. The magazine is a general management publication that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University.

*'''Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management''' is an article written by the Project Management Institute (PMI). This article explores the effects of micromanagement on project teams and proposes a shift towards empowerment. The article also discusses the benefits of empowerment, such as increased innovation, creativity, and employee satisfaction. PMI has over 10,000 articles from subject matter experts on project management.

*'''http://wiki.doing-projects.org''' is a wiki from the Technical University of Denmark's ProjectLab, aimed at providing project management education and enabling access for everyone. The articles featured on the wiki are the sole results of students who have completed an advanced project management course at DTU.

*'''The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much''' is a articel from the Wall Street Journal. thats also cited in ''"The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure"'', the article is written by Carol Hymowitz who went to Stanford's Center on Longevity is a former editor and writer at Bloomberg and a former editor and columnist a the Wall Street Journal.

*'''World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017''' is an article written by the American consulting firm Mercer that goes into detail about how different management styles impact certain areas of a business.

*'''Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship''' is an article written by John Pierce, the Head of Business Development at the Forbes Human Resources Council. The invite-only platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people and share knowledge across businesses.

*'''https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives''' is a website that offers courses and research on project management at the Technical University of Denmark. The courses are designed for engineers and range from online courses for curious engineers to advanced Master courses and PhD projects. The website is run by a team of professors and researchers with interests in various aspects of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

Micro management in project management

2023-05-07T09:56:44Z

ChristianBF: /* Annotated Bibliography */

==Abstract==
This article will go into detail abound micromanagement in project management, and which negative effects it can have on project success.
Everybody knows the term micromanagement and that it can seriously affect many factors at an workplace and thereby also in project management.
<blockquote>''“79% have experienced micromanagement from their current or past managers.”<ref>Chambers, Harry E. My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide. Vol. 13. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2009.</ref>''</blockquote>
This meant that even if a team leader or manager thinks that they are not micromanaging there is still a high chance that it’s still happening.
Therefore it’s important for all team leaders and members to know abound micromanagement and its negative impacts. These includes reduced team morale, decreased motivation, increased stress levels, and a less successful project result.
To avoid micro-management, project managers should strike a balance between control and autonomy and whit this delegate responsibilities, thereby boosting team innovation.
By considering the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty), this article will give project managers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of micro-management and what tools can be used to avoid Micromanagement.

__TOC__

==Definition of micro management==

===What is Micromanagement===
Micromanagement is a management style where a manager or project manager exerts excessive control over their team, often getting involved in even the smallest of tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, micro-management is "the act of controlling every part of a situation, including small details." <ref>"micromanagement." Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/micromanagement</ref>. While some may see micromanagement to ensure high levels of productivity and quality, it can have a negative impact on employee morale and creativity.
In regards to project management, especially employee morale will effect the creativity of a team that can have a impact on the solution space of a project.

===Understanding micromanagement===

Understanding the impact of micromanagement is crucial for effective project management.
While micromanagement can have some short-term advantages in certain situations, such as training new team members, increasing productivity on certain tasks, and controlling high-risk issues, the long-term costs can be excessive and significantly affect a project. These long-term disadvantages could be low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity, and dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
In fact, micromanagement is among the top three reasons employees quit.<ref>Collins, Sandra K, and Kevin S Collins. “Micromanagement--a costly management style.” Radiology management vol. 24,6 (2002): 32-5. </ref> Ultimately, micromanagement leads to long-term decreased growth potential in a department, hindering progress and success.

==Symptoms of Micromanagement==
By knowing the symptoms and impacts of micro-management, a project managers can try avoid its by knowing what to look out for.
Symptoms of Micromanagement refer to the excessive supervision and control that a manager puts on their employees. The following points<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref> are some common signs of a micro-manager exhibits in their approach to managing employees and projects.
*Micromanagers oversee their workers too closely and spend an excessive amount of time supervising a particular project and telling people exactly what to do and how to do it.
*They are control freaks, often Type A personalities who are fundamentally insecure and afraid to trust the performance of those below them.
*Micromanagers typically go alone to the bosses office, as they do not wish subordinates to gain credit. They become irritated when others make decisions without consulting them. They explode when their bosses bypass them and go directly to one of their subordinates.
*Micromanagers are obsessed with meaningless details. They love numbers, lots of them. They confuse accuracy with precision.
*Micromanagers come in earlier than their employees and stay later. Employees at first feel guilty, but no matter how late they stay, the micro-boss stays later.
*Micromanagers dictate time, often creating deadlines for deadlines' sake. They demand overly frequent and unnecessary written status reports. They are so busy that delays happen frequently, while people wait for their input or signoff.
*Micromanagers stretch themselves too thin and take on too many projects. They move from one to another without completing any of the jobs. They are too busy to meet with subordinates and not available to provide guidance.
*Micromanagers abhor mistakes. Seldom praising, they consider their employees incompetent and soon lose the respect of coworkers and employees. While quick to blame, they seldom admit their own mistakes and shortcomings.

==The impacts of micro management on project management==
Micro-management can have an impact on many areas, which can be within all areas of project management, such as project success or efficiency, but it can also have an impact on the people involved. This section will go through some of the most impactful areas within project management.

===Team morale and motivation===
Micromanagement has negative impacts on employees. It reduces job satisfaction and makes them feel like they have no autonomy. Constant supervision and criticism create a stressful work environment that affects mental and physical health. This makes employees become less motivated and their creativity suffers. Being monitored damages there trust in the manager and creates a negative work environment.

"morale suffers as subordinate employees feel the administration does not trust their ability and competency as corrections officers, effectively driving a wedge between management and subordinates" <ref>Shuford, John A. "Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale." Corrections Today 81.5 (2019): 36-41.</ref>

===Project progress and efficienty===
Micromanagement can have a significant impact on project progress, both positively and negatively. Micromanagement can ensure that tasks are completed on time and at high standard due to high amounts of checkups from a project manager.
This can also prevent errors and misunderstandings, leading to a more streamlined project process. However, this may only work for a short period since the long-term effect of micromanagement from a project manager can give employees the feeling of low autonomy, thereby decreasing problem-solving capabilities. This can leads demotivation and a decrease in productivity.
"Our research suggests that leaders can help their employees in hands-on and meaningful ways […]thus being a hands-on manager in such situations is critical" <ref>Harvard Business Review. “How to Help Without Micromanaging.” Harvard Business Review, 22 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2021/01/how-to-help-without-micromanaging.</ref> and "Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."
<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

===Project success===
Project success means completing a project according to the agreed-upon terms, which include factors like time, budget, scope, and quality. While some factors like budget and quality can be closely managed under micromanagement and have positive impacts, excessive micromanagement can hinder the overall project's success. "Empowered employees are engaged employees. They have all the tools they need to learn and grow, connect with colleagues and others throughout the company, make their own decisions, be leaders, and contribute to the success"<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref> Put another way "Empowerment is a key driver of engagement."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation==
[[File:DD micro mangment influcence.png|thumb|right|400px|The stages of management styles are illustrated by the Double Diamond model. Diagram is created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.]]

In management, and therefore also in project management, it is necessary to strike the right balance between micro-management and no management. As mentioned in the sections above, micro-management can be beneficial in ensuring that project sub-tasks are completed on schedule and to quality standards. It allows project managers to closely monitor the progress of the project, identify issues early, and take action to keep the project on track. However, too much micro-management can have an impact on creativity and innovation, leading to disengagement and low morale among team members.

On the other hand, no management can lead to chaos and confusion, resulting in missed deadlines, poor quality, and ultimately project failure. Without any structured approach to managing a project, team members lack clear direction, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. Therefore, the balance between micro-management and no management in project management is critical.

At the same time, project managers should avoid micromanaging and give team members the autonomy to make decisions and solve problems. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among team members, leading to greater engagement, innovation, and ultimately project success.

This is also illustrated by '''the diagram''' using the double diamond model<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Double_diamond</ref> at different levels of management. It is noted that the more micro-management, the smaller the solution space becomes, and vice versa, less management opens up the solution space, but the amount of the solution may become difficult to grasp. The digram and this analyses was created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.

==The use of micro management under a crises==
During a crisis, it is essential to ensure that critical tasks are completed on time and to a high standard. This could be due to a project being behind schedule or unexpected problems arising during the project. Micro-management can be a valuable tool during a crisis, as it allows project managers to efficiently and quickly complete a particular task. However, it is crucial to avoid excessive micro-management and allow team members to rest after a period of micromanagement. Micro-management should only be used as a short-term, high-intensity boost to a project and limited to crisis situations to avoid long term effects on the employs.
"Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==Strategies for avoiding micromanagement==
By doing organisational changes micromanagement can be avoided. These doings can help top managers create a more productive and good work environment. Thus creating a workplace efficient and innovative and thereby solve projects even better.

===Delegating responsibilities by promoting===
By promoting certain people in your team, you can delegate some tasks. In this way, as a head manager, you don't have full control and say in sub-projects. But don't just delegate for the sake of delegating; it's important to choose the right people who can manage correctly and not just do their old job.
"Because it is often more difficult to manage a job than to do it yourself, many people cannot make the transition from worker to supervisor, and if incapable of doing their new job, they micromanage those doing their old job."
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Clear understanding of tasks===
If no guidance is given or if the goals of a project or task are unclear, it is common for micromanagers to emerge. Since managers do not know the exact purpose of a task or project, they do not know when their task is done. And they may never feel like they have provided what top management asked for. Therefore, giving clear guidance and defining the purpose of a task can reduce micromanagement.
"Often micromanagement is created when managers are unclear about their duties. With no guidance from above, they never know when they have done enough and have no idea how their performance is being judged."
<ref>
Hymowitz, C. “The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.” Wall Street Journal. 241. (March 11, 2003), B1.
</ref>

===Encourage managers to delegate===
The best skill for a manager is to effectively delegate tasks. However, this can also be challenging for some. Therefore, helping managers at multiple levels of a project or a organisation learn the skill of giving away power is key to avoiding micromanagement and can help build even better trust within a team. When all participants know that tasks are handled well and correctly, it can enhance trust and improve teamwork.
"To some, handing over control is horrifying, but they must soon learn that delegation is one of the most important productivity skills a manager can master. When properly exercised, delegation establishes responsibility and accountability, and builds mutual trust and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates." <ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

=== Allow mistakes ===
Allowing innovation and being creative is highly important to avoid micromanagement. However, since being innovative and thinking outside the box can result in mistakes, it's important to accept that these mistakes happen. Getting a better result doesn't happen by doing the same thing all the time, but it happens by being creative and open to new solutions that have not been tested, even if there is a risk involved.
"Create an organizational environment that is open to innovation and new ideas. When mistakes happen then you know employees have been empowered with decision making authority and are taking risks. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Flatten the hierarchy of a organisation===
Allowing more people to make autonomous decisions and making the hierarchy of your organization flatter can lead to more efficiency, increased agility, greater customer contact, reduced costs, and increased innovation, while avoiding micromanagement. This can also enhance employee skills, which can further improve the organization.
"A flat management structure allows decisionmaking and operations to happen at approximately the same level, increasing contextual transparency and improving results. When higherlevel leadership is part of the daily goings on at the ground floor, they’re better equipped to evaluate employee performance, notice and understand operational faults and formulate solutions to company problems."
<ref>
Mercer. "World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017." Mercer, 2017, https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/webcasts/global-talent-trends-2017-europe.pdf
</ref>
<ref>
Forbes Human Resources Council. "Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship." Forbes, 5 April 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/04/05/down-with-the-hierarchy-how-flat-management-fosters-employee-entrepreneurship/?sh=410e129f120d.
</ref>

===Self reflect===
Even after attempting to reducing micromanagement in your organization, it's important to reflect on yourself and consider that if none of the tools or methods mentioned above helped, the main culprit of the problem might actually be you, the top manager.
<blockquote>''You never know if the main problem is staring back at you in the mirror.
''</blockquote>
"We need to ask ourselves if we have met the enemy [the evil micromanager], and if so, is he us. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>
In this case, self-reflection and thinking of how to use the different strategies on oneself to reduce micromanagement is key to further success.

==Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty)==
Micromanagement can have impacts in many areas but it will have a impact on all parts of a project management. Based on the theory and until know found problems it noticeable that Micromanagement will have a impact all main parts of project management Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty. A run-through of the findings and the impact on these areas are now to be analysed.

===Purpose===
The purpose of a project is the main focus for why a project is executed.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Even if a project is external and the purpose is set by an external stakeholder, an aggressive project manager can have an impact on the stakeholder, causing a change in the main purpose of the project or pushing it in a direction that the project manager believes is the right one from his perspective. This can have a huge impact on the end results of the product and the overall success of the project, since the main goal that the external stakeholder had in mind may not even be resolved. Tight boundaries for the project can also impact the solution space and have an impact on the end solution that should solve the main purpose of the project. This can also result in non-returning customers due to dissatisfaction.

===People===
The people are all the individuals involved in the project, from the people setting the purpose of the project, often external stakeholders, to the teams executing the project and working on it on a daily basis. This can be shorted into "Whom are we doing this for?" and "Who is doing it?". <ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Since micro-management is a way of managing people, the impact on the people part of a project will therefore be substantial. The low autonomy that micro-management imposes on employees will affect employee morale, make them stressed, and decrease innovation. This will lead to a demotivated team and may even result in unforeseen team turnover. The longterm effect on a project execution team may even lead to impacts across multiple projects if the stress is carried over to new projects.

===Complexity===
The complexity of a project is part of actually solving the main purpose, this includes creating work breakdown structures, schedules, contracts, and dividing work.<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
In the case of micro-management, if a manager doesn't delegate work tasks and manages even the smallest decisions in sub-tasks, the project might take a longer time to complete because of all the small decisions that have to be approved by the micro-manager. These micro-decisions will also decrease the solution space and innovation, which can lead to decreased project success.

===Uncertainty===
The uncertainty of a project is the navigation within problems with limited information. Making the right decisions can be challenging, but the learning opportunities that arise from these problems can have long-term benefits for team members.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
A micromanager can take steps to override opinion and decision for the project and force it in a certain direction, which may be beneficial in the short term. However, the long-term effect can remove the agility of the team and have an impact on innovation, as employees may not be challenged in a creative way.

==Final conclusion ==
Based on the theory and research that has been found it can be concluded that micromanagement in project management will have negative effects on project success. But project success is not everything, micromanagement will also demotivate team members, reduce innovation, create unnecessary delays, increase stress levels, and cause unassay problems that can affect both team members but also external stakeholders.
Therefore, good project management is based on a work environment where team members are empowered and take ownership of their tasks there’s an effective delegation, clear communication, and setting realistic expectations for the teams members. This should help towards achieving the ultimate project success.
Project managers should only focus on monitoring progress and providing support to the team members, rather than getting involved in every subtask and sub decisions. They should also establish a culture of trust, open communication, and accountability to ensure that team members feel valued and motivated to contribute their best and not being afraid of making mistakes.
In conclusion, while micromanagement may seem like an effective way to ensure project success and high quality, it can often do more harm than good. Effective project management requires a balance between providing guidance and support to team members while allowing them autonomy and freedom to complete their tasks and achieve project success.

==Annotated Bibliography==
*'''My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide''' is a book about micromanagement and helps in identifying a micromanager. It also provides tools to evaluate whether a manager is a micromanager. The book is written by Harry E. Chambers, who has worked with clients such as IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

*'''Cambridge English Dictionary''' is the Dictionary of university press of the University of Cambridge and is a good way the get a definition of word.

*'''Micromanagement a costly management style''' by Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S Collins is a article about micromanagement in a radiology department and discusses the problems it can cause in terms of results. Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S. Collins have both written numerous articles on management in the healthcare sector.

*'''The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure''' is an article that goes into the depths of identifying symptoms of micromanagement in an organization. It helps to figure out where the root problems come from and gives tools and actions to avoid and suppress micromanagement. The article is written by Richard D. White, Jr. who has a PhD in Public Administration and has written many articles in regard to public management.

*'''Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale''' is article written at the American Correctional Association, that is a Non-Profit and Non-Gov association. The author of the article is John A. Shuford an correctional training coordinator in the department of prisons of North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He has written numerous feature articles for national publications and developed and delivered innovative staff development trainings for 25 years for many governmental agencies in the US.

*'''“How to Help Without Micromanaging”''' is a article, published by Harvard Business Review, discusses the appropriate times for small amounts of micromanagement. The magazine is a general management publication that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University.

*'''Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management''' is an article written by the Project Management Institute (PMI). This article explores the effects of micromanagement on project teams and proposes a shift towards empowerment. The article also discusses the benefits of empowerment, such as increased innovation, creativity, and employee satisfaction. PMI has over 10,000 articles from subject matter experts on project management.

*'''http://wiki.doing-projects.org''' is a wiki from the Technical University of Denmark's ProjectLab, aimed at providing project management education and enabling access for everyone. The articles featured on the wiki are the sole results of students who have completed an advanced project management course at DTU.

*'''The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much''' is a articel from the Wall Street Journal. thats also cited in ''"The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure"'', the article is written by Carol Hymowitz who went to Stanford's Center on Longevity is a former editor and writer at Bloomberg and a former editor and columnist a the Wall Street Journal.

*'''World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017''' is an article written by the American consulting firm Mercer that goes into detail about how different management styles impact certain areas of a business.

*'''Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship''' is an article written by John Pierce, the Head of Business Development at the Forbes Human Resources Council. The invite-only platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people and share knowledge across businesses.

*'''https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives''' is a website that offers courses and research on project management at the Technical University of Denmark. The courses are designed for engineers and range from online courses for curious engineers to advanced Master courses and PhD projects. The website is run by a team of professors and researchers with interests in various aspects of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

Micro management in project management

2023-05-07T09:55:30Z

ChristianBF: /* Final conclusion */

==Abstract==
This article will go into detail abound micromanagement in project management, and which negative effects it can have on project success.
Everybody knows the term micromanagement and that it can seriously affect many factors at an workplace and thereby also in project management.
<blockquote>''“79% have experienced micromanagement from their current or past managers.”<ref>Chambers, Harry E. My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide. Vol. 13. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2009.</ref>''</blockquote>
This meant that even if a team leader or manager thinks that they are not micromanaging there is still a high chance that it’s still happening.
Therefore it’s important for all team leaders and members to know abound micromanagement and its negative impacts. These includes reduced team morale, decreased motivation, increased stress levels, and a less successful project result.
To avoid micro-management, project managers should strike a balance between control and autonomy and whit this delegate responsibilities, thereby boosting team innovation.
By considering the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty), this article will give project managers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of micro-management and what tools can be used to avoid Micromanagement.

__TOC__

==Definition of micro management==

===What is Micromanagement===
Micromanagement is a management style where a manager or project manager exerts excessive control over their team, often getting involved in even the smallest of tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, micro-management is "the act of controlling every part of a situation, including small details." <ref>"micromanagement." Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/micromanagement</ref>. While some may see micromanagement to ensure high levels of productivity and quality, it can have a negative impact on employee morale and creativity.
In regards to project management, especially employee morale will effect the creativity of a team that can have a impact on the solution space of a project.

===Understanding micromanagement===

Understanding the impact of micromanagement is crucial for effective project management.
While micromanagement can have some short-term advantages in certain situations, such as training new team members, increasing productivity on certain tasks, and controlling high-risk issues, the long-term costs can be excessive and significantly affect a project. These long-term disadvantages could be low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity, and dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
In fact, micromanagement is among the top three reasons employees quit.<ref>Collins, Sandra K, and Kevin S Collins. “Micromanagement--a costly management style.” Radiology management vol. 24,6 (2002): 32-5. </ref> Ultimately, micromanagement leads to long-term decreased growth potential in a department, hindering progress and success.

==Symptoms of Micromanagement==
By knowing the symptoms and impacts of micro-management, a project managers can try avoid its by knowing what to look out for.
Symptoms of Micromanagement refer to the excessive supervision and control that a manager puts on their employees. The following points<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref> are some common signs of a micro-manager exhibits in their approach to managing employees and projects.
*Micromanagers oversee their workers too closely and spend an excessive amount of time supervising a particular project and telling people exactly what to do and how to do it.
*They are control freaks, often Type A personalities who are fundamentally insecure and afraid to trust the performance of those below them.
*Micromanagers typically go alone to the bosses office, as they do not wish subordinates to gain credit. They become irritated when others make decisions without consulting them. They explode when their bosses bypass them and go directly to one of their subordinates.
*Micromanagers are obsessed with meaningless details. They love numbers, lots of them. They confuse accuracy with precision.
*Micromanagers come in earlier than their employees and stay later. Employees at first feel guilty, but no matter how late they stay, the micro-boss stays later.
*Micromanagers dictate time, often creating deadlines for deadlines' sake. They demand overly frequent and unnecessary written status reports. They are so busy that delays happen frequently, while people wait for their input or signoff.
*Micromanagers stretch themselves too thin and take on too many projects. They move from one to another without completing any of the jobs. They are too busy to meet with subordinates and not available to provide guidance.
*Micromanagers abhor mistakes. Seldom praising, they consider their employees incompetent and soon lose the respect of coworkers and employees. While quick to blame, they seldom admit their own mistakes and shortcomings.

