Teamwork and Project Management 1

Teamwork and Project Management 1
TEAMWORK FAILURE IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Name
Course
Instructor
University
Location
Date
Before discussing teamwork in project management, it is important to understand the
concept of project. Project Management Institute (2008) defines project as an endeavor
undertaken to create a service, a product or a result (Schwalbe, 2006). According to Shwalbe, a
project may appear in small scale or large scale and may involve more than one person or may
reach up to hundreds or even thousands of people, and due to this, it is imperative that projects
are managed efficiently. It is noteworthy that the accelerated global change and technological
advancements in the marketplace have created massive constrains on current organizational
structures. Companies have realized the fundamental role that project management can take in
enabling and facilitating the involved project management changes. According to Kerzner
(2009), project management entails the application of knowledge, tools, skills, and techniques to
project activities to meet the objectives that have been established. Kerzner states that these
project management objectives can be accomplished through resource planning, organizing,
controlling, and directing of an organizations resources. In the contemporary world, the concept
of project management has found its way in diverse organizations and industries. This literature
review section explores what leads to unsuccessful teamwork in project management.
Concomitantly, aspects relating to project management and how to enhance teamwork for
sustainability purposes are discussed.
Project Manager
One of the most important resources in project management is people (Tabassi et al.
2012). Research shows that, despite effective and diligent use of modern project management
methodologies and systems, projects can fail or lose momentum if the project team is not keenly
considered. Project deliverables can be well articulated and outcomes predicted, however, project
evaluation, control, and risk management are all employees processes (Schieg, 2006). The
efficiency and soundness of the project management tools and overall framework and
completeness of project documentation rests firmly in the hands of the project team. According
to Tabassi et al (2012), lack of properly constituted teams has been one of the primary reasons
why projects fail to meet their desired outcomes. In their study aimed at assessing the impact of
teamwork in task efficiency in construction firms, Tabassi et al (2012) reported that well-
organized teams were a critical strategy for successful projects and that teamwork activities can
be improved by setting up a project team that consists of motivated and competent individuals.
As a leader of a complex team, the project manager may not be able to predict accurately how
the team members will react to the projects requirement, their place within the team, or to each
others demographic differences. Therefore, it is important that the project manager possesses
team leadership skills, and act as a team leader, over and above the role of a project manager. If a
project lacks a skilled project manager with strong team leadership skills, it suffices to say that a
team will disintegrate and will not be achieve its objectives.
According to Rubinstein (2007) almost two-thirds of projects, particularly those in
information technology fail. Though this startling statistic might not apply across all the
industries, a project failure rate of half this level would be a thing to worry any forward-looking
organization. Numerous studies that explore the cause of project failures have been conducted. In
their study, McManus and Wood-Harpers (20007) sought to discover why many projects fail.
They analyzed 42 IT projects and found that technical causal factors accounted for 35% failure
of the project while the remaining 65% were because of what respondents termed as people
issues or management causal factors. That the major cause of project failure remains high and
that this failure is mainly because of people related causes is disturbing to some familiar with
people management. Though project managers might have the best of intentions towards a
project, they may have very few tools or processes to use to manage projects human side
(Levasseur, 2010). Therefore, they rely on intuition, common sense, and communication skills to
manage projects and to constitute teams that will be running the project. Unfortunately, these are
generally not sufficient tools to ensure the success of a project.
The role of a project manager in developing a cohesive team cannot be understated
(Globerson, 2006). The project manager is tasked with the responsibility of carrying out the
initiation, planning, organizing, executing, monitoring, and closedown phases of a project. The
subsequent success or failure of a project primarily relies on the project manager (Saade et al.
2015). The roles of a project manager include an evaluation of the projects feasibility, and to
plan the activities that are required to meet the projects identified objectives (Starkweather &
Stevenson, 2011). The project manager, who serves as the team leader is responsible for ensuring
that there is an efficient environment in which the project can be executed, while at the same
time protecting that environment from external or internal factors that could impede the projects
progress (Starkweather & Stevenson, 2011). Simultaneously, the project manager plans the work
that has to be completed to reach the set goals and keep the projects course under control.
According to Hoffer, George, and Valacich (2007), it is critically important that a project
manager possesses a diverse set of skills and abilities such as people management, technical,
leadership, conflict, and customer relationship skills. In their study investigating the role of
project manager in the success of a project, Hoffer and his coauthors suggest that it is vital for
project managers to keep all stakeholders aware of project progress and report all challenges at
every stage. Unfortunately, stakeholders, particularly team members are often informed of
important project issues at a stage when there are significant or irreversible costs, scope or
timelines (Sage et al. 2014). Poor communication between the project manager and projects
team members has been identified as one of the major reasons why teams break down. The
project manager has a duty to manage a projects team appropriately by communicating
important issues to team members and other stakeholders. According to George, and Valacich
(2007), managers spend approximately 42% of their time on reaching agreements with other
project stakeholders when team conflicts arise. If conflicts are not addressed satisfactorily,
project managers lose control and jeopardize the overall goals of the team (Sage et al. 2014).
Conflict management within a team requires that the manager possess the problem solving skills,
the ability to compromise, set goals, resolve conflict, settle personality differences, and most
importantly provide ones team members with regular feedback about the projects progress.
Therefore, training project managers in this area is crucial for the success of a project as they are
the ones responsible for the projects resources, including the people (George, and Valacich,
2007).
From the foregoing, it is important that project managers possess communication and
problem solving skills. Conflicts are common in project teams and can either break or build a
team depending on the efficiency of the project manager (Mller & Turner, 2007). A great team,
like a great successful company, delivers superior performance and makes a distinctive impact
over a long time-period. In his study on the characteristics of an effective team, Hyvri (2006)
reported that the efficiency of a team is typically measured in terms of under budget, on time,
meeting quality specifications, and delivering the desired benefits. According to Hyvri, project
teams are too dispersed, complex, and diverse. Therefore, to manage a diverse and complex team
requires that one possess the competencies of managing arising issues within the team.
According to Hyvri, dependency on technology for communication, geographical diversity, and
collaboration management magnify the project managers challenges of successfully leading a

