PAPERS From Every Direction—How Personality

Traits and Dimensions of Project

Managers Can Conceptually Affect
Project Success
Todd Creasy, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA
Vittal S. Anantatmula, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA

ABSTRACT ■ INTRODUCTION ■

Based on extensive literature review, this
theoretical paper adds to the “soft skill”
research stream by enlarging the scope of
personality dimensions and their subse-
quent effects on project success and, second,
considers dimensions heretofore not
explored within the project management
body of knowledge. We posit that a project
manager’s extent of communication appre-
hension, degree of innovativeness, level of
self-monitoring, conflict management style,
degree of change orientation and Myers-
Briggs (MBTI) personality type can affect
project outcomes. Additionally, we conjec-
ture that organizational dynamics such as
structure, incentive systems, and organiza-
tional project management maturity can
moderate the relationship between these
personality dimensions and project success.
KEYWORDS: personality traits; soft skills;
style; dimensions; project success; project
manager
Project Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 6, 36–51
© 2013 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21372
O
rganizations are relying more and more on project management to
achieve initiatives. Economic figures gathered internationally indicate a
significant and growing use of project management (Davis, 2011).
Huemann, Turner, and Keegan (2004) reported that we have become a
project-oriented society, and Anantatmula (2008), citing other studies, estimated
annual spending on projects to be in the billions of dollars in the global economy.
As such, project managers have come under study to help ensure positive project
outcomes and improved organizational performance. A large body of literature
focuses on the technical skills associated with project managers (Hyvari, 2006;
Brown, 2000; Gale, 1999; Pinto & Kharbanda, 1995; Thamhain, 1991). Because
project management is an evolving discipline, Leybourne (2007) reports a shift-
ing from a technical bias (with its emphasis on project manager technical skills)
to project manager behaviors. This focus away from technical skills has led to a
division thought necessary for successful project management. “Soft skills,”
which are interpersonally related and “hard skills,” which are discipline specific
and technically oriented (Skulmoski & Hartman, 2010) comprise the two arenas
of project manager study.
Lechler (1998) reported that soft skills or competencies contribute more
to project success than technical skills such as control or planning. Likewise,
Posner (1987) reported that interpersonal skills are more important to project
success than technological skills. Continuing this theme, Turner and Müller
(2006) reported that traditional project manager skills are basically entry-
level skills and do not as often lead to successful project outcomes as do soft
(interpersonal) skills. Unfortunately, these soft skills (to include personality
traits and attitudes) have not received adequate attention in the project man-
agement literature (Skulmoski & Hartman, 2010; Hyvari, 2006). Gehring
(2007, p. 50) posited that “… to increase the probability of project management
success, the project manager must understand the leadership competencies
that are required and what personality traits he or she has that compliments
or competes with these competencies.” Dvir, Sadeh, and Malach-Pines (2006)
emphasized the importance of aligning a project manager’s personality and
management style with project type. Thal and Bedingfield (2010) found asso-
ciations between personality traits and project manager success. Although we
value these specific analyses, we believe that an enlarged scope of personality
dimensions, through a larger, theoretical model, is necessary for a complete
view of the important role various personality dimensions play on project
management.

36 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Our aim in this paper then is to draw
attention to the importance of project
manager personality traits and dimen-
sions with respect to executing projects
effectively and successfully. We begin
with a theoretical model showing the
proposed relationships between vari-
ables including moderators (Figure 1).
Then, through literature review, we
examine and explore the importance of
understanding communication appre-
hension (McCroskey, 1977), degree of
innovativeness (Stock & Zacharis, 2011),
level of self-monitoring (Scott, Barnes, &
Wagner, 2012), conflict management
style (Robbins, 1974; 1979), propensity to
initiate change or change orientation
(Kanter, 1983), and personality type
through the Myers-Briggs (MBTI) assess-
ment (Sense, 2007). Due to the type and
depth of communication project manag-
ers face (PMBOK ® Guide, PMI, 2013), we
felt a study of communication apprehen-
sion was appropriate. Teams often require
innovation to achieve project success
(Merlo, 2010); therefore, the degree of
innovativeness possessed by a manager
was thought prudent. Project managers
are often required to perform multiple
roles, such as leader, facilitator, or com-
municator (PMBOK ® Guide, PMI, 2013).
As such, the concept of self-monitoring
during those tasks seemed necessary.
Conflict is often a component of project
management work (Ohlendorf, 2001);
therefore, an understanding of the par-
ticular conflict management styles
employed by project managers is pro-
posed. In some projects, instituting
change to products, processes, or systems
is a component of successful project
management (Battilana & Casciaro,
2012). Considering that, we explored a
project manager’s propensity to manage
or initiate change. Lastly, an examination
of the importance of project manager
personality type via the MBTI assessment
(Dolfi & Andrews, 2007) seemed neces-
sary for a thorough study within this the-
orized domain.
Based on the results of this review, we
propose a model, which utilizes personal-
ity dimensions and traits as independent
Moderating Variable:
Organizational Dynamics
Independent Variable:
Project Manager Personality
Dimensions and Traits
Figure 1: Conceptual model—Personalities, organizational dynamics, and project success.
variables situated against project success
as a dependent variable. Additionally, we
explore moderating organizational vari-
ables such as structures, incentive
systems, and organizational project man-
agement maturity. As it pertains to per-
sonality dimensions, we conclude by
making theoretical recommendations for
project manager selection, coaching, and
future research.
Literature Review
This section is divided into three sec-
tions, titled independent, moderating,
and dependent variables. There are six
independent variables describing per-
sonality dimensions or traits: commu-
nication apprehension, innovativeness,
self-monitoring, conflict management,
change initiation, and Myers-Briggs.
The moderating variables include three:
organizational structure, organizational
incentives, and organizational project
management maturity. The dependent
variable deals with project success.
Independent Variables
Communication Apprehension (CA)
A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide)
(Project Management Institute, 2013) is
the ANSI standard and widely accepted
as the global standard for those working
in project management. The stated
body of knowledge within the PMBOK ®
Guide contains Project Communications
Management as one of the ten Knowledge
Areas. Cheng et al. (2005) answered the
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Dependent Variable:
Project Success
question: “What makes a good project
manager?” with 14 job-task competen-
cies. Among those listed was communi-
cation with the project team. Considering
its importance, Starkweather and
Stevenson (2011) suggested strength-
ening project manager communication
within the curricula of the Project
Management Professional (PMP)® cre-
dential course.
Henderson (2008) reported that
“project manager competencies in
decoding and encoding communica-
tion significantly contribute to team
member satisfaction and productivity”
(p. 48). The importance of project man-
ager communication was given further
attention in the literature, when Zhang
(2011) posited the necessity of two-way
communication for the effective man-
agement of project risks; Yasin, Gomes,
and Miller (2009) noted the importance
of leadership and communication; and
Rivard and Dupré (2009) found a rela-
tionship between strong communica-
tion processes and healthy stakeholder
management. Considering the signifi-
cant and historical empirical evidence
supporting the importance of project
manager communication, we believe
potential obstacles to communication
should be investigated and discussed.
McCroskey (1977) defines commu-
nication apprehension (CA) as “an indi-
vidual’s level of fear or anxiety associ-
ated with either real or anticipated
communication with another person or
persons” (p. 78). Employees exhibiting
37
PAPERS
From Every Direction—How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project
forms of CA have been linked to prefer-
ences in organizational learning (Russ,
2012); a participant’s skill (or lack there-
of ) in oral communication (Blume,
Dreher, & Baldwin, 2010); and being
perceived as less informative, less effec-
tive, less productive, and likely to under-
achieve (Bartoo & Sias, 2004; Harville,
1992; Richmond & Roach, 1992; Thomas,
Tymon, & Thomas, 1994). Other studies
suggest that employees exhibiting cer-
tain elements of CA may be disadvan-
taged professionally, receive fewer
offers of employment, earn less salary,
maintain lower-ranked positions, and
avoid certain communication channels
such as face-to-face or group meetings
(Ayers, Keereetaweep, Chen, & Edwards,
1998; Reinsch & Lewis, 1984; Richmond,
McCroskey, & Davis, 1982; Winiecki &
Ayres, 1999).
CA has been examined with its rela-
tionship to personality dimensions. Opt
and Loffredo (2000) reported that indi-
viduals experiencing higher levels of
communication apprehension have the
personality type preferences of introver-
sion, feeling, and sensing on the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator. Meyer–Griffith,
Reardon, and Hartley (2009) reported
that people with CA “prefer occupations
that require little communication, such
as computer programmer, whereas the
opposite is true for individuals with low
communication apprehension” (p. 174).
McCroskey (1977) captured two
aspects of the CA construct, which he
called “Traitlike CA” and “Context CA.”
Based on McCroskey’s work, Russ (2012)
noted “Traitlike CA is an individual’s
fear or anxiety about human communi-
cation …” as well as, “Context CA can be
measured across four theoretically
unique states … group discussions, inter-
personal conversations, formal meet-
ings and presentations” (p. 314).
