International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Project Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Exploring variety in factors that stimulate project managers to address

sustainability issues
Gilbert Silvius a,b,∗, Ron Schipper c
a
LOI University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands
b
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
c
Municipality of Waddinxveen, the Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: As it is increasingly being recognized that projects play a key-role in creating a more sustainable society, the
Project management integration of the concepts of sustainability into project management should be considered as one of the most im-
Sustainability portant global project management trends today. This integration refers both to the sustainability of the project’s
Sustainable development
deliverable and to the sustainable management of projects. In this last perspective, sustainable project management,
Behavior
the project manager has a central and influential position. However, many factors or circumstances influence the
Q-methodology
behavior of the project manager with regards to addressing sustainability in his or her project?
The study reported in this paper explored the variety factors that stimulate the project manager to address sus-
tainability issues in the project he or she is managing. Based on the factors provided by the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPA), the study used Q-methodology to explore different subjective patterns of stimulus project man-
agers experience. Based on the factor analysis of 49 Q-sorts, we discovered three factors in the stimulation of
sustainable project management behavior. These three factors, that represent distinct stimulus patterns, were
labeled as “Pragmatic”, “Intrinsically motivated” and “Task driven”.
By identifying three distinct patterns of what stimulates project managers to address sustainability issues, the
study contributes to a successful implementation of sustainable project management as a new ‘school of thought’
in project management.

1. Introduction mental role in realizing the sustainability strategies of organizations and

Concerns about the balance between economic growth, social well-
being and the use of natural resources emerged as early as the 18th
century (For example Von Carlowitz, 1713; Malthus, 1798). However,
it took until the second half of the 20th century before the concerns
about sustainability and sustainable development became broadly rec-
ognized as a political, societal and managerial challenge (Dyllick and
Hockerts, 2002). The 1972 book “The Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al.,
1972) predicts that the exponential growth of world population and
world economy will result in overshooting our planet’s capacity of
natural resources. Today, it is estimated that per year, our current
society uses between 1.5 and 1.6 times earth’s annual bio capacity
(Toderoiu, 2010). Senior business professionals acknowledge that “busi-
ness will need to play the leading role in advancing sustainability in the fu-
ture” (BSR/GlobeScan, 2017) and this adoption of sustainability requires
rethinking and redevelopment of business strategies, products/services,
processes and resources (Silvius et al., 2012). Projects play an instru-
thereby the sustainable development of society (Marcelino-Sádaba et al.,
2015).
The relationship between sustainability and project management
is being addressed in a growing number of studies and publications
(Silvius and Schipper, 2014; Aarseth et al., 2017; Sabini et al., 2019),
and ‘Green’ or ‘sustainable’ project management’ is identified as one of
the most important global project management trends today (Alvarez-
Dionisi et al., 2016).
From the evolving literature on the integration of sustainability
and project management, it appears that the relationship between sus-
tainability and project management can be interpreted in two ways
(Silvius and Schipper, 2015; Sabini et al., 2019):
- “Sustainability by the project” (Huemann and Silvius, 2017, p. 1066):
the sustainability of the deliverable or result that the project realizes;
- “Sustainability of the project” (Huemann and Silvius, 2017, p. 1066):
the sustainability of the delivery and management processes of the
project.