team. Normally, there are certain complexities that come into play when managing complex
teams with diverse cultural norms, multiple methodologies, and complicated contractual
agreements (Achee, 2012). These challenges include interactional uncertainty, complex adaptive
systems, and integration challenges. To manage such a complex team it is necessary that the
project manager establishes an environment of innovation, adaptability, and creativity by
becoming a team leader, and leveraging on team potential to communicate, collaborate, and
coordinate the available tools and techniques (Mller & Turner, 2007).
Team Conflict
One of the major causes of teamwork failure is conflict. Conflict is defined as a situation
of competition where each party is aware of the incompatibility of potential futuristic positions
and in which each party wants to occupy a position, which is incompatible with the other parties
wish (Useem, 2006). Conflict is viewed as a cycle with a cause, a core process, and has results or
effects. These effects normally feedback to trigger the causes. According to Useem (2006), to
understand conflict, the situation triggering the conflict must include elements of perceptions,
interdependence, emotions, and behaviors. For example, conflicts will regularly occur where
parties have interdependent tasks, are not comfortable working around each other, and perceive
the other party as being at fault or whose actions of omission or commission cause a project
problem. Useem posits that human behavior is complex and unpredictable because people are
invariably reacting to the environment. Additionally, teams are complex adaptive systems
working within the larger organizational program. The organizational program is also a complex
adaptive system that is trying to adapt within a complex global adaptive system (Schneider &
Somers, 2006).
Conflicts can be functional or destructive to a team (Runde & Flanagan, 2007).
Functional conflict can aid in the process of developing an individual and improving a project by
building on the individual assets of its members. When conflict arises in a team, it brings about
the underlying issues, forcing team members to confront possible defects in a solution and
choose a better one as a team. By working on conflicts, project members are able to understand
the real goals, interests, and needs of their counterparts and enhance communication between
them. Runde and Flanagan (2007) suggest that team members can solve team conflicts by using
the Conflicts Dynamic Profile. The model provides a framework where team members are able
to provide feedback about their behaviors and that of other team members. According to Runde
and Flanagan, members can use this feedback to determine how they would like to relate with
each other and how to address conflicts within the team. For example, team members can
employ perspective-taking techniques to address conflict. Perspective taking is a tool employed
to redirect the conflict against productivity and innovativeness and the generally accepted
outcomes for all the team members. When team members adopt perspective taking technique to
solve conflicts, team members are able to empathize with other team members and are able to
see the conflict from their viewpoint.Several factors that cause conflict within a team have been
identified and are discussed below;
Interactional Uncertainty
Interactional uncertainty is an important factor to consider when managing people in a
team (Sanderson, 2012). It may appear that people who have worked in the same projects in the
past will easily work together and evolve into a high performing in short span of time. However,
the diversity of team members is an indicator of interactional uncertainty (Sanderson, 2012).
Knobloch, and McAninch (2014) define interactional uncertainty as the degree of confidence (or
lack of confidence) that individuals have in their perceptions of their environment and within
interpersonal relationships. In their study on the effects on relational uncertainty, Knobloch, and
McAninch (2014) explicates the nature of humans questions about their relationships, either
work or social related, with particular attention to the levels, sources, and content of relational
uncertainty. The researchers found that relational uncertainty influences how people relate with
each other and the success of teamwork. They also found that if there is uncertainty in a
relationship, the participants were less willing to divulge information and would tend to calculate
the effects of sharing information. By withholding information, the researchers found that such
relationships always end up in conflict. Therefore, it is crucial that the project manager takes his
team through the inevitable early stage of growth towards interactional certainty. Interactional
uncertainty is common when working in a virtual environment, as it is very challenging for team
members to establish a trusting and an open environment. According to Stigliani and Ravasi
(2012), integration issues normally arise when working with many disparate teams, making it
difficult to amalgamate diverse interdependent solution components that have been designed by
different sub-teams. Different teams use different procedures, tools, and practices which results
in products of varying consistency and quality (Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, 2012). Deficiencies in
project management methodologies such as complexity management and risk management can
lead to dissimilar consequences, which lead to team disintegration.
Intractable Conflicts
If team conflicts remain unsolved for a long time, they are likely to cause team
breakdown and adversely affect a projects overall performance (Larson & Gray, 2011).
Normally, intractable conflicts arise when members of a team refuse to compromise or negotiate
in respect to issues arising in the team. As a result, each team member or a certain group views
the rigid position of the other as a threat to the projects outcomes. In a study by Knippenberg
and Schippers (2007), the authors sought to find out the effect of team diversity on teamwork
performance and efficiency. The study found that intractable conflicts might cause team
members to develop mutual fear of each other and to some extent a desire to inflict physiological
harm on each other. In many instances, this sense of hostility and threat pervades the teams
activity every day and overrides the teams ability to recognize any shared concerns that they
may have as a team. It is noteworthy that intractable conflicts are likely to arise if the project is
long term and involves a large number of participants (Larson & Gray, 2011). As conflict
escalate within a team, any tangible issues spills over to become embedded within a larger set of
identities, beliefs, values, and cultures. Disputes about project resources, technical approaches,
and other minor disagreements may take on increased symbolic significance. It is noteworthy
that when team conflicts take such a course, the original cause of the conflict can get lost or
become irrelevant as new conflicts arise by actions within the original conflict itself (Larson &
Gray, 2011). Consequently, team members on opposing side start to look at each other with
suspicion and may resort to highly destructive means. There are several reasons why team
conflicts become intractable, importantly; these reasons, discussed below, have their origin on
the demographic differences of members who constitute a projects team.
Moral Differences
One of the fundamental causes of intractable conflict is moral difference. In a study by
Neyer, and Harzing, (2008) on the impact of culture on interactions, the substantive issues that
arise from moral differences are often a matter of members holding rigidly on moral beliefs that
are based on fundamental assumptions that cannot be proved wrong. The fact that these
fundamental religious, personal, and moral values are not easily changeable makes it difficult for
projects team members to compromise their views, further aggravating reconciliation efforts. In
addition, as it is difficult to describe the substantive issues in shared terms, reaching some sort of
compromise becomes difficult even if they are willing to compromise. The study revealed that
moral differences results from holding fundamental and cherished assumptions about the best
way of approaching an issue radically from the views and assumptions held by another group.
Notably, parties may hold different standards of what is right or wrong and give fundamentally
different opinions to serious project questions (Neyer, & Harzing, 2008). When team members
come with different ideas about how they want things to be done, they often stress the
importance of diverse things, and may ultimately develop incompatible or radically different
goals. In some instances, some members may regard other members actions and beliefs as
fundamentally flawed that they exceed the bounds of tolerance. Because of how beliefs and
morals tend to be stable for a long time, team members are often not willing to compromise or
negotiate with respect to the subject of conflict. This is particularly so if the basic substantive
issues that caused the conflict are deeply embedded in the members moral orders (Neyer, &
Harzing, 2008). It is noteworthy that when team members of a group are involved in a moral
conflict, they may even regard compromising their values as an affront to their identity, thereby
preferring a continuation of the conflict, rather than accommodating the other party.
Justice
The other cause of intractable conflict is justice. In a study by Bakhshi et al. (2009) on
organizational justice perception, the investigators found that team members tend to be unwilling
to compromise on matters of injustice often leading to intractable conflicts. According to the
study, an individuals sense of justice has a connection to the rights, norms, and ones
entitlements. If there is a perceived sense of injustice where discrepancy occurs between what an
individual obtains, and what one believes to be entitled to, one may believe that he is deprived of
the benefits that he deserves. This normally occurs when either an outcome or a procedure is
viewed as unfair. When team members believe that they are treated unfavorably in a team, they
may try to withdraw or get even by challenging those who have treated them unfairly. Indeed,
perceiving injustice leads one to consider retaliation as the only way to address the injustice
suffered (Bakhshi et al. 2009). However, the dominant members of the team, those who perceive
to hold more important positions often respond by attempting to maintain the status quo by
quelling the disturbance. This often leads to ongoing conflict and affects the teams ability to
meet the projects objectives. It is noteworthy that once one of the team members frames the
conflict in terms of conflict, it becomes difficult to resolve the conflict (Bakhshi et al. 2009).
Members who believe that they have been unfairly treated may advance their claim as a matter of
justice, and demand a higher moral ground for themselves, thereby making it more difficult to
establish moderate positions. On matters of justice, people are normally unwilling to compromise
or even enter into a dialogue with those who hold different opinions from them. Therefore, it
becomes difficult to negotiate, obscuring the actual interests in the process.
Violated rights
When members of a projects team feel that their rights have been infringed, intractable
conflict is likely to arise. In a study by Burrus and Matern, (2010), dispute often begins when a
member of the team, or a group makes a demand or claim on another member of the team who
rejects it. The study revealed that one of the most effective of resolving a conflict is rely on some
independent standard of fairness or legitimacy. However, this becomes impossible when both
parties advance their claim as right making moderate positions difficult (Burrus, &M atern,
2010). It is important to note that rights discussions impedes further communication with outside
parties on a neutral ground because treat right-based arguments as final, thereby neutralizing all
other positions. This tendency towards absolute reliance on self-rights increases the likelihood of
aggravating the conflict and promotes unrealistic expectations. Additionally, the rigid stand
ignores others rights and the accompanying social costs, inhibiting dialogue that could lead to
discovery of compromise or common ground.
Entitlement to certain rights has also been found to result in self-centeredness (Burrus, &
Matern, 2010). Transforming something into a right gives the team member of the supposed
right the ability to demand the realization of the supposed right from those who are tasked with
realizing it. However, such unilateral demands make it more difficult for the member to modify
his claim in the face of reasonable claims by other team members (Burrus, & Matern, 2010).
Indeed right talks often leads one to forget that his rights are limited by the stipulation that such
rights do not hurt other members or the overall goal of the project. When team members fail to
balance their right claims against those of other team members, the conflict is likely to be
intractable. Linked to unfair treatment, there is a strong interdependence between intractable
conflict and violation of team members rights.
Identity Issues
Identity has been found to be one of the primary causes of many intractable conflicts. In a
study by Baxter and Brumfitt (2008) on identity differences in inter-professional working, the
authors found that conflicts over identify are likely to occur in projects with many participants
and arises when some or all the team members feel that their sense of self is disrespected or
threatened. Because identity is rooted into an individuals self-esteem and his ones outlook of
the world, threats to identity normally generates strong reactions. Typically, this response is
characterized with defense and can easily degenerate into an intractable conflict (Lemieux-
Charles, & McGuire, 2006). According to the study, a conflict that originates from identity issues
is not easily resolved and tends to persist. When conflicts arise in a team, they are normally
fueled by the development of Polarized collective identities among projects team members. The
study also found that group membership that are formed along lines such as ethnicity, religion,
nationality, or gender differences are relevant for a conflict. lthough identities develop around
minor issues, they degenerate and eventually take on value and a meaning of their own if they
are not resolved in time (Baxter, & Brumfitt, 2008). As the conflict grows, parties become more
polarized and develop hostility towards each other. If team members develop a need for a high
level of in-group identification, a basic impulse to preserve oneself develops making it difficult
for them to work together (Ravasi, & Schultz, 2006). Normally, identity conflicts center on
matters of who should be in control, and interests. Intractable conflicts with identity origins make
it difficult for groups to compromise (Baxter, & Brumfitt, 2008). When team members feel that
other team members pose a threat to their legitimacy or authority, they may lash out or refuse to
cooperate. Those in the out-group may be elbowed away limiting the contact between them,
subsequently developing into negative stereotypes and intergroup rivalry (Baxter, & Brumfitt,
2008). Team members view members with different opinions with suspicion and view them as
unworthy of attention. Because seeming to agree with their opponents can be seen as a threat to
ones identity, it becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile the opposed groups or team
members.
Distributional Issues
Distributional issues are probably the most important determinants of team disintegration.
This type of conflict normally surrounds who gets what and how much they get. In a study by
Nancarrow, et al. (2013) on the ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work, the study
revealed that when projects are planned for, each member of the project team is assigned tasks
that one is expected to complete. The items to be distributed include tangible resources and
intangible ones such as power and authority. According to the study, if the project has plenty of
resources available, each member takes what he or she needs and no conflict arises. However,
when there are limited resources as is often the case with projects that run under strict budgets,
conflicts tend to arise. Because most team members want to be on top of things, there is often a
non-ending struggle between team members as they seek to control project resources.
Conflict Resolution Methods
Conflict resolution methodology applied by a project manager plays an important role in
influencing the failure or success of a team. Yang et al. (2011) examined the impact of various
conflict resolution methodologies used by different project managers in guiding their teams and
shaping their work environment, and influencing the level of ongoing stress and team conflict.
They found that project managers who use a certain conflict management style can create
environments with varied degrees of conflicts. The study reported that project managers who use
more of a confrontational approach to solve conflicts create an environment characterized with
lower levels of task conflicts, which lowers stress and relationship conflict. On the other hand,
individuals who use more of the avoiding or forcing styles tend to create an environment with
more task conflict, leading to increased stress and relationship conflict. The study suggests that
the style adopted by project managers in resolving conflicts within teams. Additionally, conflicts
develop in the styles in both the environmental circumstances and the styles used by project
leaders confronted with a conflict. Notably, the manner in which the project manager responds to
uncertainty and team dissension will influence the team members responses and the individuals
work experience.
In another study, Mller and Turner, (2007) went ahead to examine the relationship
between conflict resolution styles and the three forms of organizational justice including
interactional, procedural, and distributive. The study found that higher interactional justice was
related with greater employment of confrontational conflict resolution when procedural justice
was high and distributive justice low. They also found that use of the avoiding style was
positively correlated with distributive justice. The researchers suggest that when team members
perceive organizational justice, they tend to use cooperative models such as smoothing,
confronting, and compromising when resolving team conflicts. It is important to note that the
findings of this research have implications for project outcomes. Project managers should be
attentive to enhancing their teams perceptions of organizational justice in order to promote the
use of compromise and cooperative styles for team conflict management. Indeed, this is the
major cause of teamwork breakdown in many projects. According to Baldwin (2006),
organizational justice refers to the extent to which a companys employees perceive workplace
interactions, procedures, and outcomes to be fair in nature. These perceptions have been found to
influence behaviors and attitudes for good or ill, in turn positively or negatively impacting on
employees performance and the projects success. It is noteworthy that the concept of
organizational justice is an extension of traditional models of work behavior that tend to
conceptualize social support, job control, and job demand as the core factors that determine
individual productivity and well-being (Cropanzano, et al. 2011). Some of the examples of
perceived injustices within a team might include unequal pay, the use of personality inventories
to select team members, arbitrary assignment of projects, and the performance review from
someone with whom a team member has had little previous contact. The three types of
organizational justice include interactional, distributive, and procedural.

