Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(ATTW Series in Technical and Professional Communication) Lauren, Benjamin - Communicating Project Management - A Participatory Rhetoric For Development Teams-Routledge (2018)
(ATTW Series in Technical and Professional Communication) Lauren, Benjamin - Communicating Project Management - A Participatory Rhetoric For Development Teams-Routledge (2018)
MANAGEMENT
Rhetoric in the Flesh: Trained Vision, Technical Expertise, and the Gross Anatomy
Lab
T. Kenny Fountain
Social Media in Disaster Response: How Experience Architects Can Build for
Participation
Liza Potts
Benjamin Lauren
First published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of Benjamin Lauren to be identified as the author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Lauren, Benjamin, author.
Title: Communicating project management / Benjamin Lauren.
Description: 1 Edition. | New York : Routledge, [2018] | Series: ATTW
book series in technical and professional communication
Identifiers: LCCN 2017045381| ISBN 9781138046382 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781138046429 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781315171418 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Project management. | Business communication. |
Leadership.
Classification: LCC HD69.P75 L387 2018 | DDC 658.4/5—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045381
Typeset in Minion
by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon
For Liz, Austen, Addie, and Skyler,
who held on until the end
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments viii
Foreword x
Introduction 1
Index 175
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project began when I was a PhD student at Texas Tech University. While
at Texas Tech I received a great deal of support from Joyce Locke Carter, Steve
Morrison, Chris Andrews, Sam Dragga, Miles Kimball, Becky Rickly, Bea Amaya,
and Kristen Moore (who first introduced me to Pat Sullivan’s work). I would
also like to recognize my committee, Kelli Cargile Cook and Fred Kemp, for their
support of my ideas and for all the feedback along the way. It still resonates. As
well, my dissertation chair, Rich Rice, who invited me to keep reading, thinking,
and writing, while also reminding me to be happy in life—to find a balance and
to always think about my family’s happiness.
I also have to thank my colleagues, friends, and students at MSU (in no specific
order): Bump Halbritter, Julie Lindquist, Lizzie Oderkirk, Chris Long, David
Prestel, John Monberg, Erin Campbell, Liza Potts, Alex Hidalgo, Steve Fraiberg,
Autumn Laws, Jenn Ismirle, Howard Fooksman, April Baker-Bell, Malea Powell,
Dawn Opel, Brooke Chambers, Diana Shank, Regina Boone, Phil Deaton, Gary
Vigil, Barb Miller, Tylor Hoekstra, Scott Schopieray, Kristen Mapes, Jess Knot,
Ryan Yang, Valeria Obando, and Jackie Rhodes. All of these folks offered timely
and useful advice, support, and encouragement. In addition, I am indebted to
Dánielle DeVoss, Bill Hart-Davidson, Stuart Blythe, Mary Litteral, and Jeff
Grabill for reading drafts and giving feedback to the project. Mary Litteral
particularly deserves editorial credit—your feedback was so helpful and needed.
A massive thank you to WRAC and the College of Arts and Letters at MSU for
funding much of this project as well.
I’d also like to thank colleagues in the field who were very supportive of
this project: Michael Salvo, Kirk St. Amant, Joanna Schreiber, Keith Instone,
Peter Merholz, Emily Bowman, Lisa Welchman, Paul Feigenbaum, Emma Rose,
Laura Gonzales, Claire Lauer, Carlton Card, Cheryl Ball, Anna Dematatis, Karen
Acknowledgments ix
Schriver, and Beth Keller. As well, a big thanks to Tharon Howard as editor of
the series/project.
Thank you to all my participants—without you this research would have not
have been possible.
A shout-out is owed to Stacey Pigg for reading and responding to this book
several times throughout the process. Her insight and generosity proved
significant through and through.
The penultimate thank-you goes to my sister and brother, Jaime Lauren and
Tavaris Thomas (the latter for the badly needed slap on the head). And Jaime,
thanks for always being there despite the highs and lows, reminding me to laugh.
Give Rid and Phin a hug.
And last, thank you to Liz, Austen, and Addie for believing in me and
reminding me to believe in myself. You inspire me every day. I truly would not
have finished without your patience, love, and support. You are my everything.