==The impacts of micro management on project management==
Micro-management can have an impact on many areas, which can be within all areas of project management, such as project success or efficiency, but it can also have an impact on the people involved. This section will go through some of the most impactful areas within project management.

===Team morale and motivation===
Micromanagement has negative impacts on employees. It reduces job satisfaction and makes them feel like they have no autonomy. Constant supervision and criticism create a stressful work environment that affects mental and physical health. This makes employees become less motivated and their creativity suffers. Being monitored damages there trust in the manager and creates a negative work environment.

"morale suffers as subordinate employees feel the administration does not trust their ability and competency as corrections officers, effectively driving a wedge between management and subordinates" <ref>Shuford, John A. "Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale." Corrections Today 81.5 (2019): 36-41.</ref>

===Project progress and efficienty===
Micromanagement can have a significant impact on project progress, both positively and negatively. Micromanagement can ensure that tasks are completed on time and at high standard due to high amounts of checkups from a project manager.
This can also prevent errors and misunderstandings, leading to a more streamlined project process. However, this may only work for a short period since the long-term effect of micromanagement from a project manager can give employees the feeling of low autonomy, thereby decreasing problem-solving capabilities. This can leads demotivation and a decrease in productivity.
"Our research suggests that leaders can help their employees in hands-on and meaningful ways […]thus being a hands-on manager in such situations is critical" <ref>Harvard Business Review. “How to Help Without Micromanaging.” Harvard Business Review, 22 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2021/01/how-to-help-without-micromanaging.</ref> and "Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."
<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

===Project success===
Project success means completing a project according to the agreed-upon terms, which include factors like time, budget, scope, and quality. While some factors like budget and quality can be closely managed under micromanagement and have positive impacts, excessive micromanagement can hinder the overall project's success. "Empowered employees are engaged employees. They have all the tools they need to learn and grow, connect with colleagues and others throughout the company, make their own decisions, be leaders, and contribute to the success"<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref> Put another way "Empowerment is a key driver of engagement."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation==
[[File:DD micro mangment influcence.png|thumb|right|400px|The stages of management styles are illustrated by the Double Diamond model. Diagram is created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.]]

In management, and therefore also in project management, it is necessary to strike the right balance between micro-management and no management. As mentioned in the sections above, micro-management can be beneficial in ensuring that project sub-tasks are completed on schedule and to quality standards. It allows project managers to closely monitor the progress of the project, identify issues early, and take action to keep the project on track. However, too much micro-management can have an impact on creativity and innovation, leading to disengagement and low morale among team members.

On the other hand, no management can lead to chaos and confusion, resulting in missed deadlines, poor quality, and ultimately project failure. Without any structured approach to managing a project, team members lack clear direction, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. Therefore, the balance between micro-management and no management in project management is critical.

At the same time, project managers should avoid micromanaging and give team members the autonomy to make decisions and solve problems. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among team members, leading to greater engagement, innovation, and ultimately project success.

This is also illustrated by '''the diagram''' using the double diamond model<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Double_diamond</ref> at different levels of management. It is noted that the more micro-management, the smaller the solution space becomes, and vice versa, less management opens up the solution space, but the amount of the solution may become difficult to grasp. The digram and this analyses was created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.

==The use of micro management under a crises==
During a crisis, it is essential to ensure that critical tasks are completed on time and to a high standard. This could be due to a project being behind schedule or unexpected problems arising during the project. Micro-management can be a valuable tool during a crisis, as it allows project managers to efficiently and quickly complete a particular task. However, it is crucial to avoid excessive micro-management and allow team members to rest after a period of micromanagement. Micro-management should only be used as a short-term, high-intensity boost to a project and limited to crisis situations to avoid long term effects on the employs.
"Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==Strategies for avoiding micromanagement==
By doing organisational changes micromanagement can be avoided. These doings can help top managers create a more productive and good work environment. Thus creating a workplace efficient and innovative and thereby solve projects even better.

===Delegating responsibilities by promoting===
By promoting certain people in your team, you can delegate some tasks. In this way, as a head manager, you don't have full control and say in sub-projects. But don't just delegate for the sake of delegating; it's important to choose the right people who can manage correctly and not just do their old job.
"Because it is often more difficult to manage a job than to do it yourself, many people cannot make the transition from worker to supervisor, and if incapable of doing their new job, they micromanage those doing their old job."
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Clear understanding of tasks===
If no guidance is given or if the goals of a project or task are unclear, it is common for micromanagers to emerge. Since managers do not know the exact purpose of a task or project, they do not know when their task is done. And they may never feel like they have provided what top management asked for. Therefore, giving clear guidance and defining the purpose of a task can reduce micromanagement.
"Often micromanagement is created when managers are unclear about their duties. With no guidance from above, they never know when they have done enough and have no idea how their performance is being judged."
<ref>
Hymowitz, C. “The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.” Wall Street Journal. 241. (March 11, 2003), B1.
</ref>

===Encourage managers to delegate===
The best skill for a manager is to effectively delegate tasks. However, this can also be challenging for some. Therefore, helping managers at multiple levels of a project or a organisation learn the skill of giving away power is key to avoiding micromanagement and can help build even better trust within a team. When all participants know that tasks are handled well and correctly, it can enhance trust and improve teamwork.
"To some, handing over control is horrifying, but they must soon learn that delegation is one of the most important productivity skills a manager can master. When properly exercised, delegation establishes responsibility and accountability, and builds mutual trust and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates." <ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

=== Allow mistakes ===
Allowing innovation and being creative is highly important to avoid micromanagement. However, since being innovative and thinking outside the box can result in mistakes, it's important to accept that these mistakes happen. Getting a better result doesn't happen by doing the same thing all the time, but it happens by being creative and open to new solutions that have not been tested, even if there is a risk involved.
"Create an organizational environment that is open to innovation and new ideas. When mistakes happen then you know employees have been empowered with decision making authority and are taking risks. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Flatten the hierarchy of a organisation===
Allowing more people to make autonomous decisions and making the hierarchy of your organization flatter can lead to more efficiency, increased agility, greater customer contact, reduced costs, and increased innovation, while avoiding micromanagement. This can also enhance employee skills, which can further improve the organization.
"A flat management structure allows decisionmaking and operations to happen at approximately the same level, increasing contextual transparency and improving results. When higherlevel leadership is part of the daily goings on at the ground floor, they’re better equipped to evaluate employee performance, notice and understand operational faults and formulate solutions to company problems."
<ref>
Mercer. "World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017." Mercer, 2017, https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/webcasts/global-talent-trends-2017-europe.pdf
</ref>
<ref>
Forbes Human Resources Council. "Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship." Forbes, 5 April 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/04/05/down-with-the-hierarchy-how-flat-management-fosters-employee-entrepreneurship/?sh=410e129f120d.
</ref>

===Self reflect===
Even after attempting to reducing micromanagement in your organization, it's important to reflect on yourself and consider that if none of the tools or methods mentioned above helped, the main culprit of the problem might actually be you, the top manager.
<blockquote>''You never know if the main problem is staring back at you in the mirror.
''</blockquote>
"We need to ask ourselves if we have met the enemy [the evil micromanager], and if so, is he us. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>
In this case, self-reflection and thinking of how to use the different strategies on oneself to reduce micromanagement is key to further success.

==Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty)==
Micromanagement can have impacts in many areas but it will have a impact on all parts of a project management. Based on the theory and until know found problems it noticeable that Micromanagement will have a impact all main parts of project management Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty. A run-through of the findings and the impact on these areas are now to be analysed.

===Purpose===
The purpose of a project is the main focus for why a project is executed.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Even if a project is external and the purpose is set by an external stakeholder, an aggressive project manager can have an impact on the stakeholder, causing a change in the main purpose of the project or pushing it in a direction that the project manager believes is the right one from his perspective. This can have a huge impact on the end results of the product and the overall success of the project, since the main goal that the external stakeholder had in mind may not even be resolved. Tight boundaries for the project can also impact the solution space and have an impact on the end solution that should solve the main purpose of the project. This can also result in non-returning customers due to dissatisfaction.

===People===
The people are all the individuals involved in the project, from the people setting the purpose of the project, often external stakeholders, to the teams executing the project and working on it on a daily basis. This can be shorted into "Whom are we doing this for?" and "Who is doing it?". <ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Since micro-management is a way of managing people, the impact on the people part of a project will therefore be substantial. The low autonomy that micro-management imposes on employees will affect employee morale, make them stressed, and decrease innovation. This will lead to a demotivated team and may even result in unforeseen team turnover. The longterm effect on a project execution team may even lead to impacts across multiple projects if the stress is carried over to new projects.

===Complexity===
The complexity of a project is part of actually solving the main purpose, this includes creating work breakdown structures, schedules, contracts, and dividing work.<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
In the case of micro-management, if a manager doesn't delegate work tasks and manages even the smallest decisions in sub-tasks, the project might take a longer time to complete because of all the small decisions that have to be approved by the micro-manager. These micro-decisions will also decrease the solution space and innovation, which can lead to decreased project success.

===Uncertainty===
The uncertainty of a project is the navigation within problems with limited information. Making the right decisions can be challenging, but the learning opportunities that arise from these problems can have long-term benefits for team members.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
A micromanager can take steps to override opinion and decision for the project and force it in a certain direction, which may be beneficial in the short term. However, the long-term effect can remove the agility of the team and have an impact on innovation, as employees may not be challenged in a creative way.

==Final conclusion ==
Based on the theory and research that has been found it can be concluded that micromanagement in project management will have negative effects on project success. But project success is not everything, micromanagement will also demotivate team members, reduce innovation, create unnecessary delays, increase stress levels, and cause unassay problems that can affect both team members but also external stakeholders.
Therefore, good project management is based on a work environment where team members are empowered and take ownership of their tasks there’s an effective delegation, clear communication, and setting realistic expectations for the teams members. This should help towards achieving the ultimate project success.
Project managers should only focus on monitoring progress and providing support to the team members, rather than getting involved in every subtask and sub decisions. They should also establish a culture of trust, open communication, and accountability to ensure that team members feel valued and motivated to contribute their best and not being afraid of making mistakes.
In conclusion, while micromanagement may seem like an effective way to ensure project success and high quality, it can often do more harm than good. Effective project management requires a balance between providing guidance and support to team members while allowing them autonomy and freedom to complete their tasks and achieve project success.