Distributive justice refers to outcomes distributed proportional to identifiable inputs
(Sharpe, 2006). Outcomes in a group context might take the form of job security, social approval,
wages, career opportunities, and promotion among others. Inputs on the other hand would
include training, education, effort, and experience (Sharpe, 2006). As it is difficult to accurately
determine what constitutes appropriate level of reward for an input, project managers or team
leaders tend to form their judgments in relative terms where they look at contribution-income
ratio that is similar to their peers. Procedure justice focuses on the fairness of the decision
processes that lead to a particular outcome. Notably, procedural justice has been found to
outweigh distributive justice, in that team members may be willing to accept unwanted outcomes
if they perceive that the decision process was conducted according to organizational justice
principles (Yusof & Shamsuri, 2006). Lastly, interactional justice falls under the umbrella within
the precincts of procedural justice. However, it is significant enough to be considered separately
and in its own right. Interactional justice refers to the perceived quality of interpersonal received
by a team member working in a project, particularly as part of formalized decision-making
processes (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2006). Some of key aspects of interactional justice, which has
been found to enhance peoples perception of fair treatment include truthfulness, where people
perceive that the information given to them is realistic and accurate, and delivered in an open and
forthright manner (Yusof & Shamsuri, 2006). Respect, where team members perceive that they
are treated with dignity, with no recourse to discourteous behavior or insults. Propriety, where
project managers or other members of a team do not use statements and questions that involves
prejudicial elements such as sexism and racism (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2006). Justification, where a
social account such an apology or clarification is given when an alleged injustice has happened
to reduce or eliminate the sense of anger generated.

In another study, Kim (2008) scrutinized the connection between conflict management
styles, interpersonal conflicts and project outcomes in a team of information systems
development (ISD) projects. The researchers defined interpersonal conflict to mean an
occurrence that ensues between codependent parties as they experience negative emotional
reactions in their work related disagreements. However, the researcher did not include
interdependence as a factor in their assessment. The findings revealed that negative emotion was
a significant part of an individuals perception of interpersonal conflict. Although the study found
that conflict management styles have positive effects on projects outcomes, it also revealed that
negative effects of interpersonal conflict of the outcomes were greatly alleviated. Regardless of
how the team conflict was resolved or managed, the study demonstrated that interpersonal
conflict impact was perceived to be negative. The study concluded that satisfactory resolution
and management of interpersonal conflict are important. However, failing to prevent
interpersonal conflicts could adversely affect teamwork.
Demographic Heterogeneity
Various studies on demographic heterogeneity in project management have traditionally
taken either of two different approaches in their treatment of the subject. In a study by Vangen
and Huxham, (2012) one approach has been to treat the subject broadly, where statements about
demographic homogeneity or heterogeneity are made, rather than a particular demographic type
such as age or ethnicity diversity. According to the study, the second approach has been to treat
each of the variable as a different theoretical construct, founded on the argument that different
types of diversity may have different outcomes. Arguments for adopting both approaches exist.
On the one hand, employing both approaches ensures a broader diversity, thus allowing
propositions or hypotheses to have greater explanatory power (Staats, 2012). On the other hand,
combining the two methods may cause researchers to overlook important distinctions among
them, thus losing the ability to make accurate predictions.
Increased demographic heterogeneity in project management has been expected to
generate significant benefits such as increasing the approaches and variance in perspectives to
work through members from different demographic groups (Xia, 2007). Given the assumed
advantages of demographic heterogeneity, project managers have eagerly incorporated workforce
diversity into project problem-solving processes (Umans, 2008). However, those efforts have met
with mixed success and utter failure in some instances. Importantly, studies on the effects of
demographic heterogeneity in project and organizational settings in general have reported mixed
findings (Pihl, 2010). To address these inconsistencies, Finkelstein et al. (2009), sought to
investigate the effects of demographic heterogeneity on teamwork disintegration and conflict
resolution. Drawing from social categorization theory, the researchers found that greater
demographic heterogeneity led lower cooperation among team members.
In a study by Chen et al. (2007), the researchers sought to investigate how demographic
heterogeneity in work team influences team effectiveness and team empowerment. The study
used data collected from 111 work teams in four different organizations. The study found that
team race heterogeneity was negatively correlated to multiple indicators such as team
effectiveness, and team empowerment. Additionally, the study revealed that when team leaders
had longer rather than shorter organizational tenure, the teams were less effective and easily
disintegrated. Demographic disparities between project managers and their teams on race were
negatively related to effectiveness and team leaders rating of team empowerment.