∗
Corresponding author at: LOI University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands.
E-mail address: mail@gilbertsilvius.nl (G. Silvius).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.08.003
Received 8 August 2019; Received in revised form 5 June 2020; Accepted 16 August 2020
Available online 2 September 2020
0263-7863/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
G. Silvius and R. Schipper
Several publications highlight the role of the project manager in the
sustainable management of a project. For example, Taylor recognizes
that “Project and Programme Managers are significantly placed to make con-
tributions to Sustainable Management practices” (Association for Project
Management, 2006: 7). Maltzman and Shirley (2013) even talk about
a pivotal role of the project manager and Hwang and Ng (2013) con-
clude that “Today’s project manager fulfills not only traditional roles of
project management but also must manage the project in the most effi-
cient and effective manner with respect to sustainability.” (Hwang and
Ng, 2013:273). The project manager has a central position in the project
and that provides the opportunity to influence many aspects of the
project (Silvius, 2016a).
However, having the opportunity to act may not be enough
(Silvius and De Graaf, 2019). Logically many other factors or circum-
stances influence the actual behavior of the project manager with re-
gards to addressing sustainability in his or her project. However, the
understanding of these factors, and how different project managers ex-
periences these factors, is still limited. It is this research gap that the
study reported in this article recognizes and aims to contribute to. The
study explored the patterns of factors that stimulate the project man-
ager to address sustainability issues in the project he or she is manag-
ing. Based on the factors provided by the Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPA) (Ajzen, 1991), the study used Q-methodology to explore differ-
ent subjective patterns of stimulus, project managers experience. The
research question of this study was formulated as: What patterns of fac-
tors stimulate project managers to address the sustainability issues of their
projects?
The study aims to contributes to the understanding of the human
behavior of project managers, with regards to sustainability. The study
addresses the gap that exists in the current literature on sustainable
project management, which is focused on the justification of sustain-
ability in projects and its implications for project management methods
and processes (Sabini et al, 2019). In this literature, the perspective of
the individual is still unexplored. And as sustainability is not interpreted
or applied in a single generalizable way, the study will follow the recom-
mendation of Huemann and Silvius (2017) and aim to capture a variety
or diversity of perspectives.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In the next para-
graph, the concepts and dimensions of sustainability and their impact
on project management will be explored, based on the emerging liter-
ature on the topic. The following paragraph will describe the research
design of the study, which was based on Q-methodology. Paragraph 4
will present the findings of our study, after which the article will be con-
cluded with a discussion on the conclusions that can be derived from the
study.
2. Sustainability and project management
2.1. Sustainability and projects
The prediction that the growth of population and economy
will result in overshooting Earth’s capacity of natural resources
(Meadows et al, 1972) fueled the debate about the sustainability of de-
velopment of mankind. This debate led to the installation of the UN
World Commission on Development and Environment, often referred to
as the Brundtland commission. In their final report, this commission
defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Devel-
opment, 1987). Sustainability requires a balance, or harmony, between
different perspectives on performance and development. This multi-
perspective view is popularized in the ‘Triple Bottom Line’ (TBL) con-
cept of Elkington (1994), that incorporates three perspectives on perfor-
mance and development: social, environmental and economic. As such
it is the foundation for many sets of sustainable development indica-
354
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367
tors that aim to measure, communicate or evaluate an organization’s
sustainability performance (Bell and Morse, 2003).
In the 1990s, the concept of sustainable development got also ap-
plied to business and organizations, thereby creating a link between
sustainable development and (Corporate) Social Responsibility (CSR)
(Ebner and Baumgartner, 2006). And when the International Organiza-
tion for Standardization defined (C)SR as the “responsibility of an organi-
zation for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the envi-
ronment, through ….. behavior that: contributes to sustainable development”
(International Organization for Standardization, 2010), it supported the
notion that sustainability is a responsibility of companies and organiza-
tions, just as it is for societies and governments.
The responsibility that organizations assume for their societal im-
pacts and sustainability, inevitably leads to changes in the prod-
ucts, services, processes, policies and resources of these organizations
(Tulder et al., 2014). Following the reasoning that projects are in-
struments to realize this organizational change (Lundin and Söder-
holm, 1995), a growing number of publications highlight the role of
projects in the sustainable development of organizations and society
(Silvius et al., 2012; Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015; Sabini et al., 2019).
Considering projects from a societal and sustainability perspective is
one of the defining elements in the emerging sustainability ‘school of
thought’ in project management (Silvius, 2017). This school of thought
does not only recognize an impact of project management on sustain-
able development, but also suggests that considering sustainability in
projects has an impact on the way projects are designed, planned, exe-
cuted, managed and governed (Ibid.).
As indicated in the introduction, the relationship between sus-
tainability and project management can be interpreted in two ways
(Silvius and Schipper, 2015; Sabini et al., 2019): “Sustainability by the
project” and “Sustainability of the project”.
For sustainability by the project, the TBL provides a framework for
integrating sustainability requirements into the content related as-
pects of the project (Silvius and Schipper, 2014), such as the speci-
fications and design of the project’s deliverable (Brones et al., 2014;
Aarseth et al, 2017), materials used (Akadiri, 2015), benefits to be
achieved (Weninger and Huemann, 2013; Silvius et al., 2012), qual-
ity and success criteria (Martens and Carvalho, 2017). Studies on the
integration of sustainability into project management that take this
content related perspective, often focus on operationalizing the Triple
Bottom line by developing sets of indicators on the different perspec-
tives (For example Bell and Morse, 2003; Edum-Fotwe and Price, 2009;
Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López, 2010; Keeble et al., 2003;
Labuschagne and Brent, 2008; Martens and Carvalho, 2017).
For sustainability of the project, the sustainability perspective is
applied to the processes of project management and delivery, such
as the identification and engagement of stakeholders (Eskerod and
Huemann, 2013; Sánchez, 2015), the process of procurement in the
project (Molenaar and Sobin, 2010), the development of the busi-
ness case (Weninger and Huemann, 2013), the monitoring of the
project (Sánchez, 2015), the identification and management of project
risks (Silvius, 2016b), the communication in and by the project
(Pade et al., 2008), and the selection and organization of the project
team (Silvius and Schipper, 2014).
The sustainability of the project view culminated into the concept
of ‘Sustainable Project Management’ that is defined as “the planning,
monitoring and controlling of project delivery and support processes, with
consideration of the environmental, economic and social aspects of the life-
cycle of the project’s resources, processes, deliverables and effects, aimed at
realising benefits for stakeholders, and performed in a transparent, fair and
ethical way that includes proactive stakeholder participation.” (Silvius and
Schipper, 2014).
Sustainable Project Management implies a scope shift in project
management (Silvius et al., 2012): from managing time, budget and
quality, to managing social, environmental and economic impact
(Haugan, 2012). The new perspectives that considering sustainability
G. Silvius and R. Schipper
Table 1
The different roles of the project manager (based on Bentahar and Ika, 2019).
Role Description
Manager Make sure that the project delivers in terms of time, cost and
quality, through planning, coordinating, monitoring and controlling.
Technical Set up methods and techniques necessary for project success
Responder Respond and adapt rapidly to facts and changes
Leader Inspire, motivate and encourage the members of the project team
Innovator Explore new materials, technologies or methods
Champion Oversee and sell the project; ensure its progress by overcoming
resistance, taking risks and securing resources and support from
stakeholders
brings to project management also adds complexity (Silvius et al., 2012;
Eskerod and Huemann, 2013). The integration of sustainability there-
fore needs a more holistic and less mechanical approach to project man-
agement (Gareis et al., 2013).
2.2. The role of the project manager
The role of the project manager lacks a clear definition (Hölzle, 2010;
Ika and Saint-Macary, 2012). Logically this role starts with set of formal
responsibilities (Ahsan et al., 2013), related to the planning and con-
trol of the project. These responsibilities position the role of the project
manager as an internally oriented guardian of the project plan. How-
ever, quite often also additional roles are expected from the project
manager (Shenhar et al., 1997). For example Gaddis (1959), also sees a
more externally oriented role of the project manager as ‘front man’ of
the project that “sells and resells the project to stakeholders and commu-
nicates, shapes, and reshapes the relevant policies and guidelines” (Ika and
Saint-Macary, 2012). Bentahar and Ika (2019), based on a review of
classifications of the role of the project manager, identify six roles of
the project manager (Table 1)
From the overview of roles of the project manager, it can be con-
cluded that the role of the project manager has evolved from the
planning and control oriented administrator of the project, to a lead-
ership position that also co-shapes the project (Ahsan et al., 2013).
It may therefore not be surprising that several authors (For exam-
ple (Turner, 2010; Silvius et al., 2012; Maltzman and Shirley, 2013;
Goedknegt, 2013) conclude a central role for the project manager with
regards to the consideration of sustainability in a project. In fact, all roles
in and around a project can influence the sustainability of the project
(Goedknegt, 2013), however, most influence is expected from the roles
of the project sponsor and the project manager (Silvius et al., 2012).
For the project sponsor role, this influence is undisputed. The project
sponsor is the one that commissions the project, sets the project objec-
tives and the goals and is “ultimately answerable for how the project is man-
aged, for the success or failure of the product of the project and the realization
of benefits” (GAPPS, 2017:7). Given this role of the project sponsor, some
authors, do not accept any role or responsibility of the project manager
for the sustainability and impacts of the project manager (For example
Wideman, 2016). However, this may be seen as a (too) narrow and ‘task
oriented’ perspective on project management, in which projects are seen
as temporary endeavors that carry out given tasks (Andersen, 2008).
This task perspective limits the role of the project manager to the inter-
nally oriented planning and control of the project team.
In what is now recognized as the Scandinavian School of project
management, projects are considered from a more ‘organizational’ per-
spective. In this perspective, a project is “a temporary organization, es-
tablished by its base organization to carry out an assignment on its behalf”
(Andersen, 2008), with as main purpose the creation of value. This fo-
cus on value creation requires the project manager to be more exter-
nally oriented, on the relationships between the project team and the
organizational context, in addition to being oriented on the fulfilment
of the given task by the project team. The organizational perspective
355
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367
Sources
Gaddis (1959); Wilemon and Cicero (1970)
Gaddis (1959); Wilemon and Cicero (1970)
Meng and Boyd (2017); Brady and Davies (2014)
Müller and Turner (2007); Kelley and Lee (2010); Clark and Fujimoto
(1991); Meng and Boyd (2017); Anantatmula (2010)
Kelley and Lee (2010); Maidique (1980); Rothwell et al. (1974)
Kelley and Lee (2010); Gaddis (1959); Clark and Fujimoto (1991);
Maidique (1980); Rothwell et al. (1974); Meng and Boyd (2017)
on projects therefore stretches the system boundaries of project man-
agement beyond the task perspective and recognizes an influence of
the project manager on the project’s objectives, goals and effects, also
without the formal responsibility for this. This perspective relies on the
broader understanding of the role of the project manager, as presented
in Table 1 (Bentahar and Ika, 2019). In these roles it is often not the
question whether the project manager has the formal responsibility, but
about the responsibility the project manager takes, based on his or her
informal influence.
And where the project manager’s influence on the sustainability of
the deliverable of the project is limited by the project objectives and re-
quirements provided by the project owner, this will often not be the case
for the non-content aspects of the project, such as the way the manage-
ment and delivery processes of the project are planned, organized and
performed (Silvius et al., 2012). Following the concept of management
by objectives, the project owner will provide less directions on how the
project’s processes are performed, as long as they lead to the fulfillment
of the project objectives.
The responsibility that the project manager has or takes for the sus-
tainability of a project, is also included in the latest versions of profes-
sional project management standards, For example, the IPMA Individual
Competence Baseline version 4 (International Project Management As-
sociation, 2015a), refers explicitly to sustainability, and prescribes that
the project manager should be able to “assess the impact of the project
on the environment and society” and that he/she “researches, recommends
and applies measures to limit or compensate negative consequences” (Ibid.).
With the explicit reference to the effects of project’s processes and prod-
ucts on the environment and society, the ICB4 acknowledges the re-
lation between projects and sustainability, and establishes a role for
the project manager in this relationship (Silvius, 2017). In line with
this, also the “Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct” of both PMI and
IPMA (Project Management Institute, 2010; International Project Man-
agement Association, 2015b) describe a professional responsibility of
the project manager for sustainability. It should therefore be questioned
whether the project manager can ignore a certain responsibility for ap-
plying this influence in order to make his/her project more sustainable
(Silvius et al., 2012).
Despite the growing attention for the role that project managers can
and should take with regards to the sustainability and societal impacts of
their projects, Økland (2015) still observes a gap between the literature
and what is carried out in practice. The project manager is observed to
be reluctant in using the influence he or she has (Silvius and De Graaf,
2019). Silvius and Schipper (2014) therefore conclude that sustainable
project management requires a mind shift of the project manager. This
mind shift relates to the way the project manager sees his/her role
(Crawford, 2013). Traditionally, project managers position themselves
as subordinate to the project sponsor and manage their projects around
scope, stakeholders, deliverables, budget, risks and resources as speci-
fied by the stakeholder’s requirements (Silvius et al., 2012). In the mind
shift that Silvius and Schipper (2014) conclude, the change a project re-
alizes is no longer a given fact, nor exclusively the responsibility of the
project sponsor. In sustainable project management, the project man-
G. Silvius and R. Schipper International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367

ager realizes that the project positively or negatively impacts society

and takes action in trying to minimize negative impacts while boosting
positive contributions (Ibid.). And while doing this, it is for this project
manager not relevant whether he or she is factually responsible for the
project’s impacts. Sustainable project management is about taking re-
sponsibility (Silvius et al., 2012).