==Annotated Bibliography==
*'''My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide''' is a book about micromanagement and helps in identifying a micromanager. It also provides tools to evaluate whether a manager is a micromanager. The book is written by Harry E. Chambers, who has worked with clients such as IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

*'''Cambridge English Dictionary''' is the Dictionary of university press of the University of Cambridge and is a good way the get a definition of word.

*'''Micromanagement a costly management style''' by Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S Collins is a article about micromanagement in a radiology department and discusses the problems it can cause in terms of results. Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S. Collins have both written numerous articles on management in the healthcare sector.

*'''The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure''' is an article that goes into the depths of identifying symptoms of micromanagement in an organization. It helps to figure out where the root problems come from and gives tools and actions to avoid and suppress micromanagement. The article is written by Richard D. White, Jr. who has a PhD in Public Administration and has written many articles in regard to public management.

*'''Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale.''' is article written at the American Correctional Association, that is a Non-Profit and Non-Gov association. The author of the article is John A. Shuford an correctional training coordinator in the department of prisons of North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He has written numerous feature articles for national publications and developed and delivered innovative staff development trainings for 25 years for many governmental agencies in the US.

*“How to Help Without Micromanaging.” is a article, published by Harvard Business Review, discusses the appropriate times for small amounts of micromanagement. The magazine is a general management publication that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University.

*'''Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management''' is an article written by the Project Management Institute (PMI). This article explores the effects of micromanagement on project teams and proposes a shift towards empowerment. The article also discusses the benefits of empowerment, such as increased innovation, creativity, and employee satisfaction. PMI has over 10,000 articles from subject matter experts on project management.

*'''http://wiki.doing-projects.org''' is a wiki from the Technical University of Denmark's ProjectLab, aimed at providing project management education and enabling access for everyone. The articles featured on the wiki are the sole results of students who have completed an advanced project management course at DTU.

*'''The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.''' is a articel from the Wall Street Journal. thats also cited in ''"The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure"'', the article is written by Carol Hymowitz who went to Stanford's Center on Longevity is a former editor and writer at Bloomberg and a former editor and columnist a the Wall Street Journal.

*'''World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017.''' is an article written by the American consulting firm Mercer that goes into detail about how different management styles impact certain areas of a business.

*'''Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship.''' is an article written by John Pierce, the Head of Business Development at the Forbes Human Resources Council. The invite-only platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people and share knowledge across businesses.

*'''https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives''' is a website that offers courses and research on project management at the Technical University of Denmark. The courses are designed for engineers and range from online courses for curious engineers to advanced Master courses and PhD projects. The website is run by a team of professors and researchers with interests in various aspects of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

Micro management in project management

2023-05-07T09:52:47Z

ChristianBF: /* Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty) */

==Abstract==
This article will go into detail abound micromanagement in project management, and which negative effects it can have on project success.
Everybody knows the term micromanagement and that it can seriously affect many factors at an workplace and thereby also in project management.
<blockquote>''“79% have experienced micromanagement from their current or past managers.”<ref>Chambers, Harry E. My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide. Vol. 13. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2009.</ref>''</blockquote>
This meant that even if a team leader or manager thinks that they are not micromanaging there is still a high chance that it’s still happening.
Therefore it’s important for all team leaders and members to know abound micromanagement and its negative impacts. These includes reduced team morale, decreased motivation, increased stress levels, and a less successful project result.
To avoid micro-management, project managers should strike a balance between control and autonomy and whit this delegate responsibilities, thereby boosting team innovation.
By considering the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty), this article will give project managers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of micro-management and what tools can be used to avoid Micromanagement.

__TOC__

==Definition of micro management==

===What is Micromanagement===
Micromanagement is a management style where a manager or project manager exerts excessive control over their team, often getting involved in even the smallest of tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, micro-management is "the act of controlling every part of a situation, including small details." <ref>"micromanagement." Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/micromanagement</ref>. While some may see micromanagement to ensure high levels of productivity and quality, it can have a negative impact on employee morale and creativity.
In regards to project management, especially employee morale will effect the creativity of a team that can have a impact on the solution space of a project.

===Understanding micromanagement===

Understanding the impact of micromanagement is crucial for effective project management.
While micromanagement can have some short-term advantages in certain situations, such as training new team members, increasing productivity on certain tasks, and controlling high-risk issues, the long-term costs can be excessive and significantly affect a project. These long-term disadvantages could be low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity, and dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
In fact, micromanagement is among the top three reasons employees quit.<ref>Collins, Sandra K, and Kevin S Collins. “Micromanagement--a costly management style.” Radiology management vol. 24,6 (2002): 32-5. </ref> Ultimately, micromanagement leads to long-term decreased growth potential in a department, hindering progress and success.

==Symptoms of Micromanagement==
By knowing the symptoms and impacts of micro-management, a project managers can try avoid its by knowing what to look out for.
Symptoms of Micromanagement refer to the excessive supervision and control that a manager puts on their employees. The following points<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref> are some common signs of a micro-manager exhibits in their approach to managing employees and projects.
*Micromanagers oversee their workers too closely and spend an excessive amount of time supervising a particular project and telling people exactly what to do and how to do it.
*They are control freaks, often Type A personalities who are fundamentally insecure and afraid to trust the performance of those below them.
*Micromanagers typically go alone to the bosses office, as they do not wish subordinates to gain credit. They become irritated when others make decisions without consulting them. They explode when their bosses bypass them and go directly to one of their subordinates.
*Micromanagers are obsessed with meaningless details. They love numbers, lots of them. They confuse accuracy with precision.
*Micromanagers come in earlier than their employees and stay later. Employees at first feel guilty, but no matter how late they stay, the micro-boss stays later.
*Micromanagers dictate time, often creating deadlines for deadlines' sake. They demand overly frequent and unnecessary written status reports. They are so busy that delays happen frequently, while people wait for their input or signoff.
*Micromanagers stretch themselves too thin and take on too many projects. They move from one to another without completing any of the jobs. They are too busy to meet with subordinates and not available to provide guidance.
*Micromanagers abhor mistakes. Seldom praising, they consider their employees incompetent and soon lose the respect of coworkers and employees. While quick to blame, they seldom admit their own mistakes and shortcomings.

==The impacts of micro management on project management==
Micro-management can have an impact on many areas, which can be within all areas of project management, such as project success or efficiency, but it can also have an impact on the people involved. This section will go through some of the most impactful areas within project management.

===Team morale and motivation===
Micromanagement has negative impacts on employees. It reduces job satisfaction and makes them feel like they have no autonomy. Constant supervision and criticism create a stressful work environment that affects mental and physical health. This makes employees become less motivated and their creativity suffers. Being monitored damages there trust in the manager and creates a negative work environment.

"morale suffers as subordinate employees feel the administration does not trust their ability and competency as corrections officers, effectively driving a wedge between management and subordinates" <ref>Shuford, John A. "Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale." Corrections Today 81.5 (2019): 36-41.</ref>

===Project progress and efficienty===
Micromanagement can have a significant impact on project progress, both positively and negatively. Micromanagement can ensure that tasks are completed on time and at high standard due to high amounts of checkups from a project manager.
This can also prevent errors and misunderstandings, leading to a more streamlined project process. However, this may only work for a short period since the long-term effect of micromanagement from a project manager can give employees the feeling of low autonomy, thereby decreasing problem-solving capabilities. This can leads demotivation and a decrease in productivity.
"Our research suggests that leaders can help their employees in hands-on and meaningful ways […]thus being a hands-on manager in such situations is critical" <ref>Harvard Business Review. “How to Help Without Micromanaging.” Harvard Business Review, 22 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2021/01/how-to-help-without-micromanaging.</ref> and "Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."
<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

===Project success===
Project success means completing a project according to the agreed-upon terms, which include factors like time, budget, scope, and quality. While some factors like budget and quality can be closely managed under micromanagement and have positive impacts, excessive micromanagement can hinder the overall project's success. "Empowered employees are engaged employees. They have all the tools they need to learn and grow, connect with colleagues and others throughout the company, make their own decisions, be leaders, and contribute to the success"<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref> Put another way "Empowerment is a key driver of engagement."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation==
[[File:DD micro mangment influcence.png|thumb|right|400px|The stages of management styles are illustrated by the Double Diamond model. Diagram is created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.]]

In management, and therefore also in project management, it is necessary to strike the right balance between micro-management and no management. As mentioned in the sections above, micro-management can be beneficial in ensuring that project sub-tasks are completed on schedule and to quality standards. It allows project managers to closely monitor the progress of the project, identify issues early, and take action to keep the project on track. However, too much micro-management can have an impact on creativity and innovation, leading to disengagement and low morale among team members.

On the other hand, no management can lead to chaos and confusion, resulting in missed deadlines, poor quality, and ultimately project failure. Without any structured approach to managing a project, team members lack clear direction, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. Therefore, the balance between micro-management and no management in project management is critical.

At the same time, project managers should avoid micromanaging and give team members the autonomy to make decisions and solve problems. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among team members, leading to greater engagement, innovation, and ultimately project success.

This is also illustrated by '''the diagram''' using the double diamond model<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Double_diamond</ref> at different levels of management. It is noted that the more micro-management, the smaller the solution space becomes, and vice versa, less management opens up the solution space, but the amount of the solution may become difficult to grasp. The digram and this analyses was created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.

==The use of micro management under a crises==
During a crisis, it is essential to ensure that critical tasks are completed on time and to a high standard. This could be due to a project being behind schedule or unexpected problems arising during the project. Micro-management can be a valuable tool during a crisis, as it allows project managers to efficiently and quickly complete a particular task. However, it is crucial to avoid excessive micro-management and allow team members to rest after a period of micromanagement. Micro-management should only be used as a short-term, high-intensity boost to a project and limited to crisis situations to avoid long term effects on the employs.
"Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==Strategies for avoiding micromanagement==
By doing organisational changes micromanagement can be avoided. These doings can help top managers create a more productive and good work environment. Thus creating a workplace efficient and innovative and thereby solve projects even better.

