Page 121 - Global Project Management Handbook

5-10 STATE OF THE ART OF GLOBAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

potentially subvert attempts to create common objectives. Often these judgments are
not readily known until the team actually begins to work and conflict starts developing.

Role Conflict. Project or matrix organizations are not only the product of ambiguity;
they create ambiguity as well. Team members are actually in multiple roles and often
report to different leaders, possibly creating conflicting loyalties. As “boundary role
persons,” they often do not know which constituency to satisfy. The “home” group or
department has a set of expectations that might be at variance with the local project
organization. For example, a “home office” may be run in a very mechanistic, hierar-
chical fashion, whereas the local project team may be more democratic and participa-
tory. Team members also may experience time conflicts owing to multiple task assign-
ments that overlie and compete with traditional job responsibilities. The pull from
these conflicting forces either can be exhilarating or can be a source of considerable
tension for individual team members. It is here that the emotional intelligence of team
members becomes important because a key component is the ability to tolerate the
demands and pressures of such ambiguity.

Implicit Power Struggles. While role conflict often occurs in a horizontal dimension
(i.e., across units within the same division or across geographic and culture regions),
conf1ict also can occur vertically because different authority levels are represented on
the team. Individuals who occupy powerful positions elsewhere can try to recreate—
or be expected to exercise—that influence in the group. Often such attempts to impose
ideas or to exert leadership over the group are met with resistance, especially from
others in similar positions. There can be subtle attempts to undermine potentially pro-
ductive ideas with the implicit goal of winning the day rather than looking for what is
best for the team. There is also the possibility that lower-status individuals are being
ignored, thus eliminating a potentially valuable resource.
An example of such power struggles occurred in a quality of work life project team in
an engineering organization. 9,17,29,28,36 The team was set up as a collaborative contributor-
management group designed to devise ways to improve the quality of work life in one
division of a utility company. The membership of this representative group was changed
halfway through the project to include more top managers. When the managers came
aboard, they continued in the role of “manager” rather than “team member.” Subsequently,
the weekly meetings became more like typical staff meetings rather than creative problem-

solving sessions. Although there was considerable resistance, the differences were pushed
under the table because the staff people did not wish to confront their superiors. There
also was considerable posturing among the top managers in all effort to demonstrate their
inf1uence, although none would directly attempt to take the leadership position. While
some struggle for power is inevitable in a diverse group, it must be managed to minimize
potentially destructive consequences.
27
Group Think. This phenomenon of groups was identified by Irving Janis in 1972 as
a detriment to the decision-making process. It refers to the tendency for a highly cohe-
sive group to develop a sense of detachment and elitism. It can particularly afflict
groups that work on special projects. In an effort to maintain cohesion, the group cre-
ates shared illusions of invulnerability and unanimity. Since cohesion “feels better,”
there is a reluctance to examine different points of view because these are seen as dan-
gerous to the group’s existence. Members of the group seek to avoid the perceived
emotional pitfalls of such conflict. As a result, group members may censor their opin-
ions as the group rationalizes the inherent quality and morality of its decisions. Because
many project teams typically are labeled as special and often work under time pressure,
they are particularly prone to the dangers of group think.