2.3. Factors influencing sustainable behavior

Sustainable project management in the end evolves about the be-

havior of the project manager (Silvius, 2019). The consideration of sus-
tainability in the behavior of individuals has mostly been studied in the
context of consumer behavior (For example by Mont and Plepys, 2008;
Barr et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2015; Chen and Hung, 2016), however,
these studies logically do not address the influence of the organizational
context on behavior. The implementation of sustainability in organiza-
tions is often discussed as a top-down process, in which external pres-
sure mounts up and organizations react by addressing sustainability in
their strategies (Tulder et al., 2014). Logically these strategies influ-
ence the behavior of employees and managers in these organizations
and it may be expected that a more sustainable business strategy leads
to more sustainable behavior by individuals in the organization. How-
ever, the few studies that specifically focused on sustainable-friendly
behavior of managers within an organizational environment, for exam-
ple Cordano and Frieze (2000) and Ruepert et al. (2016), found that
more factors influence this behavior. In both studies, it was concluded
that the personal attitude of the manager played a significant role in the
adoption of sustainable-friendly behavior. Ruepert et al. (2016) refer to
this as the “self-identity” of the manager, “which in turn strengthens their
feelings of moral obligation”. This ‘soft side’ of sustainability (Brones et al.,
2017) has only more recently been addressed in studies.
Another factor that influenced the adoption of sustainability-friendly
behavior was formed by the structural factors conditions within the
work environment and how these factors supported the desired behav-
ior (Ruepert et al., 2016). Examples they mention include a central-
ized heating system that diminishes control over heating an individ-
ual’s office and thereby preventing that that individual takes action to
safe energy (Ibid,). Or the characteristics of the work itself, for exam-
ple the need to travel to external locations that lack appropriate pub-
lic transportation, may inhibit pro-environmental behavior. They con-
cluded that “such structural barriers may strongly affect employees’ con-
trol over their pro-environmental behavior at work, and their possibility to
act upon their feelings of moral obligation to behave pro-environmentally at
work” (Ruepert et al., 2016).
Recently, Silvius and De Graaf (2019) explored the stimulus factors
behind a project manager’s intention to address sustainability with the
project board, as a sustainability enhancing intervention that the project
manager can do. Their quantitative study identified four factors that in-
fluence this intention: Moral compass & Personal ability, Potential bene-
fit, Potential risk and Organizational fit. The Potential risk factor that the
project manager perceived inhibited the addressing of sustainability in
the project board, whereas the other three factors supported this inter-
vention.
The study of Silvius and De Graaf (2019), as well as the study of
Cordano and Frieze (2000), use the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
(Ajzen, 1991) as theoretical foundation of their studies. TPB is one of
the most used frameworks of factors to explain sustainable behavior and
aims to better understand, describe, predict and control behavior, by
linking beliefs and behavior. According to the TPB, (intended) human
behavior is guided by three kinds of beliefs:
- Behavioral beliefs: beliefs about the likely outcomes of the behavior
and the evaluations of these outcomes. These beliefs produce a fa-
vorable or unfavorable attitude of a person towards the behavior. At-
titudes toward a behavior arise from a person’s beliefs about the con-
sequences resulting from its performance and the person’s affective
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
response to those consequences. Ajzen proposed that a per son’s in-
tention to perform a behavior increases as his or her attitudes toward
the behavior becomes more favorable (Cordano and Frieze, 2000).
- Normative beliefs: beliefs about the normative expectations of others
and motivation to comply with these expectations. These belief re-
sult in the perceived social pressure or a subjective norm. This variable
indicates the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a
certain behavior. Subjective norms are a function of a person’s per-
ception of important referents’ evaluation of a behavior and the per-
son’s motivation to conform to those evaluations.
As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and the subjec-
tive norm, the stronger a person’s intention to perform the behavior in
question. In the theory of planned behavior, Ajzen built on the theory
of reasoned action (Cordano and Frieze, 2000). The difference between
the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the theory
of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is the addition of the a third variable:
perceived behavioral control.
- Control beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facili-
tate or impede performance of the behavior and the perceived power
of these factors. These beliefs give rise to the perceived behavioral con-
trol. The perceived behavioral control variable indicates a person’s
perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior in
question (Cordano and Frieze, 2000).. This variable reflects aspects
of the person, such as her or his level of self-efficacy, and aspects of
the behavior, such as the availability of tooling and organizational
support.
In combination, these beliefs lead to the formation of a behavioral
intention (Ajzen, 1991). Fig. 1 illustrates the conceptual model of the
TPB.
TPB is a popular way to examine underlying constructs of behavior.
Armitage and Conner (2001) examined the efficacy of the TPB in the
form of a meta-analysis of 185 independent studies. They concluded the
predictive value of the TPB showed to be significant.
The study reported in this article selected the TPB as the conceptual
starting point for the exploration of patterns of factors that stimulate the
sustainability behavior of project managers.
3. Research strategy
This paragraph presents the research strategy and research design of
the study. As Huemann and Silvius (2017) recommended that studies
on the integration of sustainability should take into account differences
in projects, industries, strategies, attitudes and values and advised that
these differences be explored using methods that are suitable for captur-
ing variety and diversity, the study choose an explorative approach. By
exploring the subjective ranking of considerations affecting the behavior
of project managers, the study aims to understands which different pat-
terns of stimulation influences the behavior of project managers with

356
G. Silvius and R. Schipper
Fig. 2. Structure of the Q-sort diagram used.
regards to addressing sustainability issues. As different project man-
agers may be stimulated by different considerations, we selected Q-
methodology as research methodology. Q-methodology analyzes differ-
ent patterns of behavior that may appear, instead of focusing on a single
average behavioral pattern. Q-methodology provides a foundation for
the systematic study of the subjectivity that individuals, logically have
in their decision-making (Brown, 1980).
3.1. Q-methodology
Q-methodology has its roots in psychology and in social science to
study people’s subjectivity and has shown its usability in the context
of project management research (For example Suprapto et al., 2015;
Silvius et al., 2017; Gijzel et al., 2020). Q-methodology differs from
R-methodology, surveys and questionnaires, as used by Silvius and
De Graaf (2019) in their study on the behavior of project managers,
in that the latter asks participants to express views on isolated state-
ments, whereas Q-methodology identifies participants’ views on state-
ments in the context of the valuation of all statements presented (see
e.g. Dryzek and Berejikian, 1993). Furthermore, as opposed to R-
methodology, Q-Methodology intends to show different answering pat-
terns among the population.
In Q-methodology, the participants are presented with a set of state-
ments about the topic of the study (Watts and Stenner, 2005), called the
Q-set. Participants, called the P-set, are asked to rank-order the state-
ments from their individual point of view, according to some preference,
judgment or feeling about them, mostly using a quasi-normal distribu-
tion, as illustrated in Fig. 2).
By ‘Q-sorting’ the statements, the participants give their subjective
meaning to the statements, and in this way they reveal their subjective
viewpoint (Smith, 2001) or personal perspective (Brouwer, 1999).
3.2. Q-set statements
The development of the Q-set of statements start with the so-called
‘concourse’, the collection and gathering of ideas for potential state-
ments (Dziopa and Ahern, 2011). In the concourse, it is important to
cover a broad range of potentially relevant insights (Amin, 2000), which
in our study referred to a broad identification of potentially stimulating
factors. Ideas for potential factors may be developed based on an existing
theory or inductively from a formal or informal analysis (Webler et al.,
2009). In this step, a ‘long list’ of potential statements was developed
by reviewing earlier studies that used TPB. And although these stud-
ies were on the content level unrelated with the research topic of our
study, they provided ideas, examples and suggestions for typical words
that would fit the three categories of beliefs.
As Q-methodology aims to generate ideas and not to restrict these
(Amin, 2000), the statements do not need to be theory driven (Watts and
Stenner, 2005). However, building upon a theoretical framework in the
concourse supports the identification of relevant insights (Brown, 1986)
357
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367
and offers the opportunity to, in the analysis of response patterns,
relate the patterns back to the underlying theoretical framework
(Barchak, 1979).
In the next step of the concourse, the research team developed the
collected inputs into statements that would grammatically correct com-
plement the ‘umbrella question’ that was formulated as “I am stimulated
to address sustainability issues in my project if/because: … “. For example:
“I am stimulated to address sustainability issues in my project if/because:
… I think it is something that you should do.”. The concourse resulted
in a list of 87 potential statements. In these statements, sustainability
was addressed in general terms as the study was not aimed at exploring
differences in the perception of what sustainability means, but at under-
standing the drivers behind the addressing of sustainability issues.
The next step in the research process was to develop the Q-set of
statements from the concourse (Amin, 2000). The Q-set may be selected
from the concourse randomly or based on an a priori arrangement of
factors (Dziopa and Ahern, 2011). The aim is to select a representative
but not necessarily exhausting set of statements so that the Q-set reflects
all the important ideas, viewpoints, feelings and opinions, but does not
overwhelm the respondent (Schlinger, 1969). For the number of state-
ments in the Q-set there is no clear rule, with indications showing a wide
range. For example between 40 and 80 (Watts and Stenner, 2005), 20
and 50 (Donner, 2001) and 30 and 100 (McKeown and Thomas, 1988).
In line with this, the research team decided to aim for a Q-set of between
40 and 50 statements, with a more or less equal number of statements
referring to each of the three beliefs, behavioral, normative or control,
of the TPB model.
After reducing the list of potential statements to 50 statements, by
removing statements that were quite close to each other, the statements
were tested in a small pilot study with 4 selected participants. And al-
though this piloting does not provide a guarantee that the Q-set is com-
plete, this is not considered a problem, as a Q-set never can really be
complete (Watts and Stenner, 2005). After the pilot study, it was decided
to do the study with a final Q-set of 46 statements. In the formulation of
statements, it was ensured that all statements were written in the same
style and double negatives were avoided (Donner, 2001:27). Of the final
Q-set of 46 statements, 12 statements represented behavioral beliefs, 16
statements normative beliefs and 18 control beliefs.
The different categories of TPB beliefs relate to different sources of
perceived influence, which was expressed in the formulation of the state-
ments. For example, behavioral beliefs stem from the individual him or
herself and were therefore formulated with reference to ‘I’ or the persons
personal values, as in “I think it is the right thing to do”. Normative beliefs
refer to the views or opinions of other people, so the statements would
be referring to others, such as “Customers ask about it and/or find it inter-
esting”. The control category was formulated with reference to practical
applications and/or success. Table 2 presents the final Q-set.
The statements were printed on individual cards (Denzine 1998),
that the participants were asked to rank-order from “Most disagree” to
“Most agree” on a Q-sort diagram as illustrated in Fig. 2. The study used
a symmetrical diagram, as is usually preferred in Q-methodology.
3.3. Data collection
Data collection was done in structured interviews, mostly face-to-
face but some were online. Before sorting the statements, the partici-
pants were asked a number of initial questions about their demograph-
ical information and their work context. After the sort, the participants
were asked some open questions. These questions were designed to find
the respondent’s motivation for ranking certain statements maximum
high and other statements maximum low.
3.4. Sample
As Q-methodology aims to reveal (and to explicate) some of the main
viewpoints that are favored by a particular group of participants, large
G. Silvius and R. Schipper International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367

Table 2
The statements of the Q-set.