===Delegating responsibilities by promoting===
By promoting certain people in your team, you can delegate some tasks. In this way, as a head manager, you don't have full control and say in sub-projects. But don't just delegate for the sake of delegating; it's important to choose the right people who can manage correctly and not just do their old job.
"Because it is often more difficult to manage a job than to do it yourself, many people cannot make the transition from worker to supervisor, and if incapable of doing their new job, they micromanage those doing their old job."
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Clear understanding of tasks===
If no guidance is given or if the goals of a project or task are unclear, it is common for micromanagers to emerge. Since managers do not know the exact purpose of a task or project, they do not know when their task is done. And they may never feel like they have provided what top management asked for. Therefore, giving clear guidance and defining the purpose of a task can reduce micromanagement.
"Often micromanagement is created when managers are unclear about their duties. With no guidance from above, they never know when they have done enough and have no idea how their performance is being judged."
<ref>
Hymowitz, C. “The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.” Wall Street Journal. 241. (March 11, 2003), B1.
</ref>

===Encourage managers to delegate===
The best skill for a manager is to effectively delegate tasks. However, this can also be challenging for some. Therefore, helping managers at multiple levels of a project or a organisation learn the skill of giving away power is key to avoiding micromanagement and can help build even better trust within a team. When all participants know that tasks are handled well and correctly, it can enhance trust and improve teamwork.
"To some, handing over control is horrifying, but they must soon learn that delegation is one of the most important productivity skills a manager can master. When properly exercised, delegation establishes responsibility and accountability, and builds mutual trust and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates." <ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

=== Allow mistakes ===
Allowing innovation and being creative is highly important to avoid micromanagement. However, since being innovative and thinking outside the box can result in mistakes, it's important to accept that these mistakes happen. Getting a better result doesn't happen by doing the same thing all the time, but it happens by being creative and open to new solutions that have not been tested, even if there is a risk involved.
"Create an organizational environment that is open to innovation and new ideas. When mistakes happen then you know employees have been empowered with decision making authority and are taking risks. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Flatten the hierarchy of a organisation===
Allowing more people to make autonomous decisions and making the hierarchy of your organization flatter can lead to more efficiency, increased agility, greater customer contact, reduced costs, and increased innovation, while avoiding micromanagement. This can also enhance employee skills, which can further improve the organization.
"A flat management structure allows decisionmaking and operations to happen at approximately the same level, increasing contextual transparency and improving results. When higherlevel leadership is part of the daily goings on at the ground floor, they’re better equipped to evaluate employee performance, notice and understand operational faults and formulate solutions to company problems."
<ref>
Mercer. "World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017." Mercer, 2017, https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/webcasts/global-talent-trends-2017-europe.pdf
</ref>
<ref>
Forbes Human Resources Council. "Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship." Forbes, 5 April 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/04/05/down-with-the-hierarchy-how-flat-management-fosters-employee-entrepreneurship/?sh=410e129f120d.
</ref>

===Self reflect===
Even after attempting to reducing micromanagement in your organization, it's important to reflect on yourself and consider that if none of the tools or methods mentioned above helped, the main culprit of the problem might actually be you, the top manager.
<blockquote>''You never know if the main problem is staring back at you in the mirror.
''</blockquote>
"We need to ask ourselves if we have met the enemy [the evil micromanager], and if so, is he us. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>
In this case, self-reflection and thinking of how to use the different strategies on oneself to reduce micromanagement is key to further success.

==Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty)==
Micromanagement can have impacts in many areas but it will have a impact on all parts of a project management. Based on the theory and until know found problems it noticeable that Micromanagement will have a impact all main parts of project management Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty. A run-through of the findings and the impact on these areas are now to be analysed.

===Purpose===
The purpose of a project is the main focus for why a project is executed.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Even if a project is external and the purpose is set by an external stakeholder, an aggressive project manager can have an impact on the stakeholder, causing a change in the main purpose of the project or pushing it in a direction that the project manager believes is the right one from his perspective. This can have a huge impact on the end results of the product and the overall success of the project, since the main goal that the external stakeholder had in mind may not even be resolved. Tight boundaries for the project can also impact the solution space and have an impact on the end solution that should solve the main purpose of the project. This can also result in non-returning customers due to dissatisfaction.

===People===
The people are all the individuals involved in the project, from the people setting the purpose of the project, often external stakeholders, to the teams executing the project and working on it on a daily basis. This can be shorted into "Whom are we doing this for?" and "Who is doing it?". <ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Since micro-management is a way of managing people, the impact on the people part of a project will therefore be substantial. The low autonomy that micro-management imposes on employees will affect employee morale, make them stressed, and decrease innovation. This will lead to a demotivated team and may even result in unforeseen team turnover. The longterm effect on a project execution team may even lead to impacts across multiple projects if the stress is carried over to new projects.

===Complexity===
The complexity of a project is part of actually solving the main purpose, this includes creating work breakdown structures, schedules, contracts, and dividing work.<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
In the case of micro-management, if a manager doesn't delegate work tasks and manages even the smallest decisions in sub-tasks, the project might take a longer time to complete because of all the small decisions that have to be approved by the micro-manager. These micro-decisions will also decrease the solution space and innovation, which can lead to decreased project success.

===Uncertainty===
The uncertainty of a project is the navigation within problems with limited information. Making the right decisions can be challenging, but the learning opportunities that arise from these problems can have long-term benefits for team members.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
A micromanager can take steps to override opinion and decision for the project and force it in a certain direction, which may be beneficial in the short term. However, the long-term effect can remove the agility of the team and have an impact on innovation, as employees may not be challenged in a creative way.

==Final conclusion ==
Based on the theory and research that has been found it can be concluded that micromanagement in project management will have negative effects on project success. But project success is not everything, micromanagement will also demotivate team members, reduce innovation, create unnecessary delays, increase stress levels, and cause unassay problems that can affect both team members but also external stakeholders.
Therefore, good project management is based on a work environment where team members are empowered and take ownership of their tasks there’s an effective delegation, clear communication, and setting realistic expectations for the teams members. This should help towards achieving the ultimate project success.
Project managers should only focus on monitoring progress and providing support to the team members, rather than getting involved in every subtask and sub decisions and only help. They should also establish a culture of trust, open communication, and accountability to ensure that team members feel valued and motivated to contribute their best and not being afraid of making mistakes.
In conclusion, while micromanagement may seem like an effective way to ensure project success and high quality, it can often do more harm than good. Effective project management requires a balance between providing guidance and support to team members while allowing them autonomy and freedom to complete their tasks and achieve project success.

==Annotated Bibliography==
*'''My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide''' is a book about micromanagement and helps in identifying a micromanager. It also provides tools to evaluate whether a manager is a micromanager. The book is written by Harry E. Chambers, who has worked with clients such as IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

*'''Cambridge English Dictionary''' is the Dictionary of university press of the University of Cambridge and is a good way the get a definition of word.

*'''Micromanagement a costly management style''' by Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S Collins is a article about micromanagement in a radiology department and discusses the problems it can cause in terms of results. Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S. Collins have both written numerous articles on management in the healthcare sector.

*'''The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure''' is an article that goes into the depths of identifying symptoms of micromanagement in an organization. It helps to figure out where the root problems come from and gives tools and actions to avoid and suppress micromanagement. The article is written by Richard D. White, Jr. who has a PhD in Public Administration and has written many articles in regard to public management.

*'''Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale.''' is article written at the American Correctional Association, that is a Non-Profit and Non-Gov association. The author of the article is John A. Shuford an correctional training coordinator in the department of prisons of North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He has written numerous feature articles for national publications and developed and delivered innovative staff development trainings for 25 years for many governmental agencies in the US.

*“How to Help Without Micromanaging.” is a article, published by Harvard Business Review, discusses the appropriate times for small amounts of micromanagement. The magazine is a general management publication that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University.

*'''Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management''' is an article written by the Project Management Institute (PMI). This article explores the effects of micromanagement on project teams and proposes a shift towards empowerment. The article also discusses the benefits of empowerment, such as increased innovation, creativity, and employee satisfaction. PMI has over 10,000 articles from subject matter experts on project management.

*'''http://wiki.doing-projects.org''' is a wiki from the Technical University of Denmark's ProjectLab, aimed at providing project management education and enabling access for everyone. The articles featured on the wiki are the sole results of students who have completed an advanced project management course at DTU.

*'''The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.''' is a articel from the Wall Street Journal. thats also cited in ''"The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure"'', the article is written by Carol Hymowitz who went to Stanford's Center on Longevity is a former editor and writer at Bloomberg and a former editor and columnist a the Wall Street Journal.

*'''World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017.''' is an article written by the American consulting firm Mercer that goes into detail about how different management styles impact certain areas of a business.

*'''Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship.''' is an article written by John Pierce, the Head of Business Development at the Forbes Human Resources Council. The invite-only platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people and share knowledge across businesses.

*'''https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives''' is a website that offers courses and research on project management at the Technical University of Denmark. The courses are designed for engineers and range from online courses for curious engineers to advanced Master courses and PhD projects. The website is run by a team of professors and researchers with interests in various aspects of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

Micro management in project management

2023-05-07T09:41:54Z

ChristianBF: /* Strategies for avoiding micro management */

==Abstract==
This article will go into detail abound micromanagement in project management, and which negative effects it can have on project success.
Everybody knows the term micromanagement and that it can seriously affect many factors at an workplace and thereby also in project management.
<blockquote>''“79% have experienced micromanagement from their current or past managers.”<ref>Chambers, Harry E. My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide. Vol. 13. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2009.</ref>''</blockquote>
This meant that even if a team leader or manager thinks that they are not micromanaging there is still a high chance that it’s still happening.
Therefore it’s important for all team leaders and members to know abound micromanagement and its negative impacts. These includes reduced team morale, decreased motivation, increased stress levels, and a less successful project result.
To avoid micro-management, project managers should strike a balance between control and autonomy and whit this delegate responsibilities, thereby boosting team innovation.
By considering the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty), this article will give project managers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of micro-management and what tools can be used to avoid Micromanagement.

__TOC__

==Definition of micro management==

===What is Micromanagement===
Micromanagement is a management style where a manager or project manager exerts excessive control over their team, often getting involved in even the smallest of tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, micro-management is "the act of controlling every part of a situation, including small details." <ref>"micromanagement." Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/micromanagement</ref>. While some may see micromanagement to ensure high levels of productivity and quality, it can have a negative impact on employee morale and creativity.
In regards to project management, especially employee morale will effect the creativity of a team that can have a impact on the solution space of a project.

===Understanding micromanagement===

Understanding the impact of micromanagement is crucial for effective project management.
While micromanagement can have some short-term advantages in certain situations, such as training new team members, increasing productivity on certain tasks, and controlling high-risk issues, the long-term costs can be excessive and significantly affect a project. These long-term disadvantages could be low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity, and dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
In fact, micromanagement is among the top three reasons employees quit.<ref>Collins, Sandra K, and Kevin S Collins. “Micromanagement--a costly management style.” Radiology management vol. 24,6 (2002): 32-5. </ref> Ultimately, micromanagement leads to long-term decreased growth potential in a department, hindering progress and success.