FOREWORD
I began this book asking a deceptively simple question: why does Technical and
Professional Communication and, really, the world, need another book on
project management? After all, there is an abundance of material on project
management across disciplines, and adding another book to that conversation
might be like throwing a handful of sand into the ocean. So much of the
previously published output in technical communication has done a solid job of
walking people through project lifecycles and best practices in managing
documentation teams and communication (for example, Allen & Deming, 1994;
Dicks, 2004; Hackos, 2007). Perhaps those works are now dated, and in some ways
they are, even though they still hold a great deal of value. For this reason, I strongly
considered writing a book that would specifically update this work to make it align
with current practice. For example, a project management book that would teach
technical communicators to work with Agile and Lean development teams. For
a while, that is the book I intended to write. But that solution left me unsettled
because it assumed a relatively positivist stance on Agile and/or Lean. The “why
another book on project management?” question even lingered as I collected data,
analyzed it, and tried to understand the bigger exigence for my research. The
turning point was when I was coding the interviews for Chapter 3 and I identified
the concept of “safe spaces for communication” surfacing in the transcriptions.
I knew that finding was important. Many of the project managers I’d talked to
thought about managing the communication of project work through a lens of
safety. And safety was developed in support of communicating in ways that led
to participation with multiple audiences that have a stake in project work. So that
is how I discovered the answer to my why question.
We need another book on project management because much of the previous
work operates under a big assumption: that project management is about, above
2 Introduction
all, making teams efficient by expertly using tools and processes. However, this
view neglects to position project managers as writers. If we understand project
managers as writers, then we can understand their communication work as
inherently rhetorical because it is situated and context-specific. More, the com-
munication of project managers can be studied as writing, which can help reveal
its embedded values and beliefs as these emerge through practices. So, what
happens when we think about project managers as writers and study them as
writers? Through this book I work to answer these questions, arguing that
effective project managers help make teams efficient because they communicate
in ways that seek to cultivate participation.
Let me explain what I mean by project managers as writers a bit more. Plenty
of scholars in technical communication offer broad views of what constitutes
“writing” (Hart-Davidson, 2001; Schriver, 2012), seemingly agreeing that writing
encompasses assembling words and figures on a screen or page as well as design-
ing visuals like charts and figures. Furthermore, writing is also coordinating
networks of people, designing interfaces, assembling data, or even making grocery
lists. Writing is creating meeting agendas, and writing is also implementing the
agenda through mundane acts such as keeping people on task. Writing is also
following up after a meeting to check on someone’s perception of an interaction.
Writing is all these things, because the communicative act is intentional, designed
to elicit a particular effect and/or response, and purposefully shaped for an
audience or audiences. In this way, most of the work of project management is
writing, but the scholarship tends not to position it that way. That’s what this
book takes on, offering case studies that provide a variety of snapshots of project
managers as writers who are situated in organizational contexts and team cultures.
Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t want to argue that efficiency is unimport-
ant for project management. People are always looking for innovative ways to
be more productive and efficient at work—and that shouldn’t stop. The way our
work lives are structured in the 21st century basically demands efficiency of us.
On the other hand, I do want to put efficiency under a microscope. Efficiency,
in many team situations, is highly dependent on the participation of multiple
people. Effective participation of sometimes disparate audiences is how efficiency
is achieved. In today’s globally distributed and digitally networked workplaces,
understanding that cultivating participation leads to productivity is a fundamental
writing skill. Teams must work fast, most definitely, but they need to commu-
nicate in ways that support involvement across stakeholders and users to achieve
a swift pace. However, we have not investigated the relationship of writing to
participation in the context of project management. Nor have we addressed the
variety of communication used to support participation in the context of project
management.
Aside from the scholarly contribution this book offers, I do have practical
reasons for writing a book on project management. In Technical and Professional
Communication, books on project management are relatively sparse. We’ve
Introduction 3
produced work that informs project management and how people practice it,
but rarely have we made our unit of analysis project management. No doubt this
is what led Stan Dicks (2013, pp. 311–312) to explain, “For an area that is as
critically important to technical communication as project management, it is
surprising that there are not more articles in the literature dedicated to the
subject.” The work that has been published focuses almost entirely on instructing
people how to be project managers; it is practice-oriented without being critical
of the project management methodologies teams adopt. And those methodologies,
sometimes having grown so popular and buzzworthy that they are fetishized,
directly influence how we manage timelines, budgets, workflow, and, most
importantly, people. Surprisingly, this emphasis on practice instead of theory is
also a problem in project management studies in general (see Morris, Pinto, &
Söderlund, 2011). This book looks to fill some of that theoretical space by
repositioning project managers as writers.
Another reason: the published scholarship has not produced little examination
of methodological histories and trajectories and how they influence project team
dynamics. For example, consider popular textbooks (Lannon & Gurak, 2017;
Markel, 2015) and single-authored books (Dicks, 2004; Hackos, 2007; Hamilton,
2009; Schwarzman, 2011) that focus on instructing people on the fundamentals
of managing information development projects and teams. To be clear, I do not
mean to criticize these books, but to point out an important observation that
our field’s interest in project management is preoccupied with knowing how to
do it or best teach others how to embody the role. This focus on doing presents
a theoretical tension, however, because
there has been pressure to better shape the theoretical basis of the subject
and to make project management more relevant to managers, sponsors,
policy-makers, and others concerned with the management of projects,
doing so without diminishing standards of academic rigor.