Category Number Statement

Behavioral 1 I find it important that we treat the earth well

Behavioral 4 It also has positive effects on other aspects of the project
Behavioral 6 I am able to clearly explain what can be gained from addressing the sustainability issues
Behavioral 11 It has a stimulating effect on how people work together
Behavioral 13 It has a stimulating effect on others, causing them to start addressing them too
Behavioral 18 I am able to clearly explain what is meant by sustainability issues
Behavioral 23 I find it important that future generations can live a normal life
Behavioral 24 I see the necessity and usefulness of addressing the sustainability issues
Behavioral 28 It has a stimulating effect on how the project is supported
Behavioral 32 I think it is something that you should do
Behavioral 33 It becomes easier or more enjoyable to work with
Behavioral 38 It poses no risk to the project
Normative 40 I am seen as more valuable because of it
Normative 2 It has a good image
Normative 5 Customers ask about it and/or find it interesting
Normative 12 IPMA and PMI name it in their code of conduct
Normative 16 There is more attention from my personal environment for it
Normative 17 There is social advertising for it, making it fun and/or cool
Normative 19 I hear enthusiastic stories from my colleagues
Normative 25 It is part of the certification as a project manager
Normative 26 It gives me more status
Normative 29 It suits the culture of the company
Normative 31 Others are open to it and/or are interested in it
Normative 34 My project team is interested in it and/or likes it
Normative 37 There is an impulse from the company to address it
Normative 41 Key people find it important (project board/executive board/ management)
Normative 43 The people around me inspire me
Normative 44 Fun colleagues are doing it too
Control 3 My team has the knowledge, skills, or abilities to do something with it
Control 7 I know exactly what is meant by sustainability issues
Control 9 I can see the results of my work
Control 10 Colleagues share knowledge about sustainability issues
Control 14 It is part of the goals and/or contract
Control 15 I have the knowledge, skills or abilities to do something with it
Control 20 I would encounter it more often and/or it has more visibility
Control 21 The project and/or product is well suited to it
Control 8 I am rewarded for it
Control 22 There are tools to my disposal
Control 27 I can score with it
Control 30 I can give it shape and/or have my own ideas about it
Control 35 I would be continuously stimulated to work with it
Control 36 I have the mandate for it and/or it is part of my responsibilities
Control 39 I receive the necessary resources to address it
Control 42 It is part of the project plan
Control 45 There was a good initiative from which I could find support
Control 46 The company has the knowledge, skills, or abilities to do something with it

numbers of participants are not required for a Q-methodological study a wide set of industries. In financial size, mid-sized projects of between
(Watts and Stenner, 2005). A sample (P-set) of between 40 and 60 partic- 1 and 10 million euro, are the most represented class.
ipants is considered most effective (Stainton Rogers, 1995). In our study,
In total, 49 participants participated (45 face-to-face and 4 online). Sam-
pling was done using purposive sampling on project management events 3.5. Analysis
and in project management networks. The participants were selected
from different industries. Data collection took place in the Netherlands, The individual Q-sorts of the participants were analyzed in order
with an international outreach. Table 3 provides an overview of the de- to reveal a limited number of factors (stimulus patterns) in which the
mographics of the P-set. statements were sorted by the participants. The completed Q-sorts were
Table 3 shows that the sample was male dominated, a pattern that is recorded on photo and their data entered into PQ Method version 2.35
seen often in project management research, as this represents the pro- (Smolck, 2018). Factor analysis was done using the centroid method,
fessional field of project management. Also the age distribution of the as it is the most commonly used method in Q-studies (Dziopa and Ah-
sample represents the professional project management community, in ern, 2011).
which the more experienced age-group is overrepresented.
In the positions of the participants, project and program manage-
4. Findings
ment are clearly the most represented position, but several positions in
the permanent organization, for example IT management, are also rep-
This paragraph presents the findings of the study. First, the fac-
resented.
tor analysis of the Q-sorts will be presented, followed by the analysis
Regarding the types of projects the participants are working in, or-
and discussion of the different patterns that appeared from the study.
ganizational change and information systems or technology projects are
Section 4.4 will discuss some further observations from the findings of
represented most, whereas construction is underrepresented. As the par-
the study, followed by a discussion of the reflections that can be made,
ticipants were selected from different industries, the sample covers quite
based on the findings.

358
G. Silvius and R. Schipper International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367

Table 3 Table 5
Description of the P-set. Factor statistics.

Question Percentage Answer category Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Gender 78% male Number of defining variables 13 21 11

22% female Average Rel. Coef. 0.800 0.800 0.800
Age 16% 25–34 years Composite Reliability 0.981 0.988 0.978
13% 35–44 years S.E. of Z-Scores 0.137 0.108 0.149
49% 45–54 years
22% 55–64 years
Position (multiple 89% Project or program management Table 6
answers allowed) 18% Portfolio management Loading of the respondents on the three factors.
16% Business development
(∗ Indicates loading at 0.05 significance level; grey
7% General management
cells determine loaded factor.)
4% Commercial management
2% Financial management Participant # Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
20% IT management
9% HR management 1 0.0617 0.0490 0.4114∗
7% Other 2 0.1504 0.3131∗ −0.2691
Type of project 64% Organizational change 3 0.1386 0.3641∗ −0.0424
(multiple answers 49% Information systems or technology 4 0.5298∗ 0.2273 0.3693
allowed 22% Infrastructure 5 0.5638∗ 0.2365 0.2331
7% Construction 6 0.6705∗ 0.3976 0.2575
16% Research & development 7 0.1980 0.4334∗ 0.0752
2% Real estate 8 0.3617∗ 0.1877 0.2506
7% Other 9 −0.1259 0.1474 0.4385∗
Industry (multiple 2% Agriculture 10 0.1715 0.1294 0.2850
answers allowed 13% Industry 11 0.0903 0.4248∗ 0.1495
18% Energy 12 0.4670 −0.1204 0.5665∗
16% Construction 13 0.0729 0.0871 0.1430
7% Health care 14 0.6488∗ 0.2662 0.2073
13% Wholesale and Retail 15 0.0743 0.4037∗ 0.2286
16% Logistics 16 0.0113 0.4015∗ 0.2123
36% Finance 17 0.3076 0.1605 0.5794∗
0% Real estate 18 0.1503 0.5422∗ 0.2889
2% Human Resources 19 0.2501 0.1442 0.4009∗
36% IT and communications 20 0.4908∗ 0.1563 0.0353
24% Management consultancy 21 0.6472∗ −0.1578 0.2708
38% Public sector 22 0.2944 0.3650∗ −0.0276
13% Education 23 0.4568 0.4209 0.2874
11% Others 24 0.6192∗ 0.4841 −0.0815
Project size 36% <1M€ 25 0.4541∗ 0.0404 0.3592
53% 1–10 M € 26 0.4232∗ 0.1145 −0.0283
9% 10–100 M € 27 0.1171 0.4198 0.4582∗
2% > 100 M€ 28 0.1604 0.5884∗ 0.1758
29 −0.0264 -0.1601 0.4594∗
30 0.0060 0.2548 0.5984∗
Table 4 31 0.0584 0.6255∗ 0.1763
Characteristics of the three factors. 32 0.2893 0.0035 0.5282∗
33 0.1647 −0.0177 0.2587
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 34 0.4091 0.2385 0.6804∗
35 0.7600∗ 0.1448 0.0032
Eigenvalues 10.9748 3.8404 2.3278 36 0.0382 0.6090∗ 0.1221
% expl. Var. 22 8 5 37 0.0136 0.3997∗ −0.0616
38 0.4386 0.6914∗ 0.0738
39 0.5303∗ 0.0048 0.3521
40 0.3547 0.5238∗ 0.1822
4.1. Factor analysis 41 0.2671 0.5088∗ 0.1747
42 0.1471 −0.1478 0.5714∗
43 0.4330∗ 0.2207 0.2761
As a first step in the analysis, a principal components factor analysis 44 0.3361 0.3845∗ −0.0772
was performed in which the eigenvalues of the data set were calculated. 45 0.0675 0.3269∗ 0.2519
Following the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (Yeomans and Golder, 1982), 46 0.2718 0.7323∗ −0.3625
the factors with an eigenvalue greater than or equal to 1 were considered 47 0.1504 0.5472∗ −0.2205
48 0.0311 0.3805∗ −0.0997
relevant. This resulted in three factors (Table 4).
49 −0.0195 0.4924∗ 0.2275
The three factors have a total explained Variance of 35%, which
is considered sufficient (Watts and Stenner, 2005). These three factors
were used for further analysis. The measure of internal consistency of
the factors, Composite Reliability, can be considered ‘excellent’, with satisfactory. Table 6 shows this loading of the participants on the three
scores between 0.978 and 0.988 (see Table 5). factors.
Table 5 also shows the number of participants that could be loaded In this study, 4 of the 49 respondents did not fulfill the criteria for
onto the factors (13, 21 and 11). As criteria for loading, the two standard loading on one of the factors. These ‘non-loaders’ were not manually
criteria for loading in Q method analysis were used: (1) participants loaded on to one of the factors. Three of the four because they did not
which factor loading is higher than the threshold for p-value < 0.05 and load strongly on any of the three factors, and one of the four because it
(2) participants which square loading is higher than the sum of square loaded strong on two factors.
loadings of the same Q-sort in all other factors. In total 45 of the 49 For the analysis and interpretation of the identified factors, the non-
participants (92%) could be loaded in one of the factors, which is quite loaders are not considered.