==Symptoms of Micromanagement==
By knowing the symptoms and impacts of micro-management, a project managers can try avoid its by knowing what to look out for.
Symptoms of Micromanagement refer to the excessive supervision and control that a manager puts on their employees. The following points<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref> are some common signs of a micro-manager exhibits in their approach to managing employees and projects.
*Micromanagers oversee their workers too closely and spend an excessive amount of time supervising a particular project and telling people exactly what to do and how to do it.
*They are control freaks, often Type A personalities who are fundamentally insecure and afraid to trust the performance of those below them.
*Micromanagers typically go alone to the bosses office, as they do not wish subordinates to gain credit. They become irritated when others make decisions without consulting them. They explode when their bosses bypass them and go directly to one of their subordinates.
*Micromanagers are obsessed with meaningless details. They love numbers, lots of them. They confuse accuracy with precision.
*Micromanagers come in earlier than their employees and stay later. Employees at first feel guilty, but no matter how late they stay, the micro-boss stays later.
*Micromanagers dictate time, often creating deadlines for deadlines' sake. They demand overly frequent and unnecessary written status reports. They are so busy that delays happen frequently, while people wait for their input or signoff.
*Micromanagers stretch themselves too thin and take on too many projects. They move from one to another without completing any of the jobs. They are too busy to meet with subordinates and not available to provide guidance.
*Micromanagers abhor mistakes. Seldom praising, they consider their employees incompetent and soon lose the respect of coworkers and employees. While quick to blame, they seldom admit their own mistakes and shortcomings.

==The impacts of micro management on project management==
Micro-management can have an impact on many areas, which can be within all areas of project management, such as project success or efficiency, but it can also have an impact on the people involved. This section will go through some of the most impactful areas within project management.

===Team morale and motivation===
Micromanagement has negative impacts on employees. It reduces job satisfaction and makes them feel like they have no autonomy. Constant supervision and criticism create a stressful work environment that affects mental and physical health. This makes employees become less motivated and their creativity suffers. Being monitored damages there trust in the manager and creates a negative work environment.

"morale suffers as subordinate employees feel the administration does not trust their ability and competency as corrections officers, effectively driving a wedge between management and subordinates" <ref>Shuford, John A. "Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale." Corrections Today 81.5 (2019): 36-41.</ref>

===Project progress and efficienty===
Micromanagement can have a significant impact on project progress, both positively and negatively. Micromanagement can ensure that tasks are completed on time and at high standard due to high amounts of checkups from a project manager.
This can also prevent errors and misunderstandings, leading to a more streamlined project process. However, this may only work for a short period since the long-term effect of micromanagement from a project manager can give employees the feeling of low autonomy, thereby decreasing problem-solving capabilities. This can leads demotivation and a decrease in productivity.
"Our research suggests that leaders can help their employees in hands-on and meaningful ways […]thus being a hands-on manager in such situations is critical" <ref>Harvard Business Review. “How to Help Without Micromanaging.” Harvard Business Review, 22 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2021/01/how-to-help-without-micromanaging.</ref> and "Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."
<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

===Project success===
Project success means completing a project according to the agreed-upon terms, which include factors like time, budget, scope, and quality. While some factors like budget and quality can be closely managed under micromanagement and have positive impacts, excessive micromanagement can hinder the overall project's success. "Empowered employees are engaged employees. They have all the tools they need to learn and grow, connect with colleagues and others throughout the company, make their own decisions, be leaders, and contribute to the success"<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref> Put another way "Empowerment is a key driver of engagement."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation==
[[File:DD micro mangment influcence.png|thumb|right|400px|The stages of management styles are illustrated by the Double Diamond model. Diagram is created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.]]

In management, and therefore also in project management, it is necessary to strike the right balance between micro-management and no management. As mentioned in the sections above, micro-management can be beneficial in ensuring that project sub-tasks are completed on schedule and to quality standards. It allows project managers to closely monitor the progress of the project, identify issues early, and take action to keep the project on track. However, too much micro-management can have an impact on creativity and innovation, leading to disengagement and low morale among team members.

On the other hand, no management can lead to chaos and confusion, resulting in missed deadlines, poor quality, and ultimately project failure. Without any structured approach to managing a project, team members lack clear direction, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. Therefore, the balance between micro-management and no management in project management is critical.

At the same time, project managers should avoid micromanaging and give team members the autonomy to make decisions and solve problems. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among team members, leading to greater engagement, innovation, and ultimately project success.

This is also illustrated by '''the diagram''' using the double diamond model<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Double_diamond</ref> at different levels of management. It is noted that the more micro-management, the smaller the solution space becomes, and vice versa, less management opens up the solution space, but the amount of the solution may become difficult to grasp. The digram and this analyses was created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.

==The use of micro management under a crises==
During a crisis, it is essential to ensure that critical tasks are completed on time and to a high standard. This could be due to a project being behind schedule or unexpected problems arising during the project. Micro-management can be a valuable tool during a crisis, as it allows project managers to efficiently and quickly complete a particular task. However, it is crucial to avoid excessive micro-management and allow team members to rest after a period of micromanagement. Micro-management should only be used as a short-term, high-intensity boost to a project and limited to crisis situations to avoid long term effects on the employs.
"Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==Strategies for avoiding micromanagement==
By doing organisational changes micromanagement can be avoided. These doings can help top managers create a more productive and good work environment. Thus creating a workplace efficient and innovative and thereby solve projects even better.

===Delegating responsibilities by promoting===
By promoting certain people in your team, you can delegate some tasks. In this way, as a head manager, you don't have full control and say in sub-projects. But don't just delegate for the sake of delegating; it's important to choose the right people who can manage correctly and not just do their old job.
"Because it is often more difficult to manage a job than to do it yourself, many people cannot make the transition from worker to supervisor, and if incapable of doing their new job, they micromanage those doing their old job."
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Clear understanding of tasks===
If no guidance is given or if the goals of a project or task are unclear, it is common for micromanagers to emerge. Since managers do not know the exact purpose of a task or project, they do not know when their task is done. And they may never feel like they have provided what top management asked for. Therefore, giving clear guidance and defining the purpose of a task can reduce micromanagement.
"Often micromanagement is created when managers are unclear about their duties. With no guidance from above, they never know when they have done enough and have no idea how their performance is being judged."
<ref>
Hymowitz, C. “The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.” Wall Street Journal. 241. (March 11, 2003), B1.
</ref>

===Encourage managers to delegate===
The best skill for a manager is to effectively delegate tasks. However, this can also be challenging for some. Therefore, helping managers at multiple levels of a project or a organisation learn the skill of giving away power is key to avoiding micromanagement and can help build even better trust within a team. When all participants know that tasks are handled well and correctly, it can enhance trust and improve teamwork.
"To some, handing over control is horrifying, but they must soon learn that delegation is one of the most important productivity skills a manager can master. When properly exercised, delegation establishes responsibility and accountability, and builds mutual trust and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates." <ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

=== Allow mistakes ===
Allowing innovation and being creative is highly important to avoid micromanagement. However, since being innovative and thinking outside the box can result in mistakes, it's important to accept that these mistakes happen. Getting a better result doesn't happen by doing the same thing all the time, but it happens by being creative and open to new solutions that have not been tested, even if there is a risk involved.
"Create an organizational environment that is open to innovation and new ideas. When mistakes happen then you know employees have been empowered with decision making authority and are taking risks. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Flatten the hierarchy of a organisation===
Allowing more people to make autonomous decisions and making the hierarchy of your organization flatter can lead to more efficiency, increased agility, greater customer contact, reduced costs, and increased innovation, while avoiding micromanagement. This can also enhance employee skills, which can further improve the organization.
"A flat management structure allows decisionmaking and operations to happen at approximately the same level, increasing contextual transparency and improving results. When higherlevel leadership is part of the daily goings on at the ground floor, they’re better equipped to evaluate employee performance, notice and understand operational faults and formulate solutions to company problems."
<ref>
Mercer. "World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017." Mercer, 2017, https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/webcasts/global-talent-trends-2017-europe.pdf
</ref>
<ref>
Forbes Human Resources Council. "Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship." Forbes, 5 April 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/04/05/down-with-the-hierarchy-how-flat-management-fosters-employee-entrepreneurship/?sh=410e129f120d.
</ref>

===Self reflect===
Even after attempting to reducing micromanagement in your organization, it's important to reflect on yourself and consider that if none of the tools or methods mentioned above helped, the main culprit of the problem might actually be you, the top manager.
<blockquote>''You never know if the main problem is staring back at you in the mirror.
''</blockquote>
"We need to ask ourselves if we have met the enemy [the evil micromanager], and if so, is he us. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>
In this case, self-reflection and thinking of how to use the different strategies on oneself to reduce micromanagement is key to further success.

==Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty)==
Micromangen can have impacts in many areas but it will have a impact on all parts of a project. Based on the teory and until know found problems it noticeabel that Micro Mangment will have a impact all main parts of project manegment Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty. A run-through of the findings and the impact on these areas are now to be analysed.

===Purpose===
The purpose of a project is the main focus for why a project is executed.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Even if a project is external and the purpose is set by an external stakeholder, an aggressive project manager can have an impact on the stakeholder, causing a change in the main purpose of the project or pushing it in a direction that the project manager believes is the right one from his perspective. This can have a huge impact on the end results of the product and the overall success of the project, since the main goal that the external stakeholder had in mind may not even be resolved. Tight boundaries for the project can also impact the solution space and have an impact on the end solution that should solve the main purpose of the project.

===People===
The people are all the individuals involved in the project, from the people setting the purpose of the project, often external stakeholders, to the teams executing the project and working on it on a daily basis. This can be shorted into "Whom are we doing this for?" and "Who is doing it?". <ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Since micro-management is a way of managing people, the impact on the people part of a project will therefore be substantial. The low autonomy that micro-management imposes on employees will affect employee morale, make them stressed, and decrease innovation. This will lead to a demotivated team and may even result in unforeseen team turnover. The longterm effect on a project execution team may even lead to impacts across multiple projects if the stress is carried over to new projects.

===Complexity===
The complexity of a project is part of actually solving the main purpose, this includes creating work breakdown structures, schedules, contracts, and dividing work.<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
In the case of micro-management, if a team manager doesn't delegate work tasks and manages even the smallest decisions in sub-tasks, the project might take a longer time to complete because of all the small decisions that have to be approved by the micro-manager. These micro-decisions will also decrease the solution space and innovation, which can lead to decreased project success.

===Uncertainty===
The uncertainty of a project requires navigating with limited information. Making the right decisions can be challenging, but the learning opportunities that arise from these problems can have long-term benefits for team members.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
A micromanager can take steps to override dissent for the project and force it in a certain direction, which may be beneficial in the short term. However, the long-term effect can remove the agility of the team and have an impact on innovation, as employees may not be challenged in a creative way.

