The paradoxes of project management

Revision as of 21:48, 9 May 2023

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. ^{[1] [2]}. 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 ^[3] 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. ^[4] 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. ^[5]. 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 ^[6].

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:

1. Including versus excluding external stakeholders in decision-making (Stakeholder paradox)
2. Close versus open collaboration (Stakeholder paradox)
3. Relational versus formal governance approach (Stakeholder paradox)
4. Flexibility versus control (Flexibility paradox)
5. Flexibility versus standardization (Flexibility paradox)
6. Empowering versus directive leadership style (Flexibility paradox)
7. Shadow of the past versus promise of the future (Temporality paradox)
8. Long- versus short-term focus (Temporality paradox)
9. Autonomy versus embeddedness (Structure paradox)
10. Power-sharing versus power-keeping (Structure paradox)
11. Decision-making paradox
12. 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 ^[7]

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

1. ↑ http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php/Iron_triangle - The iron triangle)
2. ↑ PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition page 7-8, Project Management Institute 2021
3. ↑ https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/paradox#:~:text=paradox-,noun,features%20and%20therefore%20seems%20strange
4. ↑ https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/control-results-manage-paradox-6984
5. ↑ C. Andriopoulos, M.W. Lewis, Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies, (2010), pp. 104-122)
6. ↑ Surfacing and responding paradoxes in megascale projects, Anna Wiewiora, Kevin C. Desouza, Published in the International Journal of Project Management April 2022
7. ↑ 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