359
G. Silvius and R. Schipper International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367

Table 7
Factor correlations.
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Factor 1 1 0.5320 0.5298
Factor 2 0.5320 1 0.3002
Factor 3 0.5298 0.3002 1
Table 7 shows the correlation between the factors.
From this table it can be concluded that factor 2 and 3 show a low
correlation, with factor 1 showing moderate correlations with both fac-
tors 2 and 3. The factors therefore appear to have a satisfactory level of
uniqueness.
4.2. Analyzing the three factors
As the factors represent distinct stimulus patterns of the project
managers, we will further address them as ‘patterns’. Tables 8 and 9
present the top- and bottom-ranked statements of the stimulus patterns.
In Table 8, the three patterns are presented with the 15 top-ranked
statements, from most important to least important, for each pattern.
Table 9 presents the 15 bottom-ranked statements of each pattern.
Based on the ranking of the statements, and based on the consensus
in the array of the Q-sort during the interviews, we could characterize
the three patterns shown in Tables 8 and 9. Answering pattern 1 was
characterized as “Pragmatic”, pattern 2 as “Intrinsically motivated” and
pattern 3 as “Task driven”.
These characterizations become more clear when we summarize the
ranking of the different categories of statements for each answering pat-
tern (Table 10). With each group of beliefs accounting for approximately
one third of all statements, this Table shows which beliefs are strongest
represented in the top and bottom-ranked statements of the different
patterns.
Elaborating on this characterization of the three patterns, Table 11
provides a view on which statements ‘make the difference’ between the
three. This table shows the statements in order of consensus between
the patterns. The statements with the highest consensus are positioned
at the top of the table, the statements with the lowest consensus are
the bottom. The statements are again color-coded in the three beliefs on
which the statements are based (for the legend, see Tables 8 and 9).
4.2.1. Least defining statements
The statements “The project and/or product is well suited to it” and “I
have the knowledge, skills or abilities to do something with it” appear to be
consensus statements, which means that they are least defining for the
behavior of the project manager. This should not be mistaken for not
being stimulating factors. On the contrary, all three patterns include
these two statements in the top-ranked statements. So, they do matter,
but are more or less equally stimulating for all three patterns.
Another observations that can be made from the Table 11 is that in
all three patterns, the two statements that are related to project manage-
ment standards, certifications and the organizations issuing these stan-
dards, “It is part of the certification as a project manager” and “IPMA and
PMI name it in their code of conduct”, are ranked very low. This may
be considered remarkable, given the growing numbers of project man-
agement certification and the fact that both IPMA and PMI are imple-
menting sustainability considerations in their standards. Apparently, the
perception of the participants does not include this development.
4.2.2. Most defining statements
The bottom of Table 11 shows the statements that were ranked most
differently in the three patterns. The five statements with the lowest
level of consensus includes three behavioral beliefs statements: “I think
it is something that you should do”, “I find it important that we treat the earth
well” and “I find it important that future generations can live a normal life”.
On these statements, the Intrinsically motivated pattern typically rank
them quite high, with the other patterns in a middle position or low.
The Task oriented pattern ranked the normative belief statement “It is
part of the goals and/or contract” high, while the other patterns ranked
this statement very low.

Table 8
Top-ranked statements per answering pattern.

360
G. Silvius and R. Schipper International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367

Table 9
Bottom-ranked statements per answering pattern.

Table 10
Summary of categorization of statements in top and bottom-ranked statements per pattern.

Pattern 1: Pragmatic Pattern 2: Intrinsically motivated Pattern 3: Task driven

Category % statements Category % statements Category % statements

Top-ranked statements Behavioral beliefs 20% Behavioral beliefs 60% Behavioral beliefs 20%
Normative beliefs 27% Normative beliefs 7% Normative beliefs 40%
Control beliefs 53% Control beliefs 33% Control beliefs 40%

Bottom-ranked statements Behavioral beliefs 13% Behavioral beliefs 7% Behavioral beliefs 20%
Normative beliefs 47% Normative beliefs 40% Normative beliefs 47%
Control beliefs 40% Control beliefs 53% Control beliefs 33%

These observations quite clearly illustrate the difference in views of
these two patterns.
4.3. Interpreting the patterns
This paragraph provides a more in depth description of the patterns,
with addition of illustrative quotes from the open questions about their
motivation to rank certain statements maximum high and others maxi-
mum low.
4.3.1. Pattern 1: Pragmatic
The 13 participants that could be classified in this pattern, take a
pragmatic approach to addressing sustainability issues. They are not
strongly self-motivated for sustainability, but will address it when they
see a good application for sustainability. Many of the participants in
this group characterized themselves as being result-oriented. In the top-
ranked statements in this pattern, the control beliefs statements are dom-
inant. These participants are stimulated by practical knowledge, tools
and results.
Table 12 shows the high and low scoring distinguishing statements
of this pattern.
Motivations for the high-ranked distinguishing statements in this
pattern are typically results-oriented, for example “I am result oriented
and seeing actual results stimulates me”, “Seeing results makes me proud”
and “That is why we do it!” as motivations for I can see the results of my
work (Statement 9), team-oriented, for example “It is no fun when the
energy of the team is not in it” and “Project management is teamwork, so it
should be a team-effort” as motivations for My project team is interested in
it and/or likes it (Statement 34) and “You can observe that sustainability
moves people. It provides a new perspective and motivates people” and “Talk-
ing about sustainability takes people out of their comfort zones. It creates a
new momentum in the team” as motivations for It has a stimulating effect
on how people work together (Statement 11), or knowledge-oriented, for
example “That’s where it all starts with” and “I have to know how to work
on it” as motivations for I can give it shape and/or have my own ideas about
it (Statement 30).
Motivations for the low-ranked distinguishing statements of this pat-
tern are related to certification, for example “It is not about certifications,
but about successful projects” as motivation for It is part of the certification
as a project manager (Statement 25), or status-oriented, for example “Not
important”, “It is not about me” and “Status doesn’t make the project better”
as motivations for It has a good image (Statement 2) and I can score with
it (Statement 27).
4.3.2. Pattern 2: Intrinsically motivated
For the 21 participants that classified in this pattern, the behavioral
beliefs are dominating the top-ranked statements. These participants are
stimulated to address sustainability because they care about nature, the

361
G. Silvius and R. Schipper International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367

Table 11
Consensus ranking of the statements.

Ranking in the different patterns Consensus

rank
No. Statement Pragmatic Intrinsically motivated Task driven

21 The project and/or product is well suited to it 2 3 3 1

15 I have the knowledge, skills or abilities to do something with it 2 2 1 2
31 Others are open to it and/or are interested in it 0 1 1 3
2 It has a good image −3 −3 −4 4
20 I would encounter it more often and/or it has more visibility −2 0 0 5
6 I am able to clearly explain what can be gained from addressing the sustainability issues 0 1 0 6
19 I hear enthusiastic stories from my colleagues 0 0 −1 7
11 It has a stimulating effect on how people work together 3 1 2 8
40 I am seen as more valuable because of it −3 −2 −3 9
44 Fun colleagues are doing it too 0 −2 −2 10
38 It poses no risk to the project −2 −2 0 11
28 It has a stimulating effect on how the project is supported 1 3 3 12
7 I know exactly what is meant by sustainability issues −1 −1 −2 13
17 There is social advertising for it, making it fun and/or cool −1 −2 −2 14
43 The people around me inspire me 2 0 0 15
13 It has a stimulating effect on others, causing them to start addressing them too 0 3 2 16
16 There is more attention from my personal environment for it −2 1 −1 17
33 It becomes easier or more enjoyable to work with 1 −1 −1 18
36 I have the mandate for it and/or it is part of my responsibilities −1 −1 1 19
25 It is part of the certification as a project manager −4 −3 −3 20
45 There was a good initiative from which I could find support 1 2 −1 21
18 I am able to clearly explain what is meant by sustainability issues −1 1 −2 22
26 It gives me more status −3 0 −3 23
39 I receive the necessary resources to address it 0 −1 2 24
3 My team has the knowledge, skills, or abilities to do something with it 2 −1 0 25
29 It suits the culture of the company −1 1 2 26
10 Colleagues share knowledge about sustainability issues 1 2 −1 27
12 IPMA and PMI name it in their code of conduct −4 −3 −4 28
9 I can see the results of my work 4 2 1 29
35 I would be continuously stimulated to work with it 1 −1 −2 30
27 I can score with it −3 −2 −1 31
46 The company has the knowledge, skills, or abilities to do something with it 1 −1 2 32
30 I can give it shape and/or have my own ideas about it 3 0 1 33
24 I see the necessity and usefulness of addressing the sustainability issues 3 3 0 34
34 My project team is interested in it and/or likes it 4 0 2 35
37 There is an impulse from the company to address it 2 0 3 36
4 It also has positive effects on other aspects of the project 3 2 0 37
8 I am rewarded for it −1 −4 −2 38
22 There are tools to my disposal 1 −2 −1 39
5 Customers ask about it and/or find it interesting 2 0 3 40
42 It is part of the project plan −2 −4 1 41
32 I think it is something that you should do −2 2 −3 42
1 I find it important that we treat the earth well 0 4 0 43
23 I find it important that future generations can live a normal life 0 4 1 44
41 Key people find it important (project board/executive board/ management) −2 1 4 45
14 It is part of the goals and/or contract −1 −3 4 46

planet and the future and because they feel that caring for sustainability
is something they should do. The characteristics of the project, or the
opinion of others, do not play a large role. This group is intrinsically
motivated for sustainability and will do what they consider the ‘right
thing’.
Table 13 shows the high and low scoring distinguishing statements
of this pattern.
Illustrative for the motivation of this group is that the two top-ranked
statements of this patterns have higher z-scores, compared to the top-
ranked statements of the other patterns. These two top-ranked distin-
guishing statements for this pattern are: I find it important that future
generations can live a normal life (Statement 23) and I find it important
that we treat the earth well (Statement 1). These statements are moti-
vated with quite similar quotes such as “This is the most important of all:
it is about future generations”, “It is just a matter of principle”, “It is about
our children” and “Everyone should care about this”.
Another high-ranked distinguishing statement was It has a stimulat-
ing effect on others, causing them to start addressing them too. This state-
ment had motivations such as: “We should give the right example. And it
is rewarding to inspire others” and “You want the effect of your project to
continue after you are gone. So getting others along is crucial”.
The participants that were classified in this pattern showed them-
selves not very sensitive to rewards or status, as the lowest scoring state-
ments included I am rewarded for it (Statement 8) and It has a good im-
age (Statement 8), with as frequent motivation “I do not care about this”.
Also the opinion of the professional bodies (PMI and IPMA) and their
certifications scored low, given the low-ranking statements IPMA and
PMI name it in their code of conduct (Statement 12) and It is part of the
certification as a project manager (Statement 25). Motivations for these
low-ranking statements were “That would only lead to ‘window-dressing’”.
Even the project assignment does not provide much inspiration for
this, as It is part of the project plan (Statement 42) is also amongst the
low-scoring statement.
4.3.3. Pattern 3: Task driven
11 Participants classified in the third pattern, that can be character-
ized as task driven. These participants will address sustainability issues
as far as these are part of the project’s requirements or objectives, when
the client asks for it or when they are rewarded for it. In the top-ranked
statements, the normative and control beliefs are represented strongest,
with an underrepresentation of the behavioral beliefs. This group can
be stimulated to address sustainability by external pressure or rewards.