Traitlike CA is a personality type factor,
whereas context CA provides a more
detailed, granular analysis in which dis-
comfort across different environments
or situations is measured. In this latter
construct dimension, context CA mea-
sures the comfort level one experiences
38 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
during group discussions, presenta-
tions, interpersonal conversations, and/
or formal meetings. Based on the impor-
tance of communication within the
project management literature, it seems
logical that moderate communication
skills (at a minimum) in each of these
environments are necessary to becom-
ing a successful project manager.
Traitlike CA and Context CA can both
be placed on a separate continuum—
those with high CA and low CA (Griffith-
Meyer, Reardon, & Hartley, 2009).
Additionally, the anxiety levels are not
necessarily uniform when considering
low or high apprehension levels. “It is
also possible for someone to be extreme-
ly uncomfortable communicating in one
context (e.g., public speaking) but feel
completely at ease in another (e.g.,
interpersonal conversations)” (Russ,
2012, p. 314). Therefore, it is possible for
individuals to have high or low levels of
apprehension in the four environments
in which project managers may often
find themselves: formal meetings, pre-
sentations, interpersonal conversations,
and group discussions.
Brill, Bishop, and Walker (2006)
reported that listening and having
strong verbal communication skills
ranked in the top 10 out of 78 project
manager competencies. Considering
the importance of project manager com-
munication in various contexts, we offer
the following:
Proposition 1: Project managers expe-
riencing a high degree of traitlike CA
are less likely to experience project suc-
cess than those project managers with
low traitlike CA.
Proposition 2: Project managers expe-
riencing a high degree of context CA
during group discussions and formal
meetings are less likely to experience
project success than those project man-
agers with low context CA.
Innovativeness
Innovation is paramount to progression
in the marketplace. Organizational inno-
vation is an effort to create purposeful,
focused change in an enterprise’s eco-
nomic or social potential (Drucker,
2002) and it is assumed to offer competi-
tive advantage and consequent superior
performance (Alpay, Bodur, Yilmaz, &
Buyukbalci, 2012). In simple terms,
innovation is defined as newness (Garcia
& Calantone, 2002). Different dimen-
sions and qualifications are added to
innovation, such as radical innovation
using new technology and new benefits
(Chandy & Tellis, 2000; Govindarajan &
Kopalle, 2006) and breakthrough inno-
vation that is associated with novel and
significant benefits (Chandy & Tellis,
1998; Sorescu & Spanjol, 2008). While
innovation is ascribed to product or ser-
vice, innovativeness is often used for
firms.
In an organizational context, inno-
vativeness is considered as an organiza-
tion’s willingness and receptivity to
adopt new ideas for developing new
products (Hurley & Hult, 1998).
Innovativeness is desirable because it is
expected to make a positive contribu-
tion to organizational performance
(Sharma & Lacey, 2004; Rubera & Kirca,
2012). Combining these two aspects,
Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) propose
that innovativeness refers to the degree
of innovation developed within organi-
zations, leading to a differentiation
advantage and higher performance. As
such, innovativeness is considered a
core competency of a firm to differenti-
ate itself (Vila & Kuster, 2007). Recent
research effort by Alpay et al. (2012)
validated four dimensions of innova-
tiveness: product, process, behavioral,
and strategic innovativeness. They
found that the effects of each of these
dimensions are different for firm perfor-
mance either through improving effec-
tiveness or efficiency, or both.
In the context of projects, innova-
tiveness could be an outcome due to
their execution using teams; research
has shown that cross-functional collab-
orative relationships could be beneficial
for various forms of innovativeness when
the people collaborating do not experi-
ence ambiguity and lack of structure
(Sethi et al., 2001). Innovativeness (or
innovation orientation) can also exist in
leaders such as project managers. “The
innovation orientation (or innovative-
ness) of leadership refers to the degree
to which leaders promote subordinates’
innovation orientation” (Stock &
Zacharis, 2011, p. 874). They report that
leaders strong in innovativeness not
only demonstrate behaviors that
encourage innovation, but also encour-
age others to adopt such attitudes.
Writing about leadership and the
resultant “climate” of teams, Akgun,
Keslin, and Byrne (2010) wrote that the
value of innovativeness orientation
among project teams “refers to the
degree to which team members viewed
the project team as being open to
change and supportive of new ideas
to adapt to the changing environments”
(p. 1100). Further, innovativeness among
teams is viewed as “a capacity that
incorporates receptivity to new ideas,
products, or processes, as well as
an increased likelihood of their
implementation or adoption” (Droge,
Calantone, & Harmancioglu, 2008,
p. 274). Based on the project manager’s
leadership, a climate of innovation can
be established, which encourages
breakthrough thinking, services, prod-
ucts, or processes.
Continuing the study of team inno-
vativeness and the climate fashioned by
managers for such, Merlo (2010) report-
ed findings, which suggested that a pos-
itive team environment for innovation
led to better project performance and
rate of progress. The quantitative analy-
sis found that teams experiencing a
positive orientation for innovativeness
nearly doubled the rate of project com-
pletion than those without.
Taken together, these findings sug-
gest that a project manager’s disposition
toward innovativeness can establish a
climate for the team environment,
which can subsequently improve the
performance of the team as well as
improve the pace of the team’s progress.
Based on these findings, we posit the
following:
Proposition 3: Project managers with a
significant penchant toward innova-
tiveness will experience more project
success than those project managers
with little to no innovative inclinations.
Self-Monitoring
“Emotional Intelligence” (EI) is the “abil-
ity to monitor one’s own and others’ feel-
ings and emotions, to discriminate
among them and to use this information
to guide one’s thinking and actions”
(Davis, 2011). Subsequently, being aware
of their own EI and being willing to guide
one’s own feelings and actions, individu-
als are asked to monitor themselves and
others for optimum self, team, and orga-
nizational performance (Goleman,
2001). The study and importance of
emotional intelligence have been given
consideration in the project manage-
ment literature (Adams & Anantatmula,
2010; Clarke, 2010; Othman, Abdulah,
and Ahmad, 2009; Geoghegan &
Dulewicz, 2008). Pre-dating the study of
emotional intelligence, which includes
self-awareness and governing, was the
study of “self-monitoring.”
Self-monitoring is a personality trait
and another form of self-awareness and
relationship management (similar to
EI) in which the individual “controls
their expressive behaviors and self-
presentations to cultivate desired pub-
lic appearances” (Scott, Barnes, &
Wagner, 2012). Self-monitoring is an
internal process of assessing the environ-
ment and/or situation and subsequently
adjusting one’s behavior—verbal, emo-
tional, and so forth, and hence to be
seen in a positive light (Gangestad &
Synder, 2000; Snyder, 1974). Self-
monitors can be categorized into two
groups: “high self-monitors” and “low
self-monitors.” (Snyder & Gangestad,
1986) High self-monitors attempt to
become the person they perceive nec-
essary at a specific time, whereas low
self-monitors do not attempt to craft
their behavior to fit specific situations
but rather opt for “just being me.”
Pagano and Debono (2011) report that
high self-monitors “tend to be concerned
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
with the image they project … and they are
generally willing and able to adjust their
self-presentations to fit differing so-
cial and interpersonal considerations
of appropriateness” (p. 2930). High
self-monitors were characterized as
“… ‘social chameleons,’ tailoring their self-
presentations to meet the needs of a given
situation” (Scott, Barnes, & Wagner, 2012).
Alternatively, Pagano and Debono (2011)
report that low self-monitors “do not
attempt to mold their behaviors … Rather,
they appear more concerned with main-
taining a relatively high degree of congru-
ence among and between their attitudes,
values, and dispositions and their actions”
(p. 2030). Low self-monitors show little
regard for the appropriateness of their
expressions and behaviors (Scott et al.,
2012). As Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass report-
ed, “low self-monitors insist in being
themselves, no matter how incongruent
their self expression may be with the
requirements of the social situation”
(2001, p. 124).
Self-monitoring has been directly
linked and positively associated with
studies of emotional labor (Grandley,
2000). There is a “close conceptual con-
nection between emotional labor and
self monitoring” (Scott, Barnes, &
Wagner, 2012). Emotional labor was
posited by Hochschild (1979, 1983) to
be the “commodification of emotions in
the form of customer service” and is
comprised of two stages: “surface act-
ing” and “deep acting.” Within their
work studying the relationships between
self-monitoring and emotional labor,
Scott, Barnes, and Wagner (2012)
defined surface acting as “individuals
modifying affective displays without
attempting to alter underlying feelings”
and deep acting as “modifying active
affective states to match desired dis-
plays” (p. 905). Brotheridge and Lee
(2002, 2003) and Diefendorff, Croyle,
and Gosserand (2005) found positive
associations between self-monitoring
and the surface acting aspect of emo-
tional labor. Scott, Barnes, and Wagner
(2012) reported “self-monitoring was
positively associated with both the level
39
PAPERS
From Every Direction—How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project
and variability of surface acting …”
(p. 905). This literature suggests that those
engaged in high self-monitoring are more
likely to engage in surface acting.