Representational Gaps
Wang, Mannix, and Cronin (2016) define representational gap as fundamental
incompatibilities in the way that different team members conceptualize project goals, problems,
and the solution space. These gaps can occur in project team members assumptions about task,
goals for task achievement, understanding about project elements, and the actions that need to be
taken to achieve those goals. According to Knipperberg and Schippers (2007), organizations
often rely on cross-functional teams in their projects to innovate because of the teams diversity
in skills and access to a broad range of essential information, and most importantly the creativity
potential that these teams bring to the project. However, this diversity has been found to be the
major cause of disintegration for many projects. In their study on the effects of diversity in
teamwork, Cronin and Weingart (2007a) found that the very diversity that is designed into a team
can grossly interfere with the teams ability to integrate the different ideas and information that
they bring. Cronin and Weingart found that this lack of incompatibility occurs because team
members training and background influences their beliefs about the nature of the project and
how to best solve project related problems. The diversity in perceptions from different team
members make it difficult for them to relate to one another, coordinate tasks and activities, and
drive conflicting agendas. These differences, referred to as representational gaps are the root
cause of much of the conflict that arises.
In their study, Cronin and Weingart (2007b) suggest that there are potential liabilities
associated with interdependent teams that are caused by knowledge gaps in team members
comprehension and framing of the projects tasks. The researchers state that these gaps in turn
influence team conflicts and, if such conflicts are not properly managed, the representational gap
may ultimately jeopardize the overall goals of the project. In this way, representation gaps take
away the creative resources away and causes team breakdown. Cronin and Weingart (2007b)
suggest that the solution for representation gaps involves team bonding across different
functionalities. They argue that team integration, either cognitive or affective, cannot happen if
functional gaps are not identified and addressed before the project is initiated.
Representation gaps influence team integration because they adversely change how team
members interact. Teams with larger relationship gaps have been found to experience more
conflict and faces more difficulties coordinating their actions (Watson, et al. 2008). Coordination
problems are hardly discussed, but surfaces in the teams inability to work in a coordinated
manner (Johnston, et al. 2008). Therefore, an important indicator of lack of coordination is not
how much it is deliberated, but team members opinion on how well they coordinate in their
actions. Most often, representation gaps interfere with coordination when project team members
wrongly interpret other members actions and responses, a pattern that far too familiar with
diverse teams. As noted earlier, representational gaps involves disagreements about what should
be done in order to achieve team goals.
According to a study by Mathieu et al. (2009), lack of cognitive integration is another
cause of poor teamwork and failed projects. According to Palermos (2014), cognitive integration
is where team members are able to understand each other, anticipate, and integrate one anothers
ideas and perspectives. Through cognitive integration, team members are able to capitalize on
information processing advantage of diverse teams (Palermos, 2014). The other factor that lacks
in disintegrated teams is affective integration, unlike cognitive integration, affective integration
is the psychological bond that exists between members often characterized of trust and respect
(Palermos, 2014). Trust allows team members to rely on one another, while respect embodies
team values that members place on each others perspectives, ideas, and contributions.
It is important to note that representation gaps greatly influences how team members
interact with each other. Teams that are characterized with larger representational gaps
experience more internal conflicts and are typically more difficult to coordinate. However,
studies have shown that interactive and cognitive integration can help overcome the problems of
team integration. As stated earlier, cognitive integration occurs when team members develop the
ability to understand, anticipate, and integrate the opinions of their teammates. When team
members develop cognitive integration, they are able to appreciate the diversity of other team
members and can interpret the task at hand from their teammates points of view (Palemos,
2014). Normally, where cognitive integration is lacking, diverse team members will display
tendencies of mistrust and will be less likely to discuss issues, which they feel that their
counterparts will not agree with them. When interpersonal bonds are missing, team members are
less willing to share information and will not be receptive of information from those they
perceive to be of different perspective from them. Affective integration takes an emotion-based
approach and reflects the interpersonal and social dynamics of the team members. When adopted
in teamwork, cognitive integration reduces the level of relationship conflict in teams because it
raises the level of trust between members. As trust builds between team members, team members
are able to work together, discuss issues that elicits varying opinions and resolve team conflicts.
The more respect one member has for the one, the more likely one is to treat his colleagues with
dignity and appreciate them as equal members of the team. Additionally, team members will be
show more effort to understanding the opinions and ideas of their counterparts improving
knowledge sharing and knowledge use.
Weingart et al (2005) suggest that reducing the representational gaps and integrating
diverse views from team members normally occur through two distinctive processes: developing
team members motivation to try to understand and empathize with other team members
(affective integration), and developing team members ability to integrate and understand the
ideas of team members with different functional perspectives (cognitive integration). In addition
to reducing or closing the representational gaps, affective and cognitive integration interacts to
positively influence processes that result from representational gaps such as task conflicts. It is
noteworthy that effective integration tends to increase more direct and open communication,
subsequently stimulating agreement in extremely diverse teams with varying perspectives.
Normally, affective integration provides team members with the needed motivation to overcome
the initial lack of understanding by acting as a substitute for limited ability to understand
different thought processes.
Cronin et al. (2011) sought to find out how cognitive and affective integration bridge the
representational gaps in a multidisciplinary team. From their findings, the researchers suggest
that affective and cognitive integration counteract against the negative effects of representational
gaps on team performance. According to the researchers, cognitive integration counters the
negative influence of representational gaps by directly reducing these gaps in the team. Given
that representational gaps normally increase task conflicts, then cognitive integration indirectly
reduces task conflict. In addition, the research revealed that affective integration supports the
positive functioning of representational gaps in three fundamental ways: improving cognitive
integration, reducing relationship conflict, and stimulating task conflict when cognitive
integration is low. The researchers found that affective integration made team members more
respectful and trusting towards their counterparts. The participants who reported high levels of
trust and respect experienced less tension, conflict, and friction. Additionally, affective
integration was found to be related to improve cognitive integration, where teams reported
improved understanding of each other.
Communication Failure
The literature provides considerable evidence that communication within a project team
has an impact on team performance, which can either be positive or negative (Slater, 2006). One
line of research has focused on investigating the impact of the absence of communication on
project performance. Numerous studies that have been conducted on this subject indicate that
communication is an important determinant of the success of a team. Notably, while some team
may need effective communication in order to have better performance, the quality of the
communication in other teams is important than the quantity of information that takes place. A
number of conceptual and theoretical approaches explicating the relationship between
performance and team communication have been advanced by various studies. The lack of
ability to work with professionals from other disciplines is one of the causes of poor
collaboration and teamwork failure. Project managers task is extremely complex as he or she is
tasked with the responsibility of various business functions including project scope, budget,
schedules, and other important resources. With all these tasks, the manager may lose touch with
the teams needs (Adams & Anantatmula, 2012). Each team member is different from the other
ones with his own ethnic, social, and family history. It is from their varying backgrounds that
team members communicate and agree on critical team matters. It is the managers responsibility
to understand the various demographic disposition of his team and manage them accordingly. By
understanding his ones members, the project manager can design and implement a management
style that suits the team and facilitates cohesion. This process cannot be possible without
effective communication. Pentland (2012) suggests that communication plays a critical role in
building strong and cohesive teams. Various communication strategies including information,
team members intellect, and demographic differences of the team are important for setting up a
stable team.
In their study, Suter et al (2009) reported that working in a team requires a specific set of
competencies, with effective communication being one of them. They reported that lack of
effective communication is one of the major causes of team conflict and project failure. Effective
communication is important for most organizational processes, including decision making and
team collaboration. Communication is defined as the sending and receiving of information
among interrelated persons within a particular setting or environment to achieve common and
individual goals. Project communication is a highly contextual and culturally dependent
function. Project teams transmit messages through written, face-to-face, and mediated channels.
Communication is important in a team as it helps team members accomplish tasks relating to
specific tasks, and responsibilities. acclimate to change through adaptation and creativity,
complete tasks through the maintenance of procedures, policies, and procedures that guide daily
and continuous operations. Additionally, effective communication enables development of
relationships where human messages are directed at people within a team. It also ensures that the
process of planning, coordination, and controlling the operations of the project through
management. Project communication management is how a project team represents, presents,
and constitutes the teams culture and climate the values, attitude, and values that characterize
the team and its members.
For teams to be successful, they must have effective and competent communicators.
Communication studies show that project teams rely on effective and efficient communication
from their members. A number of surveys identify effective written and oral communication as
the most sought after skills by organizations. Projects seek people who can give and follow
instructions, provide useful feedback, listen accurately, work well in teams, get along well with
coworkers, and creatively solve problems while articulating ideas in a comprehensive manner.
Effective communication involves an understanding of how to create and exchange information,
communicate in complex and changing environment, work with diverse individuals and groups,
and developing and maintaining the right motivation or aptitude to communicate effectively.
When work groups are engaged in more complex tasks- that is tasks that lack routine and
procedures, are varied, and require team members to think as a team through solutions, they are
likely to have scheduled and unscheduled meetings and to communicate directly with other team
members in order to coordinate their activities. According to Sappe (2007), a commonly noted
challenge in creating and sustaining teamwork in construction project teams is lack of active
communication among team members with varying technical expertise, who normally tend to
use their own protocols, tools, and industrial standards to make decisions and track project
information. In large projects made of team members from different specialties, members tend to
deliver services in technical isolation. This silo effect makes it difficult for the group to work
as a team, to mitigate risks, to manage change, and to have a coordinated approach with a holistic
view of the project. Communication breakdown also inhibits the project form taking advantage
of system optimization, which can save important resources such as time and money.
Teams that lack effective communication strategies are bound to fail to meet the set
project goals. It is noteworthy that communication will be improved if all team members,
irrespective of their varying trades work together as opposed to the Silo effect where members
only focus on their own scope with little or no attention to coordination and collaboration with
team members from other trades. In the context of organization program and project
management, effective communication has been identified as one of the most critical core
competency that, when properly planned and executed, connects every member of project team
to a common set of actions, strategies, and goals. Unless these critical elements are effectively
shared between project team members and understood by all stakeholders, team disintegration is
eminent, project outcomes are jeopardized, and project budgets incur unnecessary risks. As
reported by PMIs 2013 pulse of the profession, a project team ability to meet project budgets,
timelines, and especially overall objectives significantly affects the teams ability to thrive, and
even to survive. Without effective communication, team members from varying demographic
and specialties can collaborate. Several studies have acknowledged collaboration as an important
component of team processes in projects. In their concept analysis of collaboration, Hennerman
et al identifies that collaboration in teamwork requires confidence, competence, and commitment
on the part of team members. Trust and respect, both for oneself and for others is critical for team
collaboration.
According to Berryman, to develop a successful strategy for interdisciplinary
collaboration, team members, led by the project manager need to realize and accept that each
discipline has a different priority concerning the project at hand. Acceptance of this concept
originates from effective communication and is integral to the ultimate success of the team. As
early as possible, the project manager should develop a communication strategy that considers
the priorities of each member of the interdisciplinary team. The laundry list of the project
managers should include a deliberate identification of all individual members personal
expectations for the project and the team, time commitment to the project, and a detailed
description of the nature and type of the final project deliverable. The primary benefit of this
preliminary exercise is to establish a project timeline with an overview of team members