362
G. Silvius and R. Schipper International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367

Table 12
Distinguishing statements Pattern 1 Pragmatic.

Statement Value Rank Category

High-ranked statements

9. I can see the results of my work 1.78 1 Control

34. My project team is interested in it and/or likes it 1.61 2 Normative
30. I can give it shape and/or have my own ideas about it 1.42 3 Control
3. My team has the knowledge, skills, or abilities to do something with it 0.90 8 Control
5. Customers ask about it and/or find it interesting 0.89 9 Normative

Low-ranked statements

42. It is part of the project plan −0.90 39 Control

41. Key people find it important (project board/executive board/ management) −0.94 40 Normative
27. I can score with it −1.70 43 Control
2. It has a good image −2.13 44 Normative
25. It is part of the certification as a project manager −2.26 46 Normative

Table 13
Distinguishing statements Pattern 2 Intrinsically motivated.

Statement Value Rank Category

High-ranked statements

23. I find it important that future generations can live a normal life 2.57 1 Behavioral
1. I find it important that we treat the earth well 2.43 2 Behavioral
13. It has a stimulating effect on others, causing them to start addressing them too 1.32 4 Behavioral
32. I think it is something that you should do 0.99 8 Behavioral
9. I can see the results of my work 0.95 9 Control

Low-ranked statements

27. I can score with it −1.15 40 Control

14. It is part of the goals and/or contract −1.19 41 Control
12. IPMA and PMI name it in their code of conduct −1.35 42 Normative
42. It is part of the project plan −1.66 45 Control
8. I am rewarded for it −2.10 46 Control

Table 14
Distinguishing statements Pattern 3 Task driven.

Statement Value Rank Category

High-ranked statements

41. Key people find it important (project board/executive board/ management) 2.12 1 Normative
14. It is part of the goals and/or contract 2.06 2 Control
5. Customers ask about it and/or find it interesting 1.83 3 Normative
37. There is an impulse from the company to address it 1.64 4 Normative
29. It suits the culture of the company 0.84 8 Normative

Low-ranked statements

45. There was a good initiative from which I could find support −0.37 29 Control
10. Colleagues share knowledge about sustainability issues −0.54 33 Control
22. There are tools to my disposal −0.63 34 Control
35. I would be continuously stimulated to work with it −0.76 36 Control
18. I am able to clearly explain what is meant by sustainability issues −1.01 40 Behavioral

Table 14 shows the high and low scoring distinguishing statements
of this pattern.
In this pattern, the motivations for the high-ranked distinguishing
statements are typically coming from outside pressure, for example
“Without (management) support, sustainability will not be successful”, “That
is a condition”, “You need it to get funding for it” and “They pay for it, so
they can decide” as motivations for Key people find it important (project
board/executive board/ management) (Statement 41) and Customers ask
about it and/or find it interesting (Statement 5). The motivations for It is
part of the goals and/or contract (Statement 14) are in line with this, for
example “That shows that it is important to the customer” and “You have
to! As you are evaluated on it”.
The participants that were classified in this pattern showed them-
selves not very sensitive to the practical side of addressing sustainabil-
ity. Motivations for the low scoring I am able to clearly explain what is
meant by sustainability issues (Statement 18) and Colleagues share knowl-
edge about sustainability issues (Statement 10) included “I know what it is,
but it doesn’t stimulate me” and “Expertise can be organized”. And as moti-
vations for There are tools to my disposal (Statement 22), one respondent
answered “I do not want another tool. I have enough to do”.
4.4. Further analysis
In order to further understand the three patterns the study showed,
we analyzed the demographic data of the fractions of the P-set rep-
resented the three patterns. And although Q-methodology aims to re-
veal and explicate the main viewpoints that are favored by a particular
group of participants, without claiming that the groups of respondent
that show these viewpoints present representative fractions of the to-
tal population, the further analysis of the P-set may provide insights
that can be tested in further research (Watts and Stenner, 2005). This