High self-monitoring (and therefore
surface acting) practices can have a
profound, negative effect on the project
manager. Emotional labor (surface and
deep acting) consumes personal re-
sources and is associated with lower
levels of stamina, motivation, and task
focus (Beal, Weiss, Barros, &
MacDermid, 2005). Maslach (2003)
reported that job burnout is comprised
of three factors: exhaustion, cynicism,
and professional efficacy. It seems then
that low levels of stamina and task focus
could lead to job burnout. Bono and
Vey (2005) reported that both forms of
acting, but especially surface acting, are
very taxing on the individual, producing
emotional exhaustion and job dissatis-
faction. “When an employee engages in
surface acting, he or she is more likely
to experience negative outcomes such
as negative effect, burnout, emotional
exhaustion, job dissatisfaction, and
withdrawal” (Scott et al., 2012). Surface
acting through high self-monitoring
appears to be a personality trait that
can lead to negative project outcomes.
Therefore, we posit the following:
Proposition 4: High self-monitors
engaging in surface acting for the per-
ceived good of the team, project, or
organization will experience the nega-
tive effects of such in the form of job
dissatisfaction, withdrawal, burnout,
and/or emotional exhaustion, thus
producing less project success.
Proposition 5: Low self-monitors will
engage in little surface acting and
therefore will experience less with-
drawal, burnout, etc., producing more
project success.
Conflict Management
Conflict is the result of a difference of
perception, opinion, or beliefs among
people. Typically, conflict occurs when
there are incompatible goals, thoughts,
or emotions between individuals, which
40 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
result in opposition and disagreements
(Villax & Anantatmula, 2010). Over the
years, three different views have devel-
oped about conflict in projects and
organizations (Robbins, 1974, 1979;
Robbins & Stuart-Kotze, 1986). Manag-
ers who adopt the traditional view
toward conflict feel that conflict is nega-
tive and must be avoided and it is the
manager’s responsibility to create a cul-
ture that fosters harmony. The behav-
ioral view still considers conflict as
mainly negative, but it also believes that
it is natural and inevitable. Managers
are encouraged to manage conflict rath-
er than eliminate it. This view also
accepts the fact that conflict can yield
positive results if managed properly.
Finally, the interactionist view believes
that conflict should be encouraged up
to a certain level because it is necessary
to increase performance. Low levels of
conflict can lead to less innovation, less
change, and less improvements for the
organization.
People, rather than procedures,
play an important role in the creation
of dysfunctional conflict (Gardiner &
Simmons, 1998). Personal differences
occur when people from different cul-
tures work together toward common
project goals. People-focused conflict
can have devastating and long-lasting
effects on interpersonal relationships.
This type of conflict is intense, person-
al, emotional, subjective, difficult to
resolve, and generally detrimental to
team performance and project success
(Cameron & Whetten, 2007). Verma
(1996) labeled this type of conflict as
interpersonal conflict and attributed it
to variations in people’s work ethics,
styles, egos, and personalities.
Although people-focused type of
conflict is likely to cause turn over,
absenteeism, and organizational
behavior, research has shown that team
performance can equally be disrupted
by both task and relationship conflicts
(De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Performance
and conflict are interrelated: “Poor per-
formance leads to conflict and conflict
influences performance” (De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003, p. 747). Task conflict will
only have a positive impact in an envi-
ronment characterized by high levels of
trust, openness, and psychological safe-
ty. It seems that collaboration rather
than contention is more likely to mini-
mize, if not reverse, the negative effects
of task conflict on performance.
Conflict associated with tasks can
be beneficial, and project managers
should find a level of conflict that
encourages creativity and innovation
(Ohlendorf, 2001). Issue-focused con-
flict is much more beneficial because it
takes on a more rational approach to
conflict. It can be more easily resolved
through negotiations, where both par-
ties agree to find a fair and satisfying
resolution (Cameron & Whetten, 2007).
As discussed earlier, communication
is a critical success factor in project per-
formance (Anantatmula & Thomas,
2010) and it is important to establish
effective communication and coopera-
tion among the project manager, stake-
holders, and team members. Otherwise,
it would result in a high percentage of
conflict and team ineffectiveness, a mis-
understanding, or misinterpretation,
resulting in a breakdown of communica-
tion continuity (Verma, 1995).
Thamhain (2004) believed that conflict
is disruptive and the project manager’s main
goal is to focus on problem avoidance;
however, Verma (1996) contends that con-
flict drives a company and its employees to
search for answers to problems they are
facing, which often leads to improvements
and creates energy when handled in a con-
structive manner. Managers must foster an
atmosphere that encourages the use of a
cooperative style for organizational conflict
management (Ohlendorf, 2001). Leung, Ng,
and Cheung (2004) believed that manage-
ment mechanisms, rather than particular
project goals, directly affect team member
satisfaction. They suggested that cooperation
and participation, task and team conflict, and
goal commitment are the critical factors
influencing team member fulfillment, with
high task and team conflict in the goal-setting
process significantly improving the posi-
tive relationship between commitment
and participant satisfaction in the man-
agement process.
According to Lencioni (2002), teams
need conflict to develop and mature.
Conflict is important, beneficial, and
should be initiated through various
methods such as mining, a process of
bringing out sensitive issues to the
group for discussion; and real-time per-
mission, which is the process of facing
healthy debate. Lencioni suggested that
project managers should avoid interfer-
ing when their team members engage
in conflict and allow conflict resolution
to come naturally.
Proposition 6: Project managers who
practice the behavioral and/or the
interactionist view of conflict will
experience more project success than
those managers practicing the tradi-
tional view (“conflict is negative and
must be avoided”) of conflict.
Change Initiation
In the context of organizations, change
is considered a premeditated interven-
tion that is aimed to modify the func-
tioning of an organization (Lippitt,
1958). Battilana and Casciaro (2012) con-
tribute to the organizational change liter-
ature by showing that the degree to which
organizational change diverges from the
institutional status quo may have impor-
tant implications for the factors that
enable adoption. Communication can aid
adoption, and ineffective communication
is commonly cited for the failure of
implementing organizational change
(Qian & Daniels, 2008). Kilmann (1989)
argues that a critical issue during the
change initiation phase is to ascertain
the organization’s readiness for suc-
cessful improvement effort, which
includes top management support.
Ramnarayan and Nilakant (2006) sug-
gest that it is important for managers to
develop a detailed plan for implementing
change due to the uncertainty and com-
plexity associated with it. They observed
that people play an important role in
implementing change and recommend
integration and coordination among peo-
ple to work together effectively. It would
be unrealistic to expect good project
management planning to eliminate the
occurrence of all of the unexpected
events; however, if the project is imple-
mented with careful planning, many of
the changes will be anticipated, and the
team will institute remedies for them as
they begin to materialize.
Members of the organization who
are affected by change and those who
do not initiate it may resist or oppose
any modification or transformation,
sometimes from the fear of the
unknown; however, change is often
necessary to accomplish progress or
growth. Citing past research efforts
(Kanter, 1983; Van de Ven, 1986),
Battilana and Casciaro (2012) observe
that a change agent may be required to
overcome this resistance and encour-
age others to adopt new practices.
Further, they propose that change
implementation is an exercise in social
influence. The project manager, who is
frequently required to lead a team that
is newly formed, often plays the role of
a change agent, as a project is a new
time-bound effort with several related
and/or interdependent tasks to create a
unique product or service that either
adds value or reduces loss.
Proposition 7: We posit, therefore, that
those project managers who are
inclined toward instituting change
within their projects (as it pertains to
product innovation, process reengi-
neering, and so forth) will experience
more project success than those project
managers who are not.
Proposition 8: We further assert that
project managers with an inclination
toward instituting change in general,
are more equipped in project manage-
ment planning and, therefore, will
experience greater levels of project
success.
Myers-Briggs (MBTI)—Personality Type
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) is a self-assessment tool used to
determine cognitive styles (Sense,
2007). The MBTI is a non-evasive tool
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
that comes in a number of formats used
to determine mental preferences
(Briggs-Myers & McCaulley, 1985). This
tool was referred to by Sternberg and
Grigorenko (1997) as a personality-
centric approach to assessing cognitive
styles. This approach is based on a
major theory put forth by Jung (1923)
that deals with psychological types.
These “types” include how one func-
tions when dealing with oneself and
others. Jung’s theory was extended by
Myers and Myers (1980) and by Myers
and McCaulley (1985) for use when
dealing with the external world.
Katharine Briggs, with the help of Isabel
Myers, developed the Myers-Briggs
type indicator (Gehring, 2007). This
final extension produced a question-
naire with four sections or dichotomies.
Each section has a letter representing
an opposing pole of a particular index.
The MBTI assessment tool has been
used by several investigators within the
project management domain (Madter,
Bower, & Aritua, 2012; Sense, 2007;
Jablokow & Booth, 2006). Dolfi and
Andrews (2007) report “project manag-
ers have certain functional characteris-
tics associated with their work environ-
ment that lend themselves well to MBTI
classification …” (p. 675). Turner and
Müller (2006) considered the interac-
tion of personality type and project
type. Mullaly and Thomas (2009) com-
pared career project managers with the
general population and determined
project managers to be either INT or
IST types. In a significant work dealing
with MBTI types and project managers,
Gehring (2007) posits, “MBTI types
have preferences that support project
leadership, specifically, ISTJ, INFL,
INTJ, ENTP, ESTJ, ENFJ, and ENTJ, with
INTJ, ESTJ, and ENTJ being the types
containing the most traits that support
project management leadership com-
petencies.”