dependencies, deliverables, and time commitments. This overview will allow the project
manager to identify potential communication bottlenecks, and conflicts before they materialize.
Additionally, the exercise can assist the team in coming to consensus on the type of deliverables
that they are expected to produce and the overall resolution of the project.
It is important to note that conflicts and communication bottlenecks typically occurs
when one team members completion of task depends on a task or series of tasks from a different
member of the team. If the team lacks a clear communication strategy, these situations can
become sources of great tension and personal anxiety. This is particularly true, when dependency
occur between team members who have varying time commitments to the project. It is important
to note that awareness of project dependencies, which is only possible through effective
communication, allows the team to plan the workload and workflow effectively, and work
cohesively. This in turn, greatly lowers the potential for any team member from feeling
overwhelmed a factor that can easily cause team disintegration.
Failure to respect the contribution and process of all team members however varied they
are has been found to be one of the causes of lack of collaboration and teamwork failure. Each
discipline in the team brings with it varied methodologies to the project. The diversity of these
methodologies employed by team members must be taken with the seriousness they deserve even
if they are not always fully understood. The different procedures and methodologies employed
by team members are valid and all serve specific purposes. Notably, the ultimate goal of the team
is for all disciplines to provide an appropriate, and a user-cent. Once the contributions and
priorities of all team members have been identified, successful interdisciplinary collaboration can
be tackled. Effective communication can help establish individual accountability to the team and
the team. When members develop a culture of accountability to each other, the team will be able
to work together towards the project goals. Accountability and project ownership goes hand in
hand. Ownership of a portion of a project or the whole project establishes an opportunity for
acknowledgement and personal responsibility. Project ownership allows each member of the
team to prioritize individual tasks and establish goals.
Communication is an important factor when it comes to reviewing members
achievement of their prioritized tasks and goals. Teamwork will fail if team members are not
regularly updated on their progress. Adoption and implementation of a performance review
system for a project team reinforces team members roles and commitment to the project.
Performance review is an element of effective communication and works well in a
multidisciplinary team where team members are allowed to assess the projects progress and the
individual performance of each member of the team in relation to their responsibilities. This type
of
In order to form a strong and a consolidated team within an interdisciplinary
environment, it is critical that a working methodology that integrates all the disciplines is
developed. Lack of a functional common methodology has been blamed for poor teamwork and
delayed projects. A working methodology is normally derived from the established process that
is the core of the professional and industrial practices, from which team members are drawn. The
methodology should be communicated effectively, and should represent the design steps that are
essential to the team members typical process. However, it should be adapted to include
processes and elements that are critical to other members of the team. Additionally, there need to
be flexibility among all the involved members. In their study on the effect of project team
flexibility on project performance, Zhang, He, and Zhou (2013) found that with the growing
trend toward the integration of all project stakeholders, team flexibility emerged as one of the
key factor to success of more dynamic and complex projects. The researchers focused on the
flexibility of integrated project teams, exploring their antecedents. The study also revealed that
team flexibility determines team dynamic capabilities. Flexibility in an interdisciplinary team is
important as the cost of teamwork and adjustments to conventional processes can compromise
the goals of the project.
Poor Team Leadership
According to Mir (2014), team leaders failure to structure and guide their team members
experiences to facilitate adaptive actions has been identified as a key factor in teamwork failure
and the subsequent ineffective team performance. Generally it is believed that, the a project
manager who is managing a team of independent individuals should be able to diagnose a
problem, come up with possible solutions, and select and implement the most appropriate
solution. Therefore, it is the duty of the team leader to guide his team on matters that have not
been adequately handled for the team members needs including setting the goals of the team,
organizing resources to optimize performance, and guide team members towards the defined
goals. When team leaders fail in this responsibility, teams lack guidance and pull towards
different directions. It is important to note that the team leader should not only down solutions to
team members, but also facilitate team problem solving through cognitive processes such as
shared mental processes, teams collective behaviors and motivations, and coordination
processes.
Mir posits that lack of effective team leaders has been the major cause of projects failure
to meet the set goals. Team leaders enable effective and interdependent teamwork action through
three fundamental functions. Firstly, the team leaders primary responsibility is to create,
maintain, and ensure the accuracy of the teams shared mental model. If the team leader fails to
establish and maintain an accurate and shared understanding of the team objective, the team
become strained and breaks down. It is noteworthy that the team leader is in the best position to
provide comprehensive and accurate information to the team regarding the teams available
resources and constraints. According to Sderlund and Mller, (2014) the provision of enriched
information to team members by the team leader results in more accurate and homogenous
mental models among team members. Secondly, it is the duty of the team leader to consistently
assess the external and internal environment of the team to ensure that teams are not caught off
guard when environmental changes occur, and facilitate team adaptability. Normally, the team
leader promotes team cohesiveness and effectiveness by using the information about the external
environment to coordinate team interactions and behaviors as well as opportunities for
developing important team skills. When a teams internal functioning fails, it is the duty of the
team leader to determine the necessary changes that are needed to reestablish performance
expectations and adaptive norms. Finally, the team leader is tasked with establishing
performance and behavioral expectations and assess his teams skills and ability deficiencies. In
so doing, a team leader should set expectations for teams acceptable interaction patterns such as
encouraging information exchange and create a team environment that promotes behaviors such
as mutual performance monitoring, adaptability, and backup behavior. From the foregoing, it is
evident that team leaders are ultimately tasked with the responsibility of facilitating team
effectiveness by ensuring that every team member understands the need for their
interdependence and the benefit they derive from working together. Additionally, the team leader
should combine and synchronize the individual contributions of each member of the team.
Mutual Performance Monitoring
In a study by Albon and Jewels (2014), the investigators reported that project teams that
easily disintegrate are comprised of members who do not maintain an awareness of team
functioning. They found that lack of awareness is caused by failure to monitor fellow members
work in an effort to catch slips, lapses, or mistakes prior to or shortly after they have occurred.
Successful teams are based on mutual performance monitoring. Mutual performance monitoring
is the capacity to keep track of fellow team members work while carrying out their own work, to
ensure that they are following procedures correctly and that everything is running as expected.
Mutual performance monitoring is particularly crucial when the team is engaging in stressful
tasks. The risk of team disintegration because of lack of monitoring is compounded by the fact
that individuals may not be aware of their own performance deficiencies (Albon, &Jewels,
2014). Fortunately, mutual performance monitoring enables team members to become more
cognizant of their performance. The information gathered through mutual performance
monitoring process helps identify lapses or errors, and this information expressed through
backup behavior or feedback affects team cohesion and performance. It also boosts the team
from the sum of individual members performance to synergy of teamwork and ultimately to
team efficiency (Albon, &Jewels, 2014).
There is a meditated relationship between team effectiveness and performance
monitoring. In this regard, studies have identified two prerequisite factors for effective mutual
performance monitoring. First, the process of mutual performance monitoring requires a shared
understanding of teams task and responsibilities (shared mental model) (Albon, &Jewels, 2014).
A shared mental model provides a team member an understanding of other team members tasks.
Therefore, a share understanding is not only crucial for performance assessment, but also for the
effectiveness of the effectiveness of the received feedback. It is important to note that if a team
does not share an understanding of how the team should be working, performance monitoring
lacks the desired effectiveness, and any feedback that could be gathered form the process
becomes inconsequential (Albon, &Jewels, 2014). Secondly, effective mutual performance
requires the creation of an opening, cohesive, and a climate of trust because, for the process to be
effective, mutual performance monitoring should gain acceptance from all team members.
Members should be able to accept mutual performance monitoring as a norm that is intended to
maximize the performance of the team rather than an opportunity for the project team members
to keep sneaking on each other by keeping tabs on what other members are doing or not doing.
Without this type of environment, team members risk viewing performance monitoring with
suspicion, and may react negatively to assistance or feedback provided by some of the team
members.
Backup Behavior
In a study by Brennan (2011), the researcher found that teams fail if there is insufficient
backup behavior. Backup behavior is defined as the provision task related effort or resources to
another when potential backup providers recognize that workload distribution in the team is
flawed. Marks et al. (2000) suggests three means of providing backup behavior: (a) to perform a
teammate in accomplishing a task; (b) to provide coaching and feedback to in order to improve
team performance; and (c) to help complete a task for a member of the team if an overload on
that particular member is detected. If it is detected that a team member is overwhelmed or that
ones workload has exceeded his capacity, the team can engage backup behavior by distributing
work responsibilities among other underutilized team members as it becomes necessary