363
G. Silvius and R. Schipper
Table 15
Distribution of patterns per summarized type of projects.
Pattern 1: Pragmatic
‘Hard’ projects 54%
‘Soft’ projects 25%
Total sample 29%
Fig. 3. Analysis of gender representation in the three patterns.
paragraph presents the further analysis of those demographic data that
showed an interesting ontcome.
4.4.1. Gender
As several studies suggest that female managers tend to a more strin-
gent enforcement of ethical behavior (Galbreath, 2011), Fig. 3 presents
the analysis of the gender representation of the respondents in the three
patterns.
Fig. 3 shows that the respondent group that represented the Intrin-
sically motivated pattern was stronger male dominated than the total
sample. This, at the expense of the Pragmatic pattern.
4.4.2. Age
Also age is expected to have an influence on sustainability behav-
ior. Fig. 4 therefore presents the analysis of the representation of the
different age groups in the three patterns
The younger age groups, 25–34 years and 35–44 years, show an over-
representation in the Pragmatic pattern, whereas the ‘older’ age groups,
45–64 years are stronger represented in the Intrinsically motivated pat-
tern. This result contradicts the expected preference for sustainability
of younger generations. A potential explanation could be that younger
generations have less professional experience and may therefore be in-
clined to show pragmatic behavior.
4.4.3. Type of projects
A third factor that was analyzed was the type of projects that the
participants represented. Fig. 5 shows this analysis.
From this analysis the impression arises that the Task driven pattern
is strongest in the Organizational change, Infrastructure and Construc-
tion projects, whereas the Intrinsically motivated pattern is strongest
in the Information systems or technology and Research and develop-
ment projects and underrepresented in Construction, Infrastructure and
Real estate projects. This impression is strengthened by the analysis pre-
sented in Table 15. In this table, the type of projects is summarized in
‘hard’ projects (Infrastructure, Real estate and Construction), projects
with a more tangible deliverable, and ‘soft’ projects (Organizational
change, Information systems or technology and Research and develop-
ment), projects with a more intangible deliverable. For both summarized
types of projects, the distribution of patterns is shown.
From this table, it appears that the Pragmatic pattern is relatively
overrepresented in the ‘hard’ types of projects, whereas the Intrinsically
motivated pattern is strongly represented in the ‘soft’ types of projects.
The Task driven pattern does not show a substantial over- or underrep-
resentation per type of projects.
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367
Pattern 2: Intrinsically motivated Pattern 3: Task driven
23% 23%
50% 25%
47% 24%
4.5. Discussion
Based on the findings, a number of reflections can be made. Firstly,
the factors that stimulate project managers to address sustainability is-
sues in their project, consist of both rational or ‘top-down’ factors, such
as the assignment and objectives of the project, as well as emotional or
‘bottom-up’ factors, such as the project manager’s personal views and
behavioral beliefs. This is in line with the earlier studies of Cordano and
Frieze (2000) and Ruepert et al. (2016) on sustainable-friendly behav-
ior of managers within an organizational environment. It also empha-
sizes that the challenge of organizational change in the transition to-
wards sustainability of an organization (Tulder et al., 2014). Organiza-
tional change is a complex process with a mostly unpredictable outcome
(Homan, 2010). The findings of our study show that changing the be-
havior of project managers is no exception to this. Project managers are
stimulated to address sustainability by a variety of factors of which some
are rational, some emotional and some practical.
Secondly, the factors that stimulate project managers to address sus-
tainability issues in their project are not experienced the same way by
different project managers. The study reported in this article therefore
complements the earlier study by Silvius and De Graaf (2019). Where
this study identified the set of factors that stimulated project managers
to address the sustainability of their project in the project board, our
study explored the variety of stimulus patterns. In doing this, the study
reported in this article answered to the appeal that sustainability is not
interpreted or applied in a single generalizable way and that studies on
the integration of sustainability into project management should capture
this variety or diversity of perspectives (Huemann and Silvius, 2017).
By identifying three distinct stimulus patterns, the study provides an
insight that organizations can use in their transition towards sustainabil-
ity (Tulder et al., 2014). For example, they may consider the stimulus
patterns of their project managers when selecting or allocating project
managers to critical sustainability related projects, thereby aligning the
personal motivation of the project managers with the strategic sustain-
ability goals of the organization. Or they may invest in sustainability
training or tooling for project managers, in order to enhance the effec-
tiveness of their transition efforts.
Thirdly, the diversity of stimulus patterns that the study found, il-
lustrate that the traditional task perspective on project management, in
which projects are seen as temporary endeavors that carry out given
tasks (Andersen, 2008), is a simplification of reality. A large fraction of
the participants, the Intrinsically motivated group indicated that their be-
havior was more driven by their personal beliefs and convictions about
sustainability than by the assignment or the objectives of the project at
hand. This finding supports the view that the role of the project man-
ager is more than that of a planning and control oriented ‘administra-
tor’ of the project. The multitude of roles that the project manager plays
(Bentahar and Ika, 2019), also makes him or her a ‘shaper’ of the project
with the opportunity to influence the sustainability of the project. Sus-
tainable project management does not change the role of the project
manager, but it provides a perspective that a project manager can choose
to consider proactively, as is the case with the Intrinsically motivated
project managers, or reactively, which is the case with the Task driven
project managers. This confirms that project management is a multi-
faceted and value driven concept (Song and Gale, 2008).
Fourthly, the further analysis of the three patterns the study found
that there might be a correlation between the stimulus patterns and
the type of projects. When the type of projects were summarized in in
364
G. Silvius and R. Schipper
Fig. 4. Analysis of age representation in the three patterns.
Fig. 5. Analysis of the type of projects in the three patterns.
‘hard’ projects (Infrastructure, Real estate and Construction) and ‘soft’
projects (Organizational change, Information systems or technology and
Research & development), the Task driven patterns was the most domi-
nant pattern in the hard projects, whereas Intrinsically motivated pattern
was most dominant in the soft projects and in the total sample. This
analysis may be seen as an indication that the type of project is a fac-
tor of influence in consideration of sustainability in the management
project, as was earlier also suggested by Marnewick (2017). However, a
more conclusive statement on this goes beyond the scope of this study.
5. Conclusions
The study reported in this paper set out to investigate what patterns
of factors stimulate project managers to address the sustainability issues
of their projects? By using Q-methodology, we explored different subjec-
tive patterns of stimulus that project managers experience. By adopting
TPA as our conceptual starting point, we could relate the different pat-
terns to one of the most used theories for understanding, describing,
predicting and controlling behavior.
Based on the factor analysis of 49 Q-sorts, we discovered three dis-
tinct patterns in the stimulation of sustainable project management be-
havior. We labeled these three patterns as “Pragmatic”, “Intrinsically mo-
tivated” and “Task driven”.
Participants that were classified in the Pragmatic pattern are stimu-
lated based on the control believes from the TPA. They are not strongly
self-motivated for sustainability, but will address it when they see a good
application for sustainability. These participants are stimulated by prac-
tical knowledge, tools and results.
365
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367
Participants that were classified in the Intrinsically motivated pattern
are strongly self-stimulated by their behavioral beliefs. These partici-
pants address sustainability because they care and they feel that it is the
right thing to do. The characteristics of the project, or the opinion of
others, do not play a large role in their considerations.
Participants that were classified in the Task driven pattern are stim-
ulated by a combination of normative and control beliefs. They will
address sustainability issues based on the project’s characteristics, re-
quirements or objectives, the opinion of key people and potential re-
wards. These participants can be stimulated by external pressure or
rewards.
The contribution the study makes is that it revealed the stimulus
patterns that project managers experience in addressing sustainability
issues of and in projects. These stimulus patterns shine a light on the
individual and behavioral aspect of sustainable project management,
which is a perspective that is not covered in the current literature on
this topic (Sabini et al., 2019). By identifying three distinct stimulus pat-
terns, the study also demonstrated that sustainability is not interpreted
or applied in a single generalizable way. The exploration of variety in
sustainable project management, as also suggested by Huemann and
Silvius (2017), is a much needed perspective in the advancement of
the understanding of sustainable project management. Project man-
agement is a multi-faceted and value driven concept (Song and
Gale, 2008), in which generalizations are not sufficient to cover
reality.
With this understanding, organizations can adapt their sustainability
transitions strategies and programs, in order to enhance the effective-
ness of these programs.
G. Silvius and R. Schipper
5.1. Limitations and further research
In Q-methodology, the statements of the Q-set automatically places a
limitation on the participant’s response (Cross, 2005). The development
of the Q-set is therefore a critical process in Q-methodology (Dziopa and
Ahern, 2011). In order to identify the three stimulus patterns of project
managers, the study reported in this article developed a Q-set of state-
ments, based on the theoretical framework provided by the TPB of
Ajzen (1991). Developing a Q-set from a theoretical framework provides
more confidence that no important aspects or insights are overlooked,
but absolute certainty cannot be given for this. The study did not include
an in-depth exploration of potentially stimulating factors. The concourse
has been sufficient for the purpose of exploring the variety in stimulus
patterns, but a replication of the study with a new concourse is recom-
mended to confirm the three patterns.
As sustainability is a values-driven concept and therefore sensitive to
cultural influences, a second limitation of the study is provided by the
geographical focus of the data collection. The study’s data collection
was done from the Netherlands, a replication of the study in a different
geographical would provide more insight into the potential bias that the
geographical focus created.
Next to replicating the study in order to strengthen the robustness
of the three stimulus patterns, follow-up research could also be directed
towards the characteristics of the project managers that represent the
three identified stimulus patterns. As the study reported in this article
was explorative in nature, aimed at identifying patterns of project man-
agers, a follow up study is needed to deepen our understanding of the
three groups of project managers and their characteristics. Paragraph
4.4 provides a first indication for this and gives ground for formulat-
ing a hypothesis on the distribution of the patterns over different types
of projects. However, based upon our study it is not possible to claim
that the groups of respondent that were loaded onto the different stim-
ulus patterns revealed in this study, are representative fractions of the
total population. Further research may explore the stimulus patterns
concluded in this study further and study whether the distribution of
patterns is influenced by industry, type of project, age or any other con-
trolling variables.
Further work could also be pursued on the practical implications
of the identified patterns. Understanding the stimulus patterns allows
organizations to fine-tune their sustainability implementation programs,
for example by taking the stimulus patterns into account when selecting
or allocating project managers, or by developing practical tooling for the
consideration of sustainability in project management. However, more
empirical work would need to be done on the practical experiences with
this in order to explore the effectiveness of these practices.
References
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., & Andersen, B. (2017). Project sustain-
ability strategies: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 35(6), 1071–1083.
Ahsan, K., Ho, M., & Khan, S. (2013). Recruiting project managers: A comparative analysis
of competencies and recruitment signals from job advertisements. Project Management
Journal, 44(5), 36–54.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Akadiri, P. O. (2015). Understanding barriers affecting the selection of sustainable mate-
rials in building projects. Journal of Building Engineering, 4, 86–93.
Alvarez-Dionisi, L. E., Turner, R., & Mittra, M. (2016). Global project management trends.
International Journal of Information Technology Project Management (IJITPM), 7(3),
54–73.
Amin, Z. (2000). Q methodology – A journey into the subjectivity of human mind. Singa-
pore Medical Journal, 41, 410–414.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Project manager leadership role in improving project perfor-
mance. Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13–22.
Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta–
analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
Andersen, E. S. (2008). Rethinking project management: An organisational perspective. Har-
low, UK: Prentice Hall.
Association for Project Management. (2006). APM supports sustainability outlooks Retrieved
from http://www.apm.org.uk/page.asp?categoryID=4 on January 2nd, 2011.
Barchak, L. J. (1979). Discovery of socialist opinion. Operant Subjectivity, 2, 60–102.
366
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367
Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011). “Helping people make better choices: exploring