Although the MBTI has not been
empirically validated and some
researchers (McCrae & Costa, 1988)
posited the interaction between indices
may have issues, the results of an MBTI
41
PAPERS
From Every Direction—How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project
can be used to make general predictions
in realistic settings (Pittenger, 1993). As
such we posit the following:
Proposition 9: Based on the literature,
project managers with some MBTI
classifications, as presented above, will
enjoy more project success than those
without.
Moderating Variables
Strang (2011) reported moderating rela-
tionships as interaction effects when
specific levels of a factor affect one vari-
able but the factor itself does not affect
or has association with other variables.
In our discussion of moderators within
our theoretical model, we have adopted
Strang’s definition of moderators
accepting that organizational dynamics
(structure, incentive systems, and
Organizational Project Management
Maturity) affect our dependent variable
process success.
Organizational Structure
Mintzberg’s (1979) definition of organi-
zational structure states: “the sum total
of the ways in which the organization
divides its labor into distinct tasks and
then achieves co-ordination amongst
them” (p. 66). Organizational structures,
beginning with the purely functional
organization to the projectized organi-
zation, have been presented in A Guide
to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide)—Fifth
Edition (PMI, 2013). The importance of
organizational structures and their
effects on project management has
received attention (Mullaly & Thomas,
2009; Procca, 2008; Laslo & Goldberg,
2008; Wellman, 2007).
Organizational structures were pre-
sented as one of three success factors
(Hyvari, 2006; Belassi & Tukel, 1996) and
as one of the five factors (Kendra &
Taplin, 2004) for ultimate project success.
Mullaly and Thomas (2009) reported
“Successful organizations ... support their
strategies with appropriately designed
structures and management processes”
(p. 125). Procca (2008) posited that: “At
the tactical level, the organization’s
42 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
structure, management processes …
need to be optimized for project-focused
activities” (p. 54). It is evident that orga-
nizational structures can have a pro-
found impact on project success.
Hyvari (2006) studied various forms
of organizational structure and the asso-
ciated effects on project success. These
forms included functional, functional
matrix, balanced matrix, project matrix,
and project team (projectized). The
functional organization, originally
developed by F. W. Taylor, contained
line and staff functions all within certain
business disciplines (i.e., marketing).
A matrix organization first described by
Galbraith and used in military produc-
tion “superimposes a product or project
structure onto existing function based
structures” (Van Der Merwe, 2002,
p. 404). In projectized structures or proj-
ect teams, “most of the organizational
resources are involved in project work”
(Hyvari, 2006, p. 32). Continuing the
definition of matrix organizations as
they evolved, Gobeli and Larson (1987)
elaborated matrix organizations as
either functional, balanced, or project in
nature. Finally, the PMBOK ® Guide went
on to further describe these matrix
structures as weak, balanced, or strong.
The question then remains: Which
structure is best suited for an organiza-
tion whose aims are successful project
outcomes? Nogueira and Raz (2006)
posited that based on contingency theo-
ry and a low uncertainty environment, a
centralized structure is more effective
(functional or functional matrix); howev-
er they continued that under conditions
of high uncertainty, a more decentralized
structure is preferred (project matrix or
projectized). Opinions vary as to the
best organizational structure, but some
themes are evident. Hyvari (2006) con-
cluded that “the functional organization
was felt to be the least effective” (p. 221).
Kuprenas (2003) reported that “operat-
ing under a matrix structure has
improved with respect to project deliv-
ery” (p. 51). Belout and Gauvreau (2004)
summarized their findings by saying
that the functional, matrix, and project
based matrix structures were significant-
ly correlated with project success. Laslo
and Goldberg (2008) wrote: “As a conse-
quence, managers seeking to make more
efficient use of their resources—and
benefit from inter-project cooperation—
can agree on a functional matrix as
the preferred organizational structure”
(p. 785). Lastly, Hyvari (2006) reported
when studying the effectiveness of orga-
nizational structures that the projec-
tized structure was the most effective,
with the project matrix being the second
most effective. Considering these
results, it appears that matrix structures
offer improved success for project
outcomes.
Belout and Gauvreau (2004) postu-
lated that organizational structures
moderated the effects between their inde-
pendent variables—human dimensions—
and successful project outcomes. Their
study focused on three moderating vari-
ables: project life cycle, organizational
structure, and project activity sector and
suggested that the independent vari-
ables have differing importance depend-
ing on the organizational structure.
They concluded that specific variables
were significantly correlated with suc-
cess only in the case of a particular
structure type, thereby suggesting a
moderating effect of organization struc-
tures on project outcomes.
While Belout and Gauvreau (2004)
question the relationship between the
independent variables (personality
dimensions) and a proposed moderat-
ing variable (organizational structure),
based on prior literature we postulate
a moderating relationship between
organizational structure and project out-
comes, as employees (with their person-
ality dimensions) work within these
structures to produce successful out-
comes. Therefore, we offer the following
proposition:
Proposition 10: Organizational struc-
tures can moderate the relationship
between personality dimensions and
project success with a projectized
structure producing the best project
success.
Organization Incentives—Team or
Individual Based
Managing and motivating individuals
and teams are critical to execute proj-
ects successfully. An effective incentive
system is expected to help the organiza-
tion achieve its goals while encouraging
employees to perform better and meet
their personal and professional needs.
Contemporary economic thought
suggests that individuals act according
to their self-interest or private econom-
ic incentives; concern for others and
public interest are largely ignored
(Kulshreshtha, 2005). This thought
forms as the basis for corporations to
provide individual-based incentives.
Corporations, specifically in the
United States, include customer satis-
faction or quality in their employee
motivation systems, such as incentives
(Hauser, Simester, & Wernerfelt, 1994).
Hauser et al. categorize rewards as psy-
chological (customer satisfaction leads
to employee satisfaction), and implicit
(customer satisfaction helps organiza-
tions improve profits in the long run,
which might lead to higher wages).
They observed that employee incen-
tives are often tied to customer satisfac-
tion or quality measures.
Citing several past studies, Barua,
Lee, and Whinston (1995) teams are not
as productive as they could be due to
the design of appropriate incentive
schemes; they argue: “When the out-
come is accomplished by one employ-
ee, there is little problem in identifying
the source of contribution. In a team-
based structure, however, some observ-
able team outcome is used as the basis
for a group reward, which is to be dis-
tributed among members. However, the
interdependence between members’
sub-tasks makes it difficult to identify
the source of contribution and to dis-
tribute rewards fairly” (p. 489).
Barua et al. (1995) noted that in a
team, an individual’s effort level is
observed by other members of the team,
which may not happen in the hierarchi-
cal structure due to prohibitive costs
associated with such monitoring. They
argue that the interdependency of task
assignments, team structure, and the
close working relations among team
members may make each member’s
effort more visible to peers.
Furthermore, they suggest that if an
incentive scheme based on team per-
formance is in place, individuals within
the team have an incentive to monitor
and be monitored by other members in
the team, which can have a powerful
supervisory impact on overall team
productivity.
Citing other studies (Williams et al.,
1981; Szymanski & Harkins, 1987),
Barua et al. (1995) cautioned that if
individuals in the team cannot identify
their contributions, and do not know
how much more to contribute, it would
lead to social loafing. Team-based
incentive schemes are likely to address
this problem. Yang and Chen (2009)
proposed a novel incentive system for
project management based on respon-
sibility assignment matrix (RAM) and
fuzzy linguistic variables.
Proposition 11: Organizations using a
team-based incentive system to moti-
vate and reward teams will moderate
the relationship between personality
dimensions and project success.
Organizational Project Management
Maturity
The Project Management Institute
(2008) proposed the Organizational
Project Management Maturity Model
(OPM3®), which is focused on integrat-
ing, improving, and assessing project
management practices. The model is
often used as a standard for project
maturity.
While an organization’s ability and
systems are important to completing
projects successfully (Kerzner, 2005),
past research efforts did not find evi-
dence of project management maturity’s
influence on success of an organization
(Grant & Pennypacker, 2006). Likewise,
Ibbs and Kwak (2000) found no correla-
tion between project management matu-
rity and project success based on cost
and schedule performance; however, a
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
recent study by Yazici (2009) suggests
that project management maturity is
significantly related to business perfor-
mance but not to project performance.
Further, Yazici found that an organiza-
tional culture change toward sharing,
collaboration, and empowerment is
required to dealing with issues related
to project time, budget, and expecta-
tions. According to Yazici (2009), orga-
nizational culture is the set of values,
beliefs, and behavioral norms that pro-
vide guidance for its members. Yazici
defines organizational context as the
one that consists of organizational cul-
ture, management processes, and orga-
nizational systems.
A study of innovation projects found
that maturity in project management
processes is strongly associated with a
high project success rate (Besner &
Hobbs, 2008). Further, they observed
that participation of the project man-
ager during initial stages of the project,
availability of competent personnel, as
well as practices that enhance project
definition, would also help in achieving
better project performance.
Organizations adopted project
management maturity models in order
to benchmark and improve project per-
formance. These maturity models offer
frameworks that are used to develop
project management capabilities with
an ultimate goal of delivering projects
successfully (Pennypacker & Grant,
2003). According to them, many matu-
rity models started emerging in 1990s.