==Final conclusion ==
Based on the theory and research that has been found it can be concluded that micromanagement in project management will have negative effects on project success. But project success is not everything, micromanagement will also demotivate team members, reduce innovation, create unnecessary delays, increase stress levels, and cause unassay problems that can affect both team members but also external stakeholders.
Therefore, good project management is based on a work environment where team members are empowered and take ownership of their tasks there’s an effective delegation, clear communication, and setting realistic expectations for the teams members. This should help towards achieving the ultimate project success.
Project managers should only focus on monitoring progress and providing support to the team members, rather than getting involved in every subtask and sub decisions and only help. They should also establish a culture of trust, open communication, and accountability to ensure that team members feel valued and motivated to contribute their best and not being afraid of making mistakes.
In conclusion, while micromanagement may seem like an effective way to ensure project success and high quality, it can often do more harm than good. Effective project management requires a balance between providing guidance and support to team members while allowing them autonomy and freedom to complete their tasks and achieve project success.

==Annotated Bibliography==
*'''My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide''' is a book about micromanagement and helps in identifying a micromanager. It also provides tools to evaluate whether a manager is a micromanager. The book is written by Harry E. Chambers, who has worked with clients such as IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

*'''Cambridge English Dictionary''' is the Dictionary of university press of the University of Cambridge and is a good way the get a definition of word.

*'''Micromanagement a costly management style''' by Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S Collins is a article about micromanagement in a radiology department and discusses the problems it can cause in terms of results. Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S. Collins have both written numerous articles on management in the healthcare sector.

*'''The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure''' is an article that goes into the depths of identifying symptoms of micromanagement in an organization. It helps to figure out where the root problems come from and gives tools and actions to avoid and suppress micromanagement. The article is written by Richard D. White, Jr. who has a PhD in Public Administration and has written many articles in regard to public management.

*'''Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale.''' is article written at the American Correctional Association, that is a Non-Profit and Non-Gov association. The author of the article is John A. Shuford an correctional training coordinator in the department of prisons of North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He has written numerous feature articles for national publications and developed and delivered innovative staff development trainings for 25 years for many governmental agencies in the US.

*“How to Help Without Micromanaging.” is a article, published by Harvard Business Review, discusses the appropriate times for small amounts of micromanagement. The magazine is a general management publication that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University.

*'''Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management''' is an article written by the Project Management Institute (PMI). This article explores the effects of micromanagement on project teams and proposes a shift towards empowerment. The article also discusses the benefits of empowerment, such as increased innovation, creativity, and employee satisfaction. PMI has over 10,000 articles from subject matter experts on project management.

*'''http://wiki.doing-projects.org''' is a wiki from the Technical University of Denmark's ProjectLab, aimed at providing project management education and enabling access for everyone. The articles featured on the wiki are the sole results of students who have completed an advanced project management course at DTU.

*'''The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.''' is a articel from the Wall Street Journal. thats also cited in ''"The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure"'', the article is written by Carol Hymowitz who went to Stanford's Center on Longevity is a former editor and writer at Bloomberg and a former editor and columnist a the Wall Street Journal.

*'''World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017.''' is an article written by the American consulting firm Mercer that goes into detail about how different management styles impact certain areas of a business.

*'''Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship.''' is an article written by John Pierce, the Head of Business Development at the Forbes Human Resources Council. The invite-only platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people and share knowledge across businesses.

*'''https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives''' is a website that offers courses and research on project management at the Technical University of Denmark. The courses are designed for engineers and range from online courses for curious engineers to advanced Master courses and PhD projects. The website is run by a team of professors and researchers with interests in various aspects of project management.

== References ==
<References/>

Micro management in project management

2023-05-07T09:33:36Z

ChristianBF: /* The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and promoting creativity and innovation */

==Abstract==
This article will go into detail abound micromanagement in project management, and which negative effects it can have on project success.
Everybody knows the term micromanagement and that it can seriously affect many factors at an workplace and thereby also in project management.
<blockquote>''“79% have experienced micromanagement from their current or past managers.”<ref>Chambers, Harry E. My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide. Vol. 13. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2009.</ref>''</blockquote>
This meant that even if a team leader or manager thinks that they are not micromanaging there is still a high chance that it’s still happening.
Therefore it’s important for all team leaders and members to know abound micromanagement and its negative impacts. These includes reduced team morale, decreased motivation, increased stress levels, and a less successful project result.
To avoid micro-management, project managers should strike a balance between control and autonomy and whit this delegate responsibilities, thereby boosting team innovation.
By considering the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty), this article will give project managers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of micro-management and what tools can be used to avoid Micromanagement.

__TOC__

==Definition of micro management==

===What is Micromanagement===
Micromanagement is a management style where a manager or project manager exerts excessive control over their team, often getting involved in even the smallest of tasks. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, micro-management is "the act of controlling every part of a situation, including small details." <ref>"micromanagement." Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/micromanagement</ref>. While some may see micromanagement to ensure high levels of productivity and quality, it can have a negative impact on employee morale and creativity.
In regards to project management, especially employee morale will effect the creativity of a team that can have a impact on the solution space of a project.

===Understanding micromanagement===

Understanding the impact of micromanagement is crucial for effective project management.
While micromanagement can have some short-term advantages in certain situations, such as training new team members, increasing productivity on certain tasks, and controlling high-risk issues, the long-term costs can be excessive and significantly affect a project. These long-term disadvantages could be low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity, and dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
In fact, micromanagement is among the top three reasons employees quit.<ref>Collins, Sandra K, and Kevin S Collins. “Micromanagement--a costly management style.” Radiology management vol. 24,6 (2002): 32-5. </ref> Ultimately, micromanagement leads to long-term decreased growth potential in a department, hindering progress and success.

==Symptoms of Micromanagement==
By knowing the symptoms and impacts of micro-management, a project managers can try avoid its by knowing what to look out for.
Symptoms of Micromanagement refer to the excessive supervision and control that a manager puts on their employees. The following points<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref> are some common signs of a micro-manager exhibits in their approach to managing employees and projects.
*Micromanagers oversee their workers too closely and spend an excessive amount of time supervising a particular project and telling people exactly what to do and how to do it.
*They are control freaks, often Type A personalities who are fundamentally insecure and afraid to trust the performance of those below them.
*Micromanagers typically go alone to the bosses office, as they do not wish subordinates to gain credit. They become irritated when others make decisions without consulting them. They explode when their bosses bypass them and go directly to one of their subordinates.
*Micromanagers are obsessed with meaningless details. They love numbers, lots of them. They confuse accuracy with precision.
*Micromanagers come in earlier than their employees and stay later. Employees at first feel guilty, but no matter how late they stay, the micro-boss stays later.
*Micromanagers dictate time, often creating deadlines for deadlines' sake. They demand overly frequent and unnecessary written status reports. They are so busy that delays happen frequently, while people wait for their input or signoff.
*Micromanagers stretch themselves too thin and take on too many projects. They move from one to another without completing any of the jobs. They are too busy to meet with subordinates and not available to provide guidance.
*Micromanagers abhor mistakes. Seldom praising, they consider their employees incompetent and soon lose the respect of coworkers and employees. While quick to blame, they seldom admit their own mistakes and shortcomings.

==The impacts of micro management on project management==
Micro-management can have an impact on many areas, which can be within all areas of project management, such as project success or efficiency, but it can also have an impact on the people involved. This section will go through some of the most impactful areas within project management.

===Team morale and motivation===
Micromanagement has negative impacts on employees. It reduces job satisfaction and makes them feel like they have no autonomy. Constant supervision and criticism create a stressful work environment that affects mental and physical health. This makes employees become less motivated and their creativity suffers. Being monitored damages there trust in the manager and creates a negative work environment.

"morale suffers as subordinate employees feel the administration does not trust their ability and competency as corrections officers, effectively driving a wedge between management and subordinates" <ref>Shuford, John A. "Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale." Corrections Today 81.5 (2019): 36-41.</ref>

===Project progress and efficienty===
Micromanagement can have a significant impact on project progress, both positively and negatively. Micromanagement can ensure that tasks are completed on time and at high standard due to high amounts of checkups from a project manager.
This can also prevent errors and misunderstandings, leading to a more streamlined project process. However, this may only work for a short period since the long-term effect of micromanagement from a project manager can give employees the feeling of low autonomy, thereby decreasing problem-solving capabilities. This can leads demotivation and a decrease in productivity.
"Our research suggests that leaders can help their employees in hands-on and meaningful ways […]thus being a hands-on manager in such situations is critical" <ref>Harvard Business Review. “How to Help Without Micromanaging.” Harvard Business Review, 22 Jan. 2021, hbr.org/2021/01/how-to-help-without-micromanaging.</ref> and "Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."
<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

===Project success===
Project success means completing a project according to the agreed-upon terms, which include factors like time, budget, scope, and quality. While some factors like budget and quality can be closely managed under micromanagement and have positive impacts, excessive micromanagement can hinder the overall project's success. "Empowered employees are engaged employees. They have all the tools they need to learn and grow, connect with colleagues and others throughout the company, make their own decisions, be leaders, and contribute to the success"<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref> Put another way "Empowerment is a key driver of engagement."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==The need for a balance between control and autonomy in project management and its impact on creativity and innovation==
[[File:DD micro mangment influcence.png|thumb|right|400px|The stages of management styles are illustrated by the Double Diamond model. Diagram is created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.]]

In management, and therefore also in project management, it is necessary to strike the right balance between micro-management and no management. As mentioned in the sections above, micro-management can be beneficial in ensuring that project sub-tasks are completed on schedule and to quality standards. It allows project managers to closely monitor the progress of the project, identify issues early, and take action to keep the project on track. However, too much micro-management can have an impact on creativity and innovation, leading to disengagement and low morale among team members.

On the other hand, no management can lead to chaos and confusion, resulting in missed deadlines, poor quality, and ultimately project failure. Without any structured approach to managing a project, team members lack clear direction, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. Therefore, the balance between micro-management and no management in project management is critical.

At the same time, project managers should avoid micromanaging and give team members the autonomy to make decisions and solve problems. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among team members, leading to greater engagement, innovation, and ultimately project success.

This is also illustrated by '''the diagram''' using the double diamond model<ref>http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Double_diamond</ref> at different levels of management. It is noted that the more micro-management, the smaller the solution space becomes, and vice versa, less management opens up the solution space, but the amount of the solution may become difficult to grasp. The digram and this analyses was created by the student to visualize the connection between micro-management and innovation.