the behaviour change agenda for environmental sustainability. Applied Geography, 31,
712–720.
Bell, S, & Morse, S (2003). Measuring sustainability learning from doing. London: Earthscan.
Bentahar, O., & Ika, L. A. (2019). Matching the project manager’s roles to project types:
Evidence from large dam projects in Africa. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment. 10.1109/TEM.2019.2895732.
Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2014). Managing structural and dynamic complexity: A tale of
two projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21–38.
Brones, F. A., Carvalho, M. M., & Zancul, E. S. (2014). Ecodesign in project management:
A missing link for the integration of sustainability in product development? Journal
of Cleaner Production, 80(1), 106–118.
Brones, F., Carvalho, M. M., & Zancul, E. S. (2017). Reviews, action and learning on change
management for ecodesign transition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 8–22.
Brouwer, M. (1999). Q is accounting for tastes. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(2),
35–39.
Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity – Application of Q methodology in political science.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Brown, S. (1986). Q technique and methods: Principles and procedures. In W. B. Berry,
& M. S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), New tools for social scientists, advances and applications in
research methods (pp. 57–76). Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
BSR/GlobeScan. (2017). The state of sustainable business 2017; Results of the 9th
annual survey of sustainable business leaders available at https://www.bsr.
org/en/our-insights/report-view/bsr-globescan-sustainable-business-survey-2017
Retrieved 22-09-2018.
von Carlowitz, H. C. (1713). Sylvicultura oeconomica: oder Haußwirthliche nachricht und
naturmÄßige anweisung zur wilden baum-Zucht. Leipzig: Braun.
Chen, S.-C., & Hung, C.-W. (2016). Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of
green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 112, 155–163.
Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization,
and management in the world auto industry. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Cordano, M, & Frieze, I (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental
managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 43, 627–641.
Crawford, L. (2013). Leading Sustainability through Projects. In A. J. G. Silvius, & J. Tharp
(Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. Hershey, PANewbury
Park, CA, USA: IGI Global Publishing.
Cross, R. M. (2005). Exploring attitudes: The case for Q methodology. Health Education
Research, 20(2), 206–213.
Denzine, G. (1998). The use of Q methodology in student affairs research and practice. Stu-
dent Affairs Journal Online. Retrieved from http://www.sajo.org/denzine040398.html
.
Paper Number 36 Donner, J. C. (2001). Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: An in-
troduction to the methodology. In R. A. Krueger, M. A. Casey, J. Donner, S. Kirsch,
& J. N. Maack (Eds.), Social analysis, selected tools and techniques, social development
papers. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Paper Number 36.
Dryzek, J. S., & Berejikian, A. (1993). Reconstitutive democratic theory. American Political
Science Review, 87, 48–60.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130–141.
Dziopa, F., & Ahern, K. (2011). A systematic literature review of the applications of Q-tech-
nique and its methodology. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences, 7(2), 39.
Ebner, D., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2006). The relationship between sustainable development and
corporate social responsibility www.crrconference.org [retrieved on 12 April 2013].
Edum-Fotwe, F. T., & Price, A. D. F. (2009). A social ontology for appraising sustainabil-
ity of construction projects and developments. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 27(4), 313–322.
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strate-
gies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.
Eskerod, P., & Huemann, M. (2013). Sustainable development and project stakeholder
management: what standards say. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
6(1), 36–50.
Fernández-Sánchez, G., & Rodríguez-López, F. (2010). A methodology to identify sustain-
ability indicators in construction project management—Application to infrastructure
projects in Spain. Ecological Indicators, 10, 1193–1201.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gaddis, P. O. (1959). The project manager. Harvard Business Review, 37(3), 89–97.
Galbreath, J. (2011). Are there gender-related influences on corporate sustainability? A
study of women on boards of directors. Journal of Management & Organization, 17,
17–38.
GAPPS. (2017). A Guiding Framework for Project Sponsors Retrieved September 18, 2017,
from https://globalpmstandards.org/tools/tools-for-assessment/project-sponsors/ .
Gareis, R., Huemann, M., Martinuzzi, R-A., Weninger, C., & Sedlacko, M. (2013). Project
management & sustainable development principles. Newtown Square, PA USA: Project
Management Institute.
Gijzel, D., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Schraven, D., & Hertogh, M. (2020). Integrating sustain-
ability into major infrastructure projects: four perspectives on sustainable tunnel de-
velopment. Sustainability, 12(6).
Goedknegt, D. (2013). Responsibility for adhering to sustainability in project manage-
ment. In Proceedings of the seventh Nordic conference on construction economics and or-
ganization (pp. 145–154).
G. Silvius and R. Schipper
Haugan, G. (2012). The new triple constraints for sustainable projects, programs, and portfolios.
Boca Raton, FL USA: CRC press.
Hölzle, K. (2010). Designing and implementing a career path for project managers. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 28, 779–786.
Homan, Th. H. (2010). Organisational dynamics. The Hague: Academic Service (in Dutch).
Huemann, M., & Silvius, A. J. G. (2017). Editorial: Projects to create the future: Managing
projects meets sustainable development. International Journal of Project Management,
35(6), 1066–1070.
Hwang, B-G, & Ng, W. J. (2013). Project management knowledge and skills for green con-
struction: Overcoming challenges. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2),
272–284.
Ika, L. A., & Saint-Macary, J. (2012). The project planning myth in international develop-
ment. International Journal of Managing Project in Business, 5(3), 420–439.
International Organization for Standardization. (2010). ISO 26000, guidance on social re-
sponsibility Geneva.
International Project Management Association. (2015a). Individual competence baseline ver-
sion 4. Nijkerk, the Netherlands: International Project Management Association.
International Project Management Association. (2015b). Code of ethics and professional
conduct. Nijkerk, the Netherlands: International Project Management Association.
Keeble, J. J., Topiol, S., & Berkeley, S. (2003). Using indicators to measure sustainabil-
ity performance at a corporate and project level. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2-3),
149–158.
Kelley, D., & Lee, H. (2010). Managing innovation champions: The impact of project
characteristics on the direct manager role. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
27(7), 1007–1019.
Labuschagne, C., & Brent, A. C. (2008). An industry perspective of the completeness and
relevance of a social assessment framework for project and technology management
in the manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(3), 253–262.
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandina-
vian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.
Maidique, M. A. (1980). Entrepreneurs, champions, and technological innovation. Sloan
Management Review, 21(2), 59–76.
Maltzman, R., & Shirley, D. (2013). Project manager as a pivot point for implementing
sustainability in an enterprise. In A. J. G. Silvius, & J. Tharp (Eds.), Sustainability
integration for effective project management. IGI Global Publishing.
Marcelino-Sádaba, S., Pérez-Ezcurdia, A., & González-Jaen, L. F. (2015). Using project
management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework
definition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99, 1–16.
Marnewick, C. (2017). Information system project’s sustainability capability levels. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 35, 1151–1166.
Martens, M. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2017). Key factors of sustainability in project man-
agement context: A survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. International
Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1084–1102.
Malthus, T. R. (1798). An essay on the principle of population London.
McKeown, B, & Thomas, D (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc..
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth.
Universe Books.
Meng, V., & Boyd, P. (2017). The role of the project manager in relationship management.
International Journal of Project Management, 35(1), 717–728.
Molenaar, K. R., & Sobin, N. (2010). A synthesis of best-value procurement practices for
sustainable design-build projects in the public sector. Journal of Green Building, 5(4),
148–157.
Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or
alarmed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 531–537.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project
type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21–32.
Økland, A. (2015). Gap analysis for incorporating sustainability in project management.
Procedia Computer Science, 64, 103–109.
Pade, C., Mallinson, B., & Sewry, D. (2008). An elaboration of critical success factors for
rural ICT project sustainability in developing countries: Exploring the Dwesa case. The
Journal of Information Technology Case and Application, 10(4).
Project Management Institute. (2010). Code of ethics and professional conduct. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V. T. P., Robertson, A. B., &
Townsend, J. (1974). SAPPHO updated-project SAPPHO phase II. Research Policy,
3(3), 258–291.
Ruepert, A., Keizer, K., Steg, L., Maricchiolo, F., Carrus, G., Dumitru, A., García Mira, R.,
Stancu, A., & Moza, D. (2016). Environmental considerations in the organizational
context: A pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Energy Research & Social
Science, 17, 59–70.
367
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 353–367
Sabini, L., Muzio, D., & Alderman, N. (2019). 25 years of ‘sustainable projects’. What we
know and what the literature says. International Journal of Project Management, 37,
820–838.
Sánchez, M. A. (2015). Integrating sustainability issues into project management. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 96, 319–330.
Schlinger, M. (1969). Cues on Q-techniques. Journal of Advertising Research, 53.
Shenhar, A. J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success.
Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5–15.
Silvius, A. J. G. (2016a). Sustainability as a competence of project managers. PM World
Journal, V(IX), 1–13.
Silvius, A. J. G. (2016b). Integrating sustainability into project risk management. In
S. Bodea, A. Purnus, M. Huemann, & M. Hajdu (Eds.), Managing project risks for com-
petitive advantage in changing business environments. IGI Global.
Silvius, A. J. G. (2017). Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1479–1493.
Silvius, A. J. G. (2019). Making sense of sustainable project management. Annals of Social
Sciences Management Studies, 2(4), 1–4.
Silvius, A. J. G., & Graaf, M. de (2019). Exploring the project manager’s intention
to address sustainability in the project board. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208,
1226–1240.
Silvius, A. J. G., Kampinga, M., Paniagua, S., & Mooi, H. (2017). Considering sustainabil-
ity in project management decision making; An investigation using Q-methodology.
International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1133–1150.
Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. (2014). Sustainability in project management: A literature
review and impact analysis. Social Business, 4(1).
Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. (2015). Developing a maturity model for assessing sustain-
able project management. Journal of Modern Project Management, 3(1), 16–27.
Silvius, A. J. G., Schipper, R., Planko, J., van den Brink, J., & Köhler, A. (2012). Sustain-
ability in project management. Farnham: Gower Publishing.
Smith, N. (2001). Current systems in psychology: History, theory, research, and applications.
Wadsworth.
Smolck, P. (2018). The Qmethod software Retrieved from The Qmethod Page:
http://schmolck.org/qmethod/ on April 3rd, 2018.
Song, S., & Gale, A. (2008). Investigating project managers’ work values by repertory grids
interviews. Journal of Management Development, 27(6), 541–553.
Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q methodology. In J. Smith, R. Harré, & L. V. Langenhofe
(Eds.). Rethinking methods in psychology: 178–192. London: SAGE Thousands Oaks.
Suprapto, M., Bakker, H. L. M., Mooi, H. G., & Moree, W. (2015). Sorting out the essence
of owner-contractor collaboration in capital projects delivery. International Journal of
Project Management, 33(3), 664–683.
Toderoiu, F. (2010). Ecological footprint and biocapacity: Methodological and re-
gional and national dimensions. Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, VII(2),
213–238 New Series.
Tulder, R., Van Tilburg, R., Francken, M., & Da Rosa, A. (2014). Managing the transition to
a sustainable enterprise. Abingdon: Routledge.
Turner, J. R. (2010). Responsibilities for sustainable development in project and program
management. In H. Knoepfel (Ed.), Survival and sustainability as challenges for projects.
Zurich: International Project Management Association.
Wang, P., Liu, Q., & Qi, Y. (2015). Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors:
a survey of the rural residents in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 152–165.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation.
Qual Res Psychol, 2(2), 67–91.
Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in
environmental research. Greenfield, Massachusetts: Social and Environmental Research
Institute.
Weninger, C., & Huemann, M. (2013). Project initiation: Investment analysis for sustain-
able development. In A. J. G. Silvius, & J. Tharp (Eds.), Sustainability integration for
effective project management. IGI Global Publishing.
Wideman, M. (2016). Green project management Retrieved from
http://www.maxwideman.com/musings/green_pm.htm on January 12th, 2019.
Wilemon, D. L., & Cicero, J. P. (1970). The project manager—Anomalies and ambiguities.
Academy of Management Journal, 13(3), 269–282.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Yeomans, K. A., & Golder, P. A. (1982). The Guttman–Kaiser criterion as a predictor of
the number of common factors. The Statistician, 31, 221–229.