Further, a standard project manage-
ment maturity model is useful to mak-
ing valid comparisons of maturity
from one time frame to the other
(Pennypacker & Grant, 2003). Maturity
models, however, are limited in provid-
ing only temporary competitive advan-
tage because they do not represent
project management in a holistic sense;
organizations must also focus on intan-
gible strategic assets (Jugdev & Thomas,
2002).
PMI (2008) proposes that organiza-
tional project management maturity
model (OPM3) benefits organizations by:
43
PAPERS
From Every Direction—How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project
• Providing answers to important ques-
tions related to the organization’s cur-
rent maturity
• Assessing maturity of different parts of
the organization
• Identifying specific areas that need
improvement
• Promoting organizational maturity
awareness among members of senior
management  ect manager assignment, project suc-
• Attributing organizational success to
project management
From their practices and publica-
tions, it is evident that PMI believes that
the project management office (PMO) is
one of the avenues to achieving project
success and project management matu-
rity. The PMO is considered an organi-
zational entity and a focal point for proj-
ect management discipline. Kendall and
Rollins (2003) describe the PMO as a
centralized organization dedicated to
improving the practice and results of
project management. Further, the PMO
facilitates the organizational recognition
of the project management profession;
however, it is organization-specific and
varies in structure, role, and legitimacy,
depending on it relevance (Hobbs &
Aubry, 2007).
Further, Hobbs and Aubry (2010)
suggest that the PMO’s role is still evolv-
ing and the presence of a PMO does not
mean either that an organization is
innovative or it is disorganized. The
presence of a PMO suggests organiza-
tional tensions and is generally created
to manage multiple projects; it is also
seen as an organizational innovation
that is unstable and evolving (Hobbs,
Aubry, & Thuillier, 2008). The PMO
would be affected by changes in top
management and economic context and
soft skill issues, such as collaboration,
accountability, and work climate
(Aubry, Hobbs, Müller, & Blomquist,
2011).
Recent quantitative empirical evi-
dence shows that PMO—with the proj-
ect portfolio management unit’s role of
coordinating, controlling, and support-
ing at the portfolio management level—
44 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
was instrumental in project success
(Unger, Gemünden, & Aubry, 2012).
Underlining the importance of top
management support for project friend-
ly organizations, Zqikael, Levin, and Rad
(2008) identified top management sup-
port factors, which include communica-
tion, quality management, advanced
project management techniques, proj-
cess measurement, and an organiza-
tional knowledge management system.
Using these factors, they proposed a
maturity model for improving project
performance.
Proposition 12: An organization’s proj-
ect management maturity level will
moderate the relationship between a
project manager’s personality dimen-
sions and project success.
Dependent Variables
Project Success
In simple terms, project success com-
prises standards or criteria that assess
project outcomes or results. Over a peri-
od, project success—from a narrow but
universally accepted group of criteria of
scope, cost, and time—has included sev-
eral other criteria by viewing project
success from different perspectives such
as meeting enterprise strategic objec-
tives and enterprise financial objectives.
Pinto and Slevin (1988) introduced a
broader framework of project success.
They proposed that project success
should include both internal (project)
factors and external (client) factors.
Internal project factors are the factors
that the project manager has control over
time, cost, and performance. External
client factors are usefulness, satisfaction,
and effectiveness of the project outcome;
however, these external success factors
cannot be measured until the project is
complete; the only way to assure them
during the project execution, to a certain
extent, is to understand client needs and
translate them into specifications of the
project deliverables.
Any discussion about project suc-
cess generally includes critical success
factors (CSFs) of projects. Critical suc-
cess factors are those few key factors
that are considered absolutely neces-
sary to reaching goals (Rockart, 1982);
however, it must be remembered that
critical success factors do not change
often although they might be subjected
to revision and update occasionally
(Nuland, Broux, Grets, De Cleyn,
Legrand, Majoor, & Vleminckx, 1999).
Rad and Anantatmula (2010) pre-
sented a methodology for measuring
project success with three different sets
of attributes: the client view, which is
focused on the deliverables (as mea-
sured by scope, quality, and client satis-
faction) and the team view, which is
focused on the means by which the
deliverables are created and the enter-
prise perspective, which is focused on
financial and commercial aspects. They
contend that the perception of failure
and success is usually based on unspo-
ken and personal indices; which is why
two different people would view the
success of the same project differently.
Rad and Anantatmula have suggested
that the success of the project should be
measured by considering three different
areas: project meeting its own cost-
duration targets, the deliverable meet-
ing enterprise strategic objectives, and
the deliverable meeting the enterprise
financial objectives.
Project success is a complex and
ambiguous concept and it changes over
the project and product life cycle. Jugdev
and Müller (2005) suggest that projects
are about managing expectations, and
expectations have to do with percep-
tions on success. They suggest that proj-
ect success is more than having a com-
mon mission, top management support
for resources, authority, and power to
succeed on the project.
Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir’s (1997)
study revealed project design goals,
impact on customer, benefits to the exe-
cuting organization, and preparing for
the future as project success dimen-
sions. They argued for developing a new
way of examining project success and it
is time dependent. The design goals and
impact to customer dimensions are
short-term and the benefit to the orga-
nization and preparing for the future
dimensions are long-term. In a similar
finding, Baker, Fisher, and Murphy
(1988) established the importance of
customer satisfaction as a measure
of project success.
Specific to the construction proj-
ects, the top ten CSFs are: adequacy of
plans and specifications, constructabil-
ity, economic risks, clear objectives,
project manager competency, adequa-
cy of funding, budget updates, project
manager commitment and involve-
ment, contractual motivation, and risk
identification and allocation (Chua,
Kog, & Loh, 1999).
Ojiako, Johansen, and Greenwood
(2007) found that success criteria may
differ from project to project, depend-
ing on a number of factors, but can be
categorized as project progress benefits
and project performance benefits.
These results suggest that projects are
required to meet both strategy objec-
tives (macro measures of project per-
formance) and conventional measures
of time, cost, and quality (micro mea-
sures of project progress).
Wateridge (1998) noted that on suc-
cessful projects, there was greater
agreement on success criteria between
the project managers and end users
than there was on unsuccessful proj-
ects. In addition, successful projects
were more likely to emphasize product
success (a longer-term objective),
whereas unsuccessful projects involved
emphases on time, cost, and scope.
Cooke-Davies (2002) made a dis-
tinction between project management
success and project success; the former
is measured against the traditional
gauges of performance (i.e., time, cost,
and quality), and project success, on
the other hand, is measured against the
overall objectives of the project. Dyett
(2011), based on an extensive literature
review findings, summarized and clas-
sified project success measures into tra-
ditional measures, new measures, and
evolving categories.
Independent Dependent Variables
Variables
Process Success:
Communication Time
Apprehension Cost
Quality
Innovativeness Scope
Team
Self Monitoring
Conflict Management
Change Orientation Moderating Variables
Myers-Briggs (MBTI) Organizational Structure
Type Organizational Incentives
Organizational Project
Management Maturity
Figure 2: Expanded conceptual model.
Kerzner (1989) identified a list of project management success is a result
critical success factors, which include of managing resources, specifically
corporate understanding of project human resources. In other words, the
management, executive commitment, success of the project would include suc-
organizational adaptability, project cess of the implementation team in
manager selection criteria, project lead- crafting the deliverable, along with
ership style, and commitment to plan- success of the enterprise in reaping
ning and control. Among these, project benefits from the deliverable.
manager selection criteria and leader- Considering the definitions of proj-
ship style, to a great extent, can be ect success, we have selected five suc-
influenced by an organization’s commit- cess definitions to include: time, cost,
ment to project management and estab- scope, quality and team. Based on the
lished practices of planning and control. literature review discussed in this sec-
Kerzner suggests that interpersonal tion and consequent research proposi-
skills and communication are important tions, we present a theoretical model in
attributes of a project manager. Figure 2.
To sum up, project management is
aimed at making effective and efficient Discussion
use of resources to complete a project Many researchers have investigated the
within time, scope, and cost. From this effects of project manager personality
perspective, project management suc- on project outcomes. Scholars have
cess is a subset of project success. In examined personality and types of proj-
other words, project management suc- ects (Dvir, Sadeh, & Malach-Pines, 2006);
cess is viewed as the internal measure specific personality traits such as consci-
of efficiency, whereas project success is entiousness and openness (Thal &
concerned with the project’s external Bedingfield, 2010); executives’ overall
effectiveness. It is important to recog- preferences for soft skills (Stevenson &
nize that project management success Starkweather, 2010); project manager
factors of time, cost, and quality would leadership competencies (Geoghehan &
also ensure project outcome success. Dulewicz, 2008); project manager’s
Further, one should recognize that emotional intelligence (Adams &
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 45
PAPERS
From Every Direction—How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project
Anantatmula, 2010) and Myers-Briggs
personality type; and manager motiva-
tions (Dolfi & Andrews, 2007) among
others. We hope to build on this stream
of necessary research by combining
many concepts into a much larger theo-
retical model while adding other necessary
project manager dimensions (communica-
tion apprehension, self-monitoring, inno-
vativeness, and change orientation),
which have received little, if any, atten-
tion in the project management litera-
ture. Rather than in rifle-shot fashion,
we believe an all-inclusive focus (as our
model suggests) on the “art” (or soft
side) of project management will yield
improved results. This focus should be
directed toward project manager selec-
tion, training, coaching, and problem
resolution for project success.