==The use of micro management under a crises==
During a crisis, it is essential to ensure that critical tasks are completed on time and to a high standard. This could be due to a project being behind schedule or unexpected problems arising during the project. Micro-management can be a valuable tool during a crisis, as it allows project managers to efficiently and quickly complete a particular task. However, it is crucial to avoid excessive micro-management and allow team members to rest after a period of micromanagement. Micro-management should only be used as a short-term, high-intensity boost to a project and limited to crisis situations to avoid long term effects on the employs.
"Micromanagement has been proven to be a stressful management style that achieves results only in the short term, and can be extremely taxing on both team members and management."<ref>
"Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management." ProjectManagement.com, Project Management Institute, April 8, 2023,
https://www.projectmanagement.com/contentPages/article.cfm?ID=444693&thisPageURL=/articles/444693/micromanagement-vs--empowerment--a-leader-s-role-in-people-management#_=_
</ref>

==Strategies for avoiding micro management==
By some organisational changes micro-management can be avoided. These doings can help topmanagers create a more productive and good work environment. When using these a manger can make a workplace efficient and innovative and thereby solve projects even better.

===Delegating responsibilities by promoting===
By promoting certain people in your team, you can delegate some tasks. In this way, as a head manager, you don't have full control and say in sub-projects. But don't just delegate for the sake of delegating; it's important to choose the right people who can manage correctly and not just do their old job.
"Because it is often more difficult to manage a job than to do it yourself, many people cannot make the transition from worker to supervisor, and if incapable of doing their new job, they micro- manage those doing their old job."
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Clear understanding of tasks===
If no guidance is given or if the goals of a project or task are unclear, it is common for micromanagers to emerge. Since managers do not know the exact purpose of a task or project, they do not know when their task is done, and they may never feel like they have provided what top management asked for. Therefore, giving clear guidance and defining the purpose of a task can reduce micromanagement.
"Often micromanagement is created when managers are unclear about their duties. With no guidance from above, they never know when they have done enough and have no idea how their performance is being judged."
<ref>
Hymowitz, C. “The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.” Wall Street Journal. 241. (March 11, 2003), B1.
</ref>

===Encourage managers to delegate===
The best skill for a manager is to effectively delegate tasks. However, this can also be challenging for some. Therefore, helping managers learn the skill of giving away power is key to avoiding micromanagement and can help build even better trust within a team. When all participants know that tasks are handled well and correctly, it can enhance trust and improve teamwork.
"To some, handing over control is horrifying, but they must soon learn that delegation is one of the most important productivity skills a manager can master. When properly exercised, delegation establishes responsibility and accountability, and builds mutual trust and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates." <ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

=== Allow mistakes ===
Allowing innovation and being creative is highly important to avoid micromanagement. However, since being innovative and thinking outside the box can result in mistakes, it's important to accept that these mistakes happen. Getting a better result doesn't happen by doing the same thing all the time, but it happens by being creative and open to new solutions that have not been tested, even if there is a risk involved.
"Create an organizational environment that is open to innovation and new ideas. When mistakes happen then you know employees have been empow- ered with decision making authority and are taking risks. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

===Flatten the hierarchy of a organisation===
Allowing more people to make autonomous decisions and making the hierarchy of your organization flatter can lead to more efficiency, increased agility, greater customer contact, reduced costs, and increased innovation, while avoiding micromanagement. This can also enhance employee skills, which can further improve the organization.
"A flat management structure allows decision-making and operations to happen at approximately the same level, increasing contextual transparency and improving results. When higher-level leadership is part of the daily goings on at the ground floor, they’re better equipped to evaluate employee performance, notice and understand operational faults and formulate solutions to company problems."
<ref>
Mercer. "World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017." Mercer, 2017, https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/webcasts/global-talent-trends-2017-europe.pdf
</ref>
<ref>
Forbes Human Resources Council. "Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship." Forbes, 5 April 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/04/05/down-with-the-hierarchy-how-flat-management-fosters-employee-entrepreneurship/?sh=410e129f120d.
</ref>

===Self reflect===
Even after attempting to manage micromanagement in your organization, it's important to reflect on yourself and consider that if none of the tools or methods mentioned above helped, the main culprit of the problem might actually be you, the top manager.
<blockquote>''You never know if the main problem is staring back at you in the mirror.
''</blockquote>
"We need to ask ourselves if we have met the enemy [the evil micromanager], and if so, is he us. "
<ref>
White Jr, Richard D. "The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure." Public Personnel Management 39.1 (2010): 71-76.
</ref>

==Analysis of the impact of micro-management on the four perspectives of project management (Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty)==
Micromangen can have impacts in many areas but it will have a impact on all parts of a project. Based on the teory and until know found problems it noticeabel that Micro Mangment will have a impact all main parts of project manegment Purpose, People, Complexity, and Uncertainty. A run-through of the findings and the impact on these areas are now to be analysed.

===Purpose===
The purpose of a project is the main focus for why a project is executed.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Even if a project is external and the purpose is set by an external stakeholder, an aggressive project manager can have an impact on the stakeholder, causing a change in the main purpose of the project or pushing it in a direction that the project manager believes is the right one from his perspective. This can have a huge impact on the end results of the product and the overall success of the project, since the main goal that the external stakeholder had in mind may not even be resolved. Tight boundaries for the project can also impact the solution space and have an impact on the end solution that should solve the main purpose of the project.

===People===
The people are all the individuals involved in the project, from the people setting the purpose of the project, often external stakeholders, to the teams executing the project and working on it on a daily basis. This can be shorted into "Whom are we doing this for?" and "Who is doing it?". <ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
Since micro-management is a way of managing people, the impact on the people part of a project will therefore be substantial. The low autonomy that micro-management imposes on employees will affect employee morale, make them stressed, and decrease innovation. This will lead to a demotivated team and may even result in unforeseen team turnover. The longterm effect on a project execution team may even lead to impacts across multiple projects if the stress is carried over to new projects.

===Complexity===
The complexity of a project is part of actually solving the main purpose, this includes creating work breakdown structures, schedules, contracts, and dividing work.<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
In the case of micro-management, if a team manager doesn't delegate work tasks and manages even the smallest decisions in sub-tasks, the project might take a longer time to complete because of all the small decisions that have to be approved by the micro-manager. These micro-decisions will also decrease the solution space and innovation, which can lead to decreased project success.

===Uncertainty===
The uncertainty of a project requires navigating with limited information. Making the right decisions can be challenging, but the learning opportunities that arise from these problems can have long-term benefits for team members.
<ref>Perspectives." Doing Projects. Project Management Institute. Accessed 2 May 2023. https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives.</ref>
A micromanager can take steps to override dissent for the project and force it in a certain direction, which may be beneficial in the short term. However, the long-term effect can remove the agility of the team and have an impact on innovation, as employees may not be challenged in a creative way.

==Final conclusion ==
Based on the theory and research that has been found it can be concluded that micromanagement in project management will have negative effects on project success. But project success is not everything, micromanagement will also demotivate team members, reduce innovation, create unnecessary delays, increase stress levels, and cause unassay problems that can affect both team members but also external stakeholders.
Therefore, good project management is based on a work environment where team members are empowered and take ownership of their tasks there’s an effective delegation, clear communication, and setting realistic expectations for the teams members. This should help towards achieving the ultimate project success.
Project managers should only focus on monitoring progress and providing support to the team members, rather than getting involved in every subtask and sub decisions and only help. They should also establish a culture of trust, open communication, and accountability to ensure that team members feel valued and motivated to contribute their best and not being afraid of making mistakes.
In conclusion, while micromanagement may seem like an effective way to ensure project success and high quality, it can often do more harm than good. Effective project management requires a balance between providing guidance and support to team members while allowing them autonomy and freedom to complete their tasks and achieve project success.

==Annotated Bibliography==
*'''My way or the highway: The micromanagement survival guide''' is a book about micromanagement and helps in identifying a micromanager. It also provides tools to evaluate whether a manager is a micromanager. The book is written by Harry E. Chambers, who has worked with clients such as IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

*'''Cambridge English Dictionary''' is the Dictionary of university press of the University of Cambridge and is a good way the get a definition of word.

*'''Micromanagement a costly management style''' by Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S Collins is a article about micromanagement in a radiology department and discusses the problems it can cause in terms of results. Sandra K. Collins and Kevin S. Collins have both written numerous articles on management in the healthcare sector.

*'''The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure''' is an article that goes into the depths of identifying symptoms of micromanagement in an organization. It helps to figure out where the root problems come from and gives tools and actions to avoid and suppress micromanagement. The article is written by Richard D. White, Jr. who has a PhD in Public Administration and has written many articles in regard to public management.

*'''Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale.''' is article written at the American Correctional Association, that is a Non-Profit and Non-Gov association. The author of the article is John A. Shuford an correctional training coordinator in the department of prisons of North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He has written numerous feature articles for national publications and developed and delivered innovative staff development trainings for 25 years for many governmental agencies in the US.

*“How to Help Without Micromanaging.” is a article, published by Harvard Business Review, discusses the appropriate times for small amounts of micromanagement. The magazine is a general management publication that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University.

*'''Micromanagement vs. Empowerment: A Leader's Role in People Management''' is an article written by the Project Management Institute (PMI). This article explores the effects of micromanagement on project teams and proposes a shift towards empowerment. The article also discusses the benefits of empowerment, such as increased innovation, creativity, and employee satisfaction. PMI has over 10,000 articles from subject matter experts on project management.

*'''http://wiki.doing-projects.org''' is a wiki from the Technical University of Denmark's ProjectLab, aimed at providing project management education and enabling access for everyone. The articles featured on the wiki are the sole results of students who have completed an advanced project management course at DTU.

*'''The Conﬁdent Boss Doesn’t Micromanage or Delegate Too Much.''' is a articel from the Wall Street Journal. thats also cited in ''"The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure"'', the article is written by Carol Hymowitz who went to Stanford's Center on Longevity is a former editor and writer at Bloomberg and a former editor and columnist a the Wall Street Journal.

*'''World in a Disrupted: Mercer Global Talent Trends Study 2017.''' is an article written by the American consulting firm Mercer that goes into detail about how different management styles impact certain areas of a business.

*'''Down With The Hierarchy: How Flat Management Fosters Employee Entrepreneurship.''' is an article written by John Pierce, the Head of Business Development at the Forbes Human Resources Council. The invite-only platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people and share knowledge across businesses.

*'''https://www.doing-projects.org/perspectives''' is a website that offers courses and research on project management at the Technical University of Denmark. The courses are designed for engineers and range from online courses for curious engineers to advanced Master courses and PhD projects. The website is run by a team of professors and researchers with interests in various aspects of project management.

== References ==
<References/>