(Morris et al., 2011, p. 3)
the research cases later in this book. In some instances, the cases focus on the
organizational and team context of user experience while in others the cases occur
in the context of government or healthcare information technology. Each of the
participants, however, are positioned as writers because they engage in project
management activities that require communicative interaction and involvement
with teams, internal and external stakeholders, and so on. As a result, the cases
offer a rich and broad array of writerly experiences and contexts.
Additionally, it would be impossible to study all existing forms of project
management in this book. For instance, it is arguable that content strategy or
translation activities involves a kind of project management, but this book does
not investigate these connections. Furthermore, construction project manage-
ment is very different than managing development and creative teams. In this
research, I am particularly interested in how people communicate and participate
in project management in organizations that develop digital technologies and
services. These organizations are often multinational and employ people all
around the world. Throughout the book, I introduce research participants, their
differing roles, and titles in each chapter, but what unites them is their role as
technical rhetoricians that somehow are involved with managing or co-managing
projects with development teams.
Finally, this is not a “How-To Manage Technical Communication Projects”
book. As stated earlier, my goal is not to instruct readers about the nuts and bolts
of managing projects in technical communication. There are better places to go
for that sort of training. Rather, this book examines how project management
is communicated in the context of development teams, and works to understand
participation in the writing philosophies, strategies, and practices that people and
teams use. While I believe readers will find the results of this work instructive
and the cases presented valuable for thinking about project management and how
to practice it, this book’s primary focus is on offering a critical, humanist
perspective to managing projects—an area where writing studies excels. That said,
I would like to note that to balance research and practice, I do work to include
takeaways for practitioners in each chapter. While this is not a book focused only
on instruction, I do hope there are practical takeaways for all readers.
business of our music. One phone call would be with someone from our
management or record label, while the next would be with a radio station. Often,
after greeting fans before a show, I would be called to a meeting with our
management team to talk over an unexpected development that suddenly needed
to be problem-solved. An important part of my role as the leader was to facilitate
communication across different groups (i.e., the label, the management team,
the band, the radio stations, the producer, and the fans). Complicating things,
these groups were often distributed across wide swaths of space, and had
different—oftentimes diverging—motivations, histories with each other, and in-
the-moment exigencies. At the time, I didn’t think of myself as a project manager,
but I was one. And like many project managers, I felt as if I was making it up
(and messing it up) as I went along. I knew all of these groups were involved in
some way with the band, but I wasn’t always sure how I could persuade them to
participate with each other effectively.
As a (former) musician, I also understand managing project teams as similar
to participating in a jam session. Musicians riff off each other. People have roles,
yes, but when the guitarist begins a solo, everyone else understands it is time to
step back into more of a support role. Musicians do this by listening for subtle
communicative clues. For example, a cadence one person plays may lead to a
hand-off from the guitarist to the horn player. Or, someone may signal a hand-
off through a kind of phrasing that resolves musically, inviting the next person
to step in and play. Jam sessions have very clear rules (keys, timing, space) that
musicians internalize and understand, so they don’t have to stop playing to remind
someone, “hey, follow the rules!” In the context of project management, Demarco
and Lister (2013) describe this phenomenon as jelling, explaining, “Jelled teams
are usually marked by a strong sense of identity” (p. 136). Experienced musicians
jell by reading and reacting in the moment to where the music is leading and
following along by actively listening to each other. Listening is one essential way
bands support participation in playing music. Without the right kinds of
participation, there is no music. I think project management works in comparable
ways.
A second professional experience grew out of my time working as the
coordinator of a media lab in an English Department early on in my career. In
this position, I was responsible for managing the role of the lab in supporting
projects. If being a musician taught me about the importance of jelling as a team,
then coordinating the media lab taught me important lessons about the role
of environment (emotional and physical) in doing project work. To be useful to
other instructors, the media lab had to be a flexible environment. If an instructor
designed a project that required our support, I had to arrange the environment
to align with that specific assignment. In practice, that meant there was very little
static space in the lab. Every project that came in the door was different, and
required something different from me and from the lab. One day I might be
facilitating an audio recording session where students were remixing previously
Introduction 9
developed work for a new genre. The next day I might be helping students finish
an interactive mapping project. I came to understand that different kinds of
facilitation required varied communication strategies and practices that had to
be applied and adapted to different situations.
The work of facilitating communication as a musician and in the media lab
made jelling and the role of the environment important considerations for me
as a scholar of project management. These experiences especially showed me how
communication helped build the kinds of relationships essential to doing the work.