(Brennan, 2011). If the overloaded team member is not relieved by his teammates, the team will
disintegrate and team performance will drastically degrade.
In a different study by Crowne (2013), the researcher found that by distributing work
equally and equitably between members, the team can achieve a certain level of flexibility in
how tasks are completed and increase team effectiveness. The ability of the team to develop
backup behavior is an important component of team cohesion and performance efficiency as
disproportional workload distribution can often act as a stressor. Studies have also shown that
team members who are able to compensate for each other during unfavorable conditions ha
fewer errors. Although each team member is assigned with his or her responsibility when the
project is starting, it is the teams ability to self-assess overloads within the team and the teams
ability to distribute that overload amongst other members that results in adaptation to changing
climate (Crowne, 2013). Therefore, the essence of backup behavior is to allow greater team
adaptability in changing environments and situations on top of improving performance
outcomes. Depending on the tasks that the team is doing, backup behavior may be manifested by
physically taking over tasks or ensuring that one of the team members corrects the error.
Adaptability
Adaptability is understood to be a team process that effectively moves team members
toward their overall objective. In a study by Klamer et al. (2013), the researchers found that
many project teamwork fail because they lack adaptability. Adaptability means that team
members have the ability to recognize deviation from the expected action and realign those
actions accordingly. In order for a team to develop and maintain a culture of adaptability, it is
important that the team members adapt a global perspective of the team task, and the ability to
recognize that regular changes are occurring. Additionally, the study revealed that project team
members need to remain vigilant in the activities of their counterparts so that they can deter
errors and determine if additional assistance or information is needed and whether the team will
accept the planned actions as a team.
The need for adaptability in teamwork is normally driven by the complexity that
characterizes the operations of a team (Klamer et al. 2013). Team members ability to adapt to
the individual actions of their counterparts actions and the environment in which the team exists
and operates is a fundamental prerequisite for coordinative actions that are seen in stable teams.
Studies have shown that team members who are more adaptable are more effective and better
positioned to work as a team compared to those who were less flexible. However, it is
noteworthy that for teamwork to be improved through adaptability, the teams adaptation ought
to be purpose driven and focused. In other words, team members should make deliberate efforts
to constantly assess and determine if their current procedures and processes will continue to be
effective in reaching the identified team objectives. Indeed, team adaptability is essential for
different types of teams and in various situations (Klamer et al. 2013). Adaptability equips team
members with skills to respond to unexpected demands such a fundamental change in project
direction or a major team conflict. It is the ability of a team to identify that changes are
happening, assign meaning to such changes, and finally develop, and successfully implement a
recovery plan. If the group skips any of the process in these steps, the chance of teamwork
success greatly declines. Therefore, a teams strength is in not only its ability to influence its
behavior, but also its ability to deal with newly encountered deviations.
Team adaptability is particularly essential for teams in projects that require innovation
such as research and design teams that need to design a new product or redesign an old one
(Klamer et al. 2013). It is also important for teams that have previously experienced failure or
setback. Normally, team members become complacent and act in habitual or routine ways with
each other. Unfortunately, this complacency may hinder team members from seeing the changes
in the environment as quickly as they should. This mindlessness can lead in a greater chance of
productivity loss, errors, or missed opportunities for improvement and innovation. Just like
backup behavior, adaptability can be manifested in several ways depending on what patterns
teams form when performing cooperative or collaborative tasks.
Team Orientation
The other dimension that lacks in failed teamwork is team orientation. Unlike other team
management techniques that are behavioral, team orientation is attitudinal. In their study on the
effect of team orientation on teamwork and performance Watson et al. (2008), identified team
orientation as an important tool for not only working in a team, but also critical for enhancing
individual performance through evaluation, coordination, and utilization of task inputs from
other team members while working in a team environment (Watson et al. 2008). Team
orientation improves performance and individual effort within a team. Additionally, it facilitates
improved coordination and collaboration between team members through information sharing,
increased task involvement, goal setting, and strategizing. For example, studies have shown that
individuals with a team orientation mindset often consider their teammates inputs before
deciding on the final course of action.
Because of its attitudinal nature, team orientation manifestation does not differ across
different types of teams, but rather facilitates the occurrence of other desired behaviors such as
backup behavior and mutual performance monitoring (Watson et al. 2008). As team members
learn to work together as a team over time, they become more effective and proficient in their
task work. However, it is noteworthy that improvement in teamwork depends on team members
ability to establish procedures for working together, develop shared requisite communication
behaviors and knowledge, and develop expectations about each other. Several models describe
how project team members go through stages of development in which they are able to learn
their roles, their tasks, and their expected performances (Watson et al. 2008). These teams then
progress into deeper and more complex relationships where desired behaviors are established.
Lack of trust
The relevance of trust in project teams for effective teamwork appears to be an obvious
factor. According to Afrin (2009), lack of trust is the primary cause of teamwork failure and
project collapse. Effective teamwork has a number of defining characteristics that depict the need
for team members to respect their counterparts in a significant manner. Firstly, teams with trust
typically involve increased levels of interdependence, where team members show vulnerability
to the actions of other members of the team in carrying out their tasks. Interdependence is a
critical characteristic of project teams since members are dependent on each other to accomplish
their goals and those of the team. As indicated earlier, the only pathway to effective task
performance and project success is through collaboration, and trust is considered an important
antecedent of collaboration (Afrin, 2009). It is noteworthy that the level of interdependence
within a team is dependent on the nature of work, team structure, and whether performance
feedback and goal setting occur at the team level. Higher interdependence typically increases the
need for frequency in team members interactions, potentially increasing the degree of risk team
members trusting their colleagues (Afrin, 2009). Indeed, it is not usual for employees to express
their reservations when it comes to working in teams. Team members who experience low trust
to other team members, either because of their demographic or behavioral disposition are likely
to limit the level of their dependence on other team members, subsequently resisting any changes
that might serve to increase their reliance on their teammates (Afrin, 2009). Low-trust team
members have also been found to be more defensive and less open in their relationship with
other members often resulting in reduced creativity, ineffective problem solving, and teamwork
failure.
Conclusion
Contemporary organizations are increasingly setting up multidisciplinary teams for
developing highly complex products. While existing studies emphasize on the importance of
team-internal processes for leaner projects, collaborative processes in large-scale projects that
had previously attracted little interest is becoming an important factor too. From the foregoing
longitudinal meta-analysis, it is evident that collaboration between team members is an important
determinant for successful teamwork performance. Poor collaboration has been associated with
inter-team conflict, poor communication, lack of effective leadership, and representational gaps.
Due to their demographic and professional diversities, team members are often faced with the
challenge of integrating their ideas and setting a common goal that unifies them. As noted in the
literature review, many projects continue to fail because of people related factors. It is therefore
important that project teams consistently address these diversities and develop a common
approach that would unite them. By so doing, factors that can adversely affect team performance
such as conflicts, lack of trust, and dysfunctional competition will have been eliminated from the
team.
References
Achee, JE 2012, Understanding the factors that affect project managers' development and use of
emotional intelligence in managing project stakeholders. Doctoral dissertation, Capella
University.
Adams, SL., & Anantatmula, V 2010. Social and behavioral influences on team process. Project
Management Journal, 41(4), 89-98.
Afrin, T. 2009, An overview from different perspectives: Culturally competent assessment in a multi-
cultural environment. In L. H. Meyer, S. Davidson, H.Anderson, R. Fletcher, P. M. Johnston &
M. Rees (eds.), Tertiary Assessment and Higher Education Student Outcomes: Policy, Practice
and Research. Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa,. 235244.
Albon, R & Jewels, T 2014, 'Mutual Performance Monitoring: Elaborating the Development of a Team
Learning Theory', Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 23, no. 1, pp. 149164.
Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E 2009, Organizational justice perceptions as predictor of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, International Journal of Business and Management,
4(9), 145-154
Baldwin, S 2006, 'Organisational Justice', The Institute for Employment Studies, pp. 1-15.
Baxter, S & Brumfitt,S (2008), Professional differences in inter-professional working. Journal of Inter-
professional Care,22(3),239251.
Brennan, LL 2011, The scientific management of information overload. Journal of Business and
Management, 17, 121-134.
Burrus, J & Matern, K 2010, Equity, egoism, and egocentrism: the formation of distributive justice
judgments,Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), pp. 155-164.