Unfortunately, as current trends
suggest, project success is often elusive.
Papke-Shields, Beise, and Quan (2010)
reported that the complexity and costs
of projects have increased dramatically
in the 10 years preceding their study.
They quoted a KPMG survey (KPMG,
2005) of 600 organizations across 22
countries and reported that “86% of
respondents had project outcomes
that fell short of planned expectations”
(p. 650). A more recent study by the
Standish Group International suggests
that the project success rate declined
from 34% in 2004 to 32% in 2009.
As more project managers get certi-
fied and enter the field, we can be confi-
dent that the technical skills (the “science
of project manager”) will be addressed.
However it remains to be seen, despite
the overwhelming evidence from investi-
gators suggesting it should, if interper-
sonal skills (the “art of project manage-
ment”) will be focused upon as heavily in
selecting project managers. Our theoreti-
cal model, supported by dozens of stud-
ies, suggest that prudent managers
should focus on the “art of project man-
agement” when considering project
management within their organizations.
Gehring (2007) wrote: “… for most
organizations, the most natural thing to
do is to draft a technician or administrator
46 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
with a good reputation within the organi-
zation to lead the project. Because of this
natural technical progression, most peo-
ple become project managers by acci-
dent” (p. 50). Perhaps accidental project
management can be avoided. We recom-
mend a robust project manager selection
process to include the “art of project man-
agement” as a good place to start. If we
can avoid “accidents” perhaps we can also
avoid many projects that “fell short of
planned expectations.” This can be done,
we contend, by considering a project
manager’s personality traits and dimen-
sions. Since many issues project manag-
ers face when executing projects are inter-
personal (Sense, 2007; Willcoxson &
Chatham, 2006), we recommend includ-
ing this proposed model, including all its
dimensions, when coaching and mentor-
ing project managers or when engaged in
project-issue resolution.
We also recognize that managers
with their cache of personality dimen-
sions labor within organizations that
may have systems that affect project
outcomes. The systems we contend that
are critical for project success are struc-
ture (Mullaly & Thomas, 2009), organi-
zational maturity (Zqikael, Levin, & Rad,
2008), and incentive systems (Yang &
Chen, 2009). These systems have the
potential to moderate (Strang, 2011)
the theoretical relationships between the
independent variables of personality
dimensions and dependent variable of
project success.
Taken together then, as our model
suggests, attention should be given to
project managers on an individual basis
as it pertains to his or her understanding
of the importance of the “art of project
management” as well as to systems
placed by the organization in which they
labor. These dimensions and systems
working positively in tandem, we con-
jecture, will improve success within the
project management domain.
Conclusion and Anantatmula, V., & Thomas, M. (2010).
Recommendations Managing global projects: A structured
The importance of project management to approach for better performance. Project
organizations has been well established. Management Journal, 41(2), 60–72.
Projects are the method in which organi-
zations accomplish their many initiatives
and tasks in hopes of improving their mar-
ket leverage, strategic position, and profit-
ability (Davis, 2011). It appears that “soft
skills” of project managers are gaining in
perceived importance and subsequent
research attention (Adams & Anantatmula,
2010; Skulmoski & Hartman, 2010; Hyvari,
2006; Gehring, 2007). We believe our mod-
erated, research model positing relation-
ships between personality dimensions
and project success continues this
research stream and adds to the body of
knowledge.
We acknowledge the theoretical
nature of this work but have taken mea-
sures by using a multi-disciplinary
approach to understanding these
dimensions and their potential impact
on the field of project management.
Through leveraging the combined work
of so many researchers, we constructed
our model in hopes of pushing this
stream of research further. The model
needs empirical validation by gauging
project success and measuring the per-
sonality dimensions of the project man-
agers employed with those pertinent
projects’ success. We have so set our
sights and will report our findings once
available. ■
References
Adams, S., & Anantatmula, V. (2010).
Social and behavioral influences on team
processes. Project Management Journal,
41(4), 89–98.
Akgun, A., Keslin, H., & Byrne, J. (2010).
Procedural justice climate in new prod-
uct development teams: Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 27, 1096–1111.
Alpay, G., Bodur, M., Yilmaz, C., &
Buyukbalci, P. (2012). How does innova-
tiveness yield superior performance? The
role of marketing effectiveness.
Innovation: Management Policy &
Practice, 14(1), 107–128.
Anantatmula, V. (2008). The role of
technology in the project management
performance model. Project
Management Journal, 39(1), 34–48.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Müller, R., &
Blomquist, T. (2011). Identifying the
forces driving the frequent changes in
PMOs. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Ayers, J., Keereetaweep, T., Chen, P., &
Edwards, P. (1998). Communication
apprehension and employment interviews.
Communication Education, 47(1), 1–17.
Baker, B., Fisher, D., & Murphy, D.
(1988). Factors affecting project success.
In D. I. Cleland & W. R. King (Eds.),
Project management handbook (2nd
edition) New York: John Wiley.
Bartoo, H., & Sias, P. (2004). When
enough is too much: Communication
apprehension and employee information
experiences. Communication Quarterly,
52, 15–26.
Barua, A., Lee, C. H., & Whinston, A. B.
(1995). Incentives and computing sys-
tems for team-based organizations.
Organization Science, 6(4), 487–504.
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012).
Change agents, networks, and institu-
tions: A contingency theory of organiza-
tional change. Academy of Management
Journal, 56(2), 381–398.
Beal, D., Weiss, H., Barros, E., &
MacDermid, S. (2005). An episodic pro-
cess model of affective influences on
performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1054–1068.
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. (1996). A new
framework for determining critical suc-
cess/failure factors in projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 14, 141–151.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004).
Factors influencing project success: The
impact of human resource management.
International Journal of Project
Management, 22, 1–11.
Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2008).
Discriminating contexts and project
management best practices on innova-
tive and noninnovative projects. Project
Management Journal, 39, S123–134.
Blume, B., Dreher, G., & Baldwin, T.
(2010). Examining the effects of commu-
nication apprehension within assess-
ment centers. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83,
663–671.
Bono, J., & Vey, M. (2005). Toward
understanding emotional management
at work: A quantitative review of emo-
tional labor research. Emotions in
Organizational Behavior, 212–233.
Briggs-Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. H.,
(1985). A guide to the development and
use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist
Press.
Brill, J., Bishop, M., & Walker, A. (2006).
The competencies and characteristics
required of an effective project manager:
A web based Delphi study. Educational
Technology, Research and Development,
54(2), 115–140.
Brotheridge, C., & Lee, R. (2002). Test a
conservation of resources model of the
dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 7,
57–67.
Brotheridge, C., & Lee, R. (2003).
Development and validation of the emo-
tional labor scale. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 76, 365–379.
Brown, K. (2000). Developing project
management skills: A service learning
approach. Project Management Journal,
31(4), 53–58.
Cameron, K., & Whetten, D. (2007).
Developing management skills. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998).
Organizing for radical product innova-
tion: The overlooked role of willingness
to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing
Research, 35(4), 474–487.
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The
incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size,
and radical product innovation. Journal
of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.
Cheng, M., Dainty, A., & Moore, D.
(2005). What makes a good project man-
ager? Human Resource Management
Journal, 15(1), 25–37.
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Chua, D. K. H., Kog, Y. C., & Loh, P. L.
(1999). Critical success factors for differ-
ent project objectives. Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management, 125(3), 142–150.
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence
and its relationship to transformational
leadership and key project manager
competencies. Project Management
Journal, 41(2), 5–20.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The real suc-
cess factors on projects. International
Journal on Project Management, 20(3),
185–190.
Davis, S. (2011). Investigating the impact
of project managers’ emotional intelli-
gence on their interpersonal competence.
Project Management Journal, 42(4), 37–57.
De Dreu, C., & Weingart, L. (2003). Task
verses relationship conflict, team perfor-
mance, and team member satisfaction: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.
Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., &
Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimension-
ality and antecedents of emotional labor
strategies. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 339–357.
Dolfi, J., & Andrews, E. (2007). The sub-
liminal characteristics of project manag-
ers: An exploratory study of optimism
covering challenge in the project man-
agement work environment.
International Journal of Project
Management, 25, 674–682.
Droge, C., Calantone, R., &
Harmancioglu, N. (2008). New product
success: Is it really controllable my man-
agers in highly turbulent environments?
Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 25, 272–286.
Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of
innovation. Harvard Business Review,
80(8), 95–103.
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., & Malach-Pines, A.
(2006). Projects and project managers:
The relationship between project man-
ager’s personality, project types, and
project success. Project Management
Journal, 37(5), 36–48.
Dyett, V. (2011). Roles and characteris-
tics of the project manager in achieving
47
PAPERS
From Every Direction—How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project
success across the project life cycle.
Proquest Dissertations and Theses 2011.
Section 1381, Part 0454 135 pages; [Ph.D.
dissertation]. Florida, Lynn University,
2011. Publication Number: AAT 3455628.
Gale, A. (1999). How to know what:
Setting the project management compe-
tency agenda. Paper presented at PM
Days ’99: Projects and Competencies,
Vienna, Austria.
