The 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. . 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 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. 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. . 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 .

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:

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.'