Chen, G, Kirkman, B, Kanfer, R & Allen, D 2007, 'A Multilevel Study of Leadership, Empowerment,
and Performance in Teams', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol 92, no. 2, pp. 331346.
Cronin, M, Bezrukova, K, Weingart, L & Tinsley, C 2011, 'Subgroups within a team: The role of
cognitive and affective integration', Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol 32, no. 6, pp. 831
849.
Cronin, M & Weingart, L 2007b, The differential effects of trust and respect on team conflict. In K. J.
Behfar and L. L. Thompson, Conflict in Organizational Groups, New Directions in Theory and
Practice: 205-228. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Cronin, M & Weingart, L 2007a, Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in
functionally diverse teams,Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 761-774.
Cropanzano, R, Li, A & Benson , L 2011, 'Peer Justice and Teamwork Process', Group Organization
Management.
Crowne, K 2013, An empirical analysis of three intelligences, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,
45, 105-114.
Decuyper, S, Dochy, F & Bossche, P 2010, Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An
integrative model for effective team learning in organisations ,Educational Research Review,
5(2), 111-133.
Finkelstein, S, Cannella, A & Hambrick, 2009, Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on
Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
George, H, Valacich, J & Joey, G 2007, Modern Systems Analysis and Design, 5th edn, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Gray, C & Larson, E 2011, Project Management, The Managerial Process, 5th edn, McGraw-Hill, New
York City.
Hyvri, I 2006, Success of projects in different organizational conditions, Project Management
Journal, 37(4), 31-41
Johnston, et al 2010, Towards culturally appropriate assessment? A contribution to the debates, Higher
Education Quarterly, 64(3), 231-245.
K. Schwalbe, Information Technology Project Management, 4th Ed., Boston, MA: Thomson, Course
Technology, 2006.
Kerzner, H 2009, Project Management, A Systems Approach to Planning,Scheduling, and Controlling,
10thEdition, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons.
Klarner, P, Sarstedt, , Hoeck, M & Ringle, C 2013, 'Disentangling the Effects of Team Competences,
Team Adaptability, and Client Communication on the Performance of Management Consulting
Teams', Long Range Planning, vol 46, no. 3, pp. 258286.
Knobloch, L & McAninch, K 2014, Uncertainty management. In P. J. Schultz & P. Cobley (Series Eds.)
& C. R. Berger (Vol. Ed.), Handbooks of communication science: Vol. 6. Interpersonal
communication (pp. 297-319). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kreitner, R & Kinicki, A 2006, Organizational behaviour: Key concepts, skills and best practices(2nd
ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, LK 2008, 'An Examination between the Relationship of Conflict Management Styles and
Employees Satisfaction with Supervision', International Journal of Business and Management,
vol 3, no. 9.
Lemieux-Charles, L & McGuire, W 2006, What do we know about health care team effectiveness? A
review of the literature. Medical Care Research and Review, 63 (3), 263300.
Levasseur, RE 2010, 'People Skills: Ensuring Project SuccessA Change Management Perspective',
Interfaces Journal, vol 40, no. 2, pp. 59162.

Martin, S 2006, Risk management in construction project management, Journal of Business Economics
and Management, 7:2, 77-83
Mathieu, J, Rapp, T, Maynard, M & Mangos, M 2009, Interactive effects of team and task shared
mental models as related to air traffic controllers' collective efficacy and effectiveness, Human
Performance, 23, 22-40
McManus , J & Wood-Harper, T 2007, 'Management issues accounted for 65% of causal factors
dentified with failed projects', Management Services Journal, vol 43, p. 38.
Mir, FA & Pinnington, AH 2014, Exploring the value of project management: L inking project
management performance and project success, International Journal of Project Management,
32(2), 202-217.
Mller, R & Turner, R 2007, The influence of project managers on project success criteria and project
success by type of project, European Management Journal, 25, 298-309.
Mller, R & Turner, R 2007, The influence of project managers on project success criteria and project
success by type of project, European Management Journal, 25, 298-309.
Nancarrow, S, Booth, A, Ariss, S & Smith, T 2013, 'Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work',
Hum Resour Health, pp. 11-19.
Neyer, AK & Harzing, AW 2008, The impact of culture on interactions: five lessons learned from the
European Commission, European Management Journal, (in press).
Palermos, OS 2014, 'Knowledge and cognitive integration', Synthese, vol 191, no. 8, pp. 1931-1951.
Pihl, H 2010, Is coordination influenced by culture? A comparison of Sweden and China, Problems
and Perspectives in Management. 8(1), 61-69
Project Management Institute (PMI) 2008, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK), 4th Edition, Pennsylvania, Project Management Institute.