Gangestad, S., & Synder, M. (2000). Self-
monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530–555.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A
critical look at technological innovation
typology and innovativeness terminolo-
gy: A literature review. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 29, 110–132.
Gardiner, P., & Simmons, J. E. L. (1998).
(January/February). Conflict in small-
and medium-sized projects: Case of part-
nering to the rescue. Journal of
Engineering, 14(1), 35–40.
Gehring, D. R. (2007). Applying traits of
leadership to project management.
Project Management Journal, 38(1), 44–54.
Geoghegan, L., & Dulewicz, V. (2008).
Do project manager’s leadership compe-
tencies contribute to project success?
Project Management Journal, 39(4),
58–67.
Gobeli, D., & Larson, E. (1987). Relative
effectiveness of different project struc-
tures. Project Management Journal, 18(2),
81–85.
Goleman, D. (2001). An E.I. based theory
of performance: The emotionally intelli-
gent workplace (pp. 27–44). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. K.
(2006). Disruptiveness of innovations:
Measurement and an assessment of reli-
ability and validity. Strategic Management
Journal, 27(2), 189–199.
Grandley, A. (2000). Emotional regulation
in the workplace: A new way to conceptu-
alize emotional labor. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–110.
Grant, K. P., & Pennypacker, J. S. (2006).
Project management maturity: An assess-
ment of project management capabilities
48 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
among and between selected industries.
IEEE Transactions of Engineering
Management, 53, 59–68.
Griffith-Meyer, G., Reardon, R., &
Hartley, S. (2009). An examination of the
relationship between career thoughts and
communication apprehension. The Career
Development Quarterly, 58, 171–180.
Hansen, M. T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2007).
The innovation value chain. Harvard
Business Review, June, 121–130.
Harville, D. (1992). Person job fit model
of communication apprehension in orga-
nizations. Management Communication
Quarterly, 27, 55–61.
Hauser, J. R., Simester, D. I., &
Wernerfelt, B. (1994). Customer satisfac-
tion incentives. Marketing Science, 13(4),
327–350.
Henderson, L. (2008). The impact of
project managers’ communication com-
petencies: Validation and extension of a
research model for virtuality, satisfaction,
and productivity on project teams. Project
Management Journal, 39(2), 48–59.
Hobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2007). A multi-
phase research program investigating
project management offices (PMOs): The
results of phase 1. Project Management
Journal, 38(1), 74–86.
Hobbs, B., Aubry, M., & Thuillier, D.
(2008). The project management office as
an organizational innovation.
International Journal of Project
Management, 26 (5, Best Papers Special
Issue at 2007 IRNOP Research
Conference), 547–555.
Hobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2010). The proj-
ect management office: A quest for under-
standing. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Hochschild, A. (1979). Emotional work,
feel rules and social structure. American
Journal of Sociology, 85, 551–575.
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed
heart: Commercialization of human feel-
ing. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Huemann, M., Turner, J., & Keegan, A.
(2004). The role of human resource man-
agement in project-oriented organizations.
Paper presented at the PMI Research
Conference, London, UK.
Hurley, R. F., & Hult T. (1998).
Innovation, market orientation, and orga-
nizational learning: An integration and
empirical examination. Journal of
Marketing, 62(July), 42–54.
Hyvari, I. (2006). Project management
effectiveness in project-oriented business
organizations. International Journal of
Project Management, 24, 216–225.
Ibbs, C. W., & Kwak, Y. H. (2000).
Assessing project management maturity.
Project Management Journal, 31(1),
32–43.
Jablokow, K., & Booth, D. (2006). The
impact and management of cognitive gap
in high performance product develop-
ment organizations. Journal of
Engineering and Technology
Management, 23, 313–336.
Jugdev, K., & Thomas, J. (2002). Project
management maturity models: The silver
bullets of competitive advantage? Project
Management Journal, 33(4), 4–14.
Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retro-
spective look at our evolving understand-
ing of project success. Project
Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31.
Jung, C. (1923). Psychological types. New
York: Harcourt Brace.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change mas-
ters: Corporate entrepreneurs at work.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kendall, G. I., & Rollins, S. C. (2003).
Advanced project portfolio management
and the PMO: Multiplying ROI at warp
speed (pp. 23–54). Boca Raton, FL: J. Ross
Publishing.
Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. (2004). Project
success: A cultural framework. Project
Management Journal, 35(1), 30–45.
Kerzner, H. (1989). Project management:
A system approach to planning scheduling
and controlling. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Kerzner, H. (2005). Using the project
management maturity model (2nd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kilmann, R. H. (1989). A completely
integrated program for creating and
maintaining organizational success.
Organizational Dynamics, 18(1), 4–19.
Kulshreshtha, P. (2005). Business ethics
versus economic incentives:
Contemporary issues and dilemmas.
Journal of Business Ethics, 60(4), 393–410.
Kuprenas, J. (2003). Implementation
and performance of a matrix organiza-
tion structure. International Journal of
Project Management, 21, 51–62.
Laslo, Z., & Goldberg, A. (2008).
Resource allocation under uncertainty in
a multi-project matrix environment: Is
organizational conflict inevitable?
International Journal of Project
Management, 26, 773–788.
Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes to
project management, it’s the people that
matter. Paper presented at the IRNOP
III: The Nature and Role of Projects in
the Next 20 Years: Research Issues and
Problems, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions
of a team: A leadership fable. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leung, M., Ng, T., & Cheung, S. (2004).
Measuring construction project member
satisfaction. Construction Management
and Economics, 22(3), 319–331.
Leybourne, S. (2007). The changing bias
of project management research: A con-
sideration of the literatures and an appli-
cation of extant theory. Project
Management Journal, 38(1), 61–73.
Lippitt, R. (1958). The dynamics of
planned change. New York: Harcourt
Brace.
Madter, N., Bower, D., & Aritua, B.
(2012). Projects and personalities: A
framework for individualizing project
management career development in the
construction industry. International
Journal of Project Management, 30,
273–281.
Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout new
directions in research and introvention.
Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 12(5), 189–192.
McCrae, R., & Costa, P., Jr. (1988).
Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator from the perspective of the
five-factor model of personality. Journal
of Personality, 57(1), 17–40.
McCroskey, J. (1977). Oral communica-
tion apprehension: A summary of recent
theory and research. Human
Communications Research, 4, 78–96.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D.
(2001). The social networks of high and
low self-monitors: Implications for work-
place performance. American Science
Quarterly, 46, 121–146.
Merlo, A. (2010). Agile innovation: The
role of team climate in rapid research
and development. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 83, 1075–1084.
Meyer-Griffith, K., Reardon, R., &
Hartley, S. (2009). An examination of the
relationship between career thoughts
and communication apprehension. The
Career Development Quarterly, 58(2),
171–180.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structure of
organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Mullaly, M., & Thomas, J. (2009).
Exploring the dynamics of value and fit:
Insights from project management.
Project Management Journal, 40(1),
124–135.
Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts
differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985).
Manual: A guide to the development and
use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Nogueira, J., & Raz, T. (2006). Structure
and flexibility of project teams under tur-
bulent environments: An application of
agent-based simulation. Project
Management Journal, 37(2), 5–10.
Nuland, N. Y., Broux, G., Grets, L., De
Cleyn, W., Legrand, J., Majoor, G., &
Vleminckx, G. (1999). Excellence: A
guide for the implementation of the
EFQM Excellence Mode. Blanden,
Beligum: Comatech.
Ohlendorf, A. (2001). Conflict resolution
in project management. Retrieved from
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis
/488_f01_papers/Ohlendorf.htm
Ojiako, U., Johansen, E., & Greenwood, D.
(2007). A qualitative re-construction of
project measurement criteria. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 108(3),
405–417.
Opt, S., & Loffredo, D. (2000).
Rethinking communication apprehen-
sion: A Myers-Briggs perspective. Journal
of Psychology: Interdisciplinary Applied,
134, 556–570.
Othman, A., Abdulah, H., & Ahmad, J.
(2009). The influence of work motivation
on emotional intelligence and team effec-
tiveness relationship. Vision: The Journal
of Business Perspective, 13(4), 1–14.
Pagano, V., & Debono, K. (2011). The
effects of mood on moral judgement:
The role of self-monitoring. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 41(12), 2928–2942.
Papke-Shields, K., Beise, C., & Quan, J.
(2010). Do project managers practice
what they preach, and does it matter to
project success? International Journal of
Project Management, 28(7), 650–662.
Pennypacker, J., & Grant, K. (2003).
Project management maturity: An indus-
try benchmark. Project Management
Journal, 34(1), 4–11.
Pinto, J., & Slevin, D. (1988). Project
success: Definitions and measurement
techniques. Project Management Journal,
19(1), 67–72.
Pinto, J., & Kharbanda, O. (1995).
Success project managers: Leading your
team to success. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of
Educational Research, 63(4), 467–488.
Posner, B. (1987). What it takes to be a
good project manager. Project Manager
Journal, 18(1), 51–54.
Procca, A. (2008). Development of a
project management model for a govern-
ment research and development organi-
zation. Project Management Journal,
39(4), 33–57.
Project Management Institute. (2008).
Organizational Project Management
49
PAPERS
From Every Direction—How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project
Maturity Model (OPM3®)—Second edi-
tion. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Project Management Institute. (2013).
A guide to the project management body
of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)—Fifth edi-
tion. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Qian, Y., & Daniels, T. (2008). A commu-
nication model of employee cynicism
toward organizational change. Corporate
Communications: An International
Journal, 13(3), 319–332.
Rad, P., & Anantatmula, V. (2010).
Successful project management practices.
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
Ramnarayan, S., & Nilakant, S. (2006).
Dynamics of reinvention. Vikalpa, 31(1),
31–47.
Reinsch, N., & Lewis, P. (1984).
Communication apprehension as a deter-
minant of channel preferences. Journal of
Business Communication, 21, 53–61.
Richmond, V., & Roach, D. (1992).
Willingness to communicate and
employee success in U.S. organizations.
Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 31, 95–115.
Richmond, V., McCroskey, J., & Davis, L.
(1982). Individual differences among
employees, management communication
style, and employee satisfaction: Replica-
tion and extension. Human
Communication Research, 8, 170–188.
Rivard, S., & Dupré, R. (2009).
Information systems project manage-
ment in PMJ: A brief history. Project
Management Journal, 40(4), 20–30.
Robbins, S. P. (1974). Managing organi-
zational conflict: A nontraditional
approach (pp. 11–25). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. P. (1979). Organizational
behavior (p. 289). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Stuart-Kotze, R. (1986).
Management: Concepts and practices
(p. 483). Canadian Edition, Toronto, ON:
Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.
Rockart, J. F. (1982). The changing role
of the information system executive: A
critical success factor perspective. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 23, 3–13.
50 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Rubera G., & Kirca, A. H. (2012). Firm’s Insights from consumer packaged goods.
innovativeness and its performance out- Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 114–132.
comes: A meta-analytic review and theo- Starkweather, J., & Stevenson, D. (2011).
retical integration. Journal of Marketing, PMP certification as a core competency:
76(May 2012), 130–147. Necessary but not sufficient. Project
Russ, T. (2012). The relationship between Management Journal, 42(1), 31–41.
communication apprehension and learn- Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (1997).
ing preferences in an organizational set- Are cognitive styles still in style?
ting. Journal of Business Communication, American Psychologist, 52(7), 700–712.
49(3) 312–331.
Stevenson, D., & Starkweather, J. (2010).
Scott, B., Barnes, C., & Wagner, D.
PM critical competency index: IT execs
(2012). Chameleonic or consistent? A
prefer soft skills. International Journal of
multi-level investigation of emotional
Project Management, 28(7), 663–671.
labor variability and self-monitoring.
Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), Stock, N., & Zacharis, R. (2011). Patterns
and performance outcomes of innovation
905–926.
orientation. Journal of the Academy of
Sense, A. (2007). Learning with project
Marketing Science, 39, 870–888.
practice: Cognitive styles exposed.
International Journal of Project Strang, K. (2011). Leadership substitutes
Management, 25, 33–40. and personality impact on time and qual-
ity in virtual new product development
Sethi, R., Smith D. C., & Park, C. W.
projects. Project Management Journal,
(2001). Cross-functional product develop-
42(1), 73–90.
ment teams, creativity, and the innovative-
ness of new consumer products. Journal of Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987).
Marketing Research, 38(1), 73–85. Social loafing and self-evaluation with a
social standard. Journal of Personality
Sharma, A., & Lacey, N. (2004). Linking
and Social Psychology, 53(5), 891–897.
product development outcomes to mar-
ket valuation of the firm: The case of the Thal, J., & Bedingfield, A. (2010).
U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Successful project managers: An explor-
the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(5), atory study into the impact of personali-
297–308. ty. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 22(2), 243–259.
Shenhar, A., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997).
Mapping the dimensions of project suc- Thamhain, H. (1991). Developing proj-
cess. Project Management Journal, 28(2), ect management skills. Project
5–13. Management Journal, 12(3), 39–44.
Skulmoski, G., & Hartman, F. (2010). Thamhain, H. (2004). Team leadership
Information systems project manager soft effectiveness in technology based project
competencies: A project-phase investiga- environment. Project Management
tion. Project Management Journal, 41(1), Journal, pp. 35–46.
61–80. The Standish Group International, Inc.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of (2009). Extreme chaos. Boston: MA.
expressive behaviors. Journal of Thomas, G., Tymon, G., & Thomas, K.
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, (1994). Communication apprehension,
526–537. interpretive style, preparation and perfor-
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). mance in oral briefing. Journal of
Choosing social situations: Two investi- Business Communication, 31, 311–326.
gations of self-monitoring processes. Turner, J., & Müller, R. (2006). Choosing
Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, appropriate project managers: Matching
43, 123–135. their leadership style to the type of project.
Sorescu, A. B., & Spanjol, J. (2008). Newtown Square, PA: Project
Innovation’s effect on firm value and risk: Management Institute.
Unger, B., Gemünden, H. G., & Aubry,
M. (2012). The three roles of a project
portfolio management office: The impact
on portfolio management execution and
success. International Journal of Project
Management, 30(5, IRNOP Special issue
on project portfolio management),
608–620.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central prob-
lems in the management of innovation.
Management Science, 32, 590–607.
Van Der Merwe, A. (2002). Project man-
agement and business development:
Integrating strategy, structure, processes
and projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 20, 401–411.
Verma, V. K. (1996). Human resource
skills for the project manager. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management
Institute.
Verma, V. K. (1995). Flying to project suc-
cess on wing of communication.
Proceedings from the Project
Management Institute, 26th Annual
Seminar. New Orleans, Louisiana.
Vila, N., & Kuster, I. (2007). The impor-
tance of innovation in international tex-
tile firms. European Journal of Marketing,
41(1/2), 17–36.
Villax, C., & Anantatmula, V. (2010).
Understanding and managing conflict in
a project environment. 2010 PMI
Education and Research Conference,
12–16 July, Washington, DC.
Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/IT
projects be measured for success?
International Journal of Project
Management, 16(1), 59–63.
Wellman, J. (2007). Leadership behav-
iors in matrix environments. Project
Management Journal, 38(2), 62–74.
Willcoxson, L., & Chatham, R. (2006).
Testing the accuracy of the IT stereotype:
Profiling IT managers’ personality and
behavioural characteristics. Information
and Management, 43(6), 697–705.
Williams, K., Harkins, S. G., & Latane, B.
(1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to
social loafing: Two cheering experi-
ments. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40(2), 303–311.
Winiecki, K., & Ayres, J. (1999).
Communication apprehension and
receiver apprehension in the workplace.
Communication Quarterly, 47, 431–440.
Yang T., & Chen C. (2009). An incentive
pay system for project management
based on responsibility assignment
matrix and fuzzy linguistic variables.
Expert Systems with Applications, 36(10),
12585–12591.
Yasin, M., Gomes, C., & Miller, P. (2009).
Characteristics of Portuguese public–
sector project managers: Toward closing
the effectiveness gap. Project
Management Journal, 40(3), 47–55.
Yazici, H. J. (2009). The role of project
management maturity and organization-
al culture in perceived performance.
Project Management Journal, 40(3),
14–33.
Zhang, H. (2011). Two schools of risk
analysis: A review of past research on
project risk. Project Management Journal,
42(4), 5–18.
Zqikael, O., Levin, G., & Rad, P. F.
(2008). Top management support—
Project friendly organization. Cost
Engineering, 50(9), 22–30.
Todd Creasy, PhD, is an Associate
Professor in the Masters of Project
Management program at Western Carolina
University, a campus of the University of
North Carolina. Dr. Creasy has published sev-
eral scholarly journal articles, published in
trade journals, given numerous conference
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
presentations, and has appeared on the
Fox Business Network. His consulting firm
specializes in project management and
Lean Six Sigma training/project execution
in various industries, including healthcare,
mining, manufacturing, transportation, and
construction. Dr. Creasy’s academic qualifi-
cations include a doctorate degree from
Case Western Reserve University; a
Master of Science degree in Finance, an
MBA; and a BSBA in industrial engineering
from the University of Memphis. Further,
Dr. Creasy is a certified Six Sigma Master
Black Belt from the Juran Institute and a
Lean practices trainer and consultant.
Vittal S. Anantatmula, D.Sc., is an
Associate Professor and Director of
Graduate Programs in Project Management
at Western Carolina University, a campus of
the University of North Carolina.
Dr. Anantatmula has published more than
25 scholarly journal articles and approxi-
mately 25 conference presentations. He
has been invited to speak at several PMI
chapters in the United States and India; he
has authored a book on knowledge man-
agement and co-authored three books on
project management. Prior to joining
Western Carolina University, he was at the
George Washington University teaching and
directing a graduate degree program in proj-
ect management. He also worked in the
petroleum and power industries for several
years as an electrical engineer and project
manager; as a consultant, Dr. Anantatmula
worked with the World Bank, Arthur
Andersen, and other international consult-
ing firms. Dr. Anantatmula’s academic quali-
fications include a B.E. in electrical engi-
neering from Andhra University, an MBA
from India’s Institute of Management and
Management Development Institute,
Masters of Science and a Doctor of Science
in Engineering Management from the
George Washington University. Further,
Dr. Anantatmula is Project Management
Professional (PMP)® credential holder and a
Certified Cost Engineer.
51