Ravasi, D & Schultz, M 2006, Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the role of
organizational culture, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp.433458
Rubinstein, A 2007, 'Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times', The Economic
Journal, vol 117, no. 523, pp. 12431259.
Runde, CE & Flanagan, TA 2007, Becoming a conflict competent leader: how you and your
organization can manage conflict effectively, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Saad, R, Dong, H & Wan, H 2015, Factors of project manager success, Interdisciplinary Journal of
Information, Knowledge, and Management, 10,63-80.
Sage, D, Dainty, A & Brookes, N 2014, A critical argument in favor of theoretical pluralism: Project
failure and the many and varied limitations of project management, International Journal of
Project Management, 32(4), 544-555
Sanderson, J 2012, Risk, uncertainty and governance in mega projects -A critical discussion of
alternative explanations, International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 432-443.
Schneider, M & Somers, M 2006, 'Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of
Complexity Theory for leadership research', The Leadership Quarterly, vol 17, pp. 351-365.
Sharpe, A 2006, The psychological contract in a changing work environment , Work Institute paper
Slater, MD, Snyder, L & Hayes, AF 2006, Thinking and modeling at multiple levels: The potential
contribution of multilevel modeling to communication theory and research, Human
Communication Research, 32, 375384.
Sderlund, J & Mller, R 2014, Project management and organization theory: IRNOP Meets PMJ,
Project Management Journal, 45(4), 2-6.
Staats, B., 2012. Unpacking team familiarity: The effects of geographic location and hierarchical role.
Production and Operations Management, 21(3), 619-635.

Starkweather, J & Stevenson, D 2011, PMP certification as a core competency: Necessary but not
sufficient, Project Management Journal, 42(1), 31-41.
Stigliani, I & Ravasi, D 2012, Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the
transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking, Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 1232-1260.
Tabassi, Amin A, Mahyuddin, R & Hassan, AB 2012, Effects of Training and Motivation Practices on
Teamwork Improvement and Task Efficiency: The Case of Construction Firms, International
Journal of Project Management,30(2), pp. 213-224.
Umans, T, Collin, SO & Tagesson, T 2008, Ethnic and gender diversity, process and performance in
groups of business students in Sweden, Intercultural Education,19(3), 243-254.
Useem, J 2006, What's That Spell? TEAMWORK!, Fortune.153.11: 64
Van Knippenberg, D. & Schippers, M.C. 2007. Work Group Diversity. Annual Review Psychology, 58:
2.1-2.27.
Van Knippenberg, D & Schippers, MC 2007, Work group diversity, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 58, pp.515541.
Vangen, S & Huxham, C 2012, The tangled web: Unravelling the principle of common goals in
collaborations, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,22(4), 731-760.
Wang , S, Mannix , E & Cronin , M 2016, 'The Influence of Representational Gaps on Team Processes
and Performance', Journal of International Management.
Watson, W, Johnson, L & Merritt, D 2008, 'Team Orientation, Self-Orientation, and Diversity in Task
Groups', Group Organization Management , vol 23, no. 2, pp. 161-188.

Watson, WE, Cooper, D, Torres, M & Boyd, NG 2008, Team process, team conflict, team outcomes and
gender: An examination of U.S. and Mexican learning teams, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations , 32, 524-537.
Weingart, LR, Cronin, MA, Houser, CJ, Cagan, J & Vogel, CM 2005, Functional diversity and conflict
in cross-functional product development teams: Considering representational gaps and task
characteristics. In L.L. Neider, and C. Schreishman (Eds.). Understanding Teams, Research in
Management,Vol. 4:89-110. Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Xia, L, Shami, SN, Yuan, CY & Gay, G 2007, The impact of negative relations on performance and
satisfaction in-group work, Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. Hawaii, USA.
Yang, LR, Huang, CF & Wu, KS 2011, The association among project manager's leadership style,
teamwork and project success, International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 258-267.
Yusof, AA, & Shamsuri, NA 2006, Organizational justice as a determinant of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Malaysian Management Review, 41(1), 47-62.

Teamwork and Project Management 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teamwork and Project Management 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teamwork and Project Management 1

TEAMWORK FAILURE IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Before discussing teamwork in project management, it is important to understand the

concept of project. Project Management Institute (2008) defines project as an endeavor

undertaken to create a service, a product or a result (Schwalbe, 2006). According to Shwalbe, a

advancements in the marketplace have created massive constrains on current organizational

project management objectives can be accomplished through resource planning, organizing,

review section explores what leads to unsuccessful teamwork in project management.

sustainability purposes are discussed.

team will disintegrate and will not be achieve its objectives.

According to Rubinstein (2007) almost two-thirds of projects, particularly those in

generally not sufficient tools to ensure the success of a project.

The role of a project manager in developing a cohesive team cannot be understated

project manager has a duty to manage a projects team appropriately by communicating

According to Hyvri, dependency on technology for communication, geographical diversity, and

collaboration management magnify the project managers challenges of successfully leading a

project manager establishes an environment of innovation, adaptability, and creativity by

Conflicts can be functional or destructive to a team (Runde & Flanagan, 2007).

employ perspective-taking techniques to address conflict. Perspective taking is a tool employed

identified and are discussed below;

Interactional uncertainty is an important factor to consider when managing people in a

the diversity of team members is an indicator of interactional uncertainty (Sanderson, 2012).

lead to dissimilar consequences, which lead to team disintegration.

the demographic differences of members who constitute a projects team.

One of the fundamental causes of intractable conflict is moral difference. In a study by

to compromise on matters of injustice often leading to intractable conflicts. According to the

becomes difficult to negotiate, obscuring the actual interests in the process.

discovery of compromise or common ground.

intractable. Linked to unfair treatment, there is a strong interdependence between intractable

conflict and violation of team members rights.

Conflict Resolution Methods

Conflict resolution methodology applied by a project manager plays an important role in

more of a confrontational approach to solve conflicts create an environment characterized with

major cause of teamwork breakdown in many projects. According to Baldwin (2006),

organizational justice is an extension of traditional models of work behavior that tend to

organizational justice include interactional, distributive, and procedural.

Distributive justice refers to outcomes distributed proportional to identifiable inputs

the precincts of procedural justice. However, it is significant enough to be considered separately

by a team member working in a project, particularly as part of formalized decision-making

to reduce or eliminate the sense of anger generated.

styles, interpersonal conflicts and project outcomes in a team of information systems

development (ISD) projects. The researchers defined interpersonal conflict to mean an

and management of interpersonal conflict are important. However, failing to prevent

interpersonal conflicts could adversely affect teamwork.

Various studies on demographic heterogeneity in project management have traditionally

them, thus losing the ability to make accurate predictions.

Increased demographic heterogeneity in project management has been expected to

advantages of demographic heterogeneity, project managers have eagerly incorporated workforce

investigate the effects of demographic heterogeneity on teamwork disintegration and conflict

demographic heterogeneity led lower cooperation among team members.

negatively related to effectiveness and team leaders rating of team empowerment.

Wang, Mannix, and Cronin (2016) define representational gap as fundamental

cause of much of the conflict that arises.

be done in order to achieve team goals.

According to a study by Mathieu et al. (2009), lack of cognitive integration is another

in disintegrated teams is affective integration, unlike cognitive integration, affective integration

perceive to be of different perspective from them. Affective integration takes an emotion-based

knowledge sharing and knowledge use.

subsequently stimulating agreement in extremely diverse teams with varying perspectives.

different thought processes.

positive functioning of representational gaps in three fundamental ways: improving cognitive

improved understanding of each other.

number of conceptual and theoretical approaches explicating the relationship between