To make sense of these experiences today, I turn to research on the importance
of psychological safety on teams (Edmondson, 1999) and distributed cognition
(Hutchins, 1995). As people work and take risks, teams tend to succeed more
often when the work environment is a kind of safe space, where risk-taking,
pitching ideas, and learning can occur publicly without harming individual
credibility or reputation. Structures must be developed for this kind of participa-
tion to productively occur. Additionally, Edmondson (1999) demonstrates
the role of effective coaching in helping teams develop psychological safety,
particularly through facilitating internal communication about work processes
and procedures. In other words, facilitating psychological safety seems to be
systemic and structural. Managing team dynamics amid workplace systems
and structures is an important role many project managers must fulfill. My view
of psychological safety is that project managers support it through effective com-
munication—through activities that help teams and audiences jell. I do recognize
this is a relatively egalitarian view of collaboration and teamwork that is not
necessarily always practical or efficient. I’d counter, however, that project
management is already a social activity, and that sometimes the inefficiency of
social participation is actually the most efficient path forward.
Terms
So far, I have deployed a number of terms without explaining them in more depth.
In this section I preview a discussion of the terms I will use and refer to through-
out this book. While many of the coming chapters will explain many of these
terms in depth and practice, I introduce them here to make sure readers
understand how I deploy and position each one.
Project
I understand a project as containing both technical and human elements (Levin,
2010). The technical elements include activities like estimating, scheduling,
and budgeting. The human elements consist of the interpersonal dynamics that
exist across teams of people or even just a single person. In addition, I also
understand projects as being a unique work situation that exists over a clearly
defined period of time. According to The Project Management Body of Knowledge,
10 Introduction
Project Manager
When I refer to project managers, project leaders, or project management, I am
referring to what Scott Berkun (2008) called “project management activities.”
Project management activities are made up of both the technical and human work
that individuals and teams do across a project lifecycle. Berkun noted that the
role and responsibilities of project managers, just like project management,
is often tied to an organization. As a result, sometimes there is one person in
the role of project manager and sometimes project management activities are
shared across a team, as Spinuzzi (2015) described. Due to the influence of
development models like Agile and Lean, many organizations hire Scrum
Masters, Agile Coaches, and so on, in lieu of a de facto project manager. Still, in
other organizations, no project manager exists. Instead, a digital management
system (such as a ticketing system) is the engine of project management. People
on the team are responsible for taking the lead at different times when/if needed.
In these situations, project leadership has more to do with an individual’s
specialization and how it complements a project or a problem than it does with
that person’s title.
Efficiency Models
Efficiency models are approaches to managing projects that intentionally seek to
eliminate waste and implement workflows that emphasize individuals, team, and
organizational productivity. Joanna Schreiber (2017) explained, “I use efficiency
management philosophies as an umbrella term to include philosophies, methods,
models, and frameworks focused managing people, resources, and projects in
terms of quality and/or speed” (p. 27). Historically, efficiency models were
developed to support the management of factories (e.g., Taylorism and Fordism).
Over time, efficiency models were adopted by managers in a variety of business
roles (Saval, 2014), including in the development of Lean (Gothelf & Seiden, 2013),
Introduction 11
Six Sigma (George, Rowlands, Price, & Maxey, 2005), and Agile (Ratcliffe &
McNeill, 2012). Efficiency models exist under a scientific management paradigm
that has continued to be used to guide the activities of project management. For
example, Gantt charts—still used by many teams and project management
systems today—were introduced to help track progress and productivity (Gantt,
1903).
Development Teams
When I refer to development teams, I mean cross-functional teams that work in
tandem to solve problems for people by developing products, services, and
experiences. My definition of a development team is purposefully broad as a
means to include a range of people across disciplines who may participate in
project management activities. Some have referred to these kinds of teams
as creative teams (Brown, 2009). Others refer to them as cross-functional. As noted
previously, development teams can self-organize or have a designated project
manager (Berkun, 2008). In some organizational structures and situations,
development teams share in project management activities (Spinuzzi, 2015) as
a means for moving quickly to solve problems.
Decentralization
As a management phenomenon, decentralization is when decision-making and
control are delegated to other groups and people in an organization. While
Chapter 1 will describe decentralization in more depth, it is important to note
that when I refer to decentralization I am invoking the history of scaling organiza-
tional management (Yates, 1989), which introduces a spatial consideration to
development work. By spatial consideration, I mean how work is organized
internally at a company (e.g., Marketing handles promotional materials and
Human Resources hires and fires), but also where work occurs as many
organizations expand and add offices and workers across the world. In Yates’s
work, management activities, including decision-making and controlling, were
assigned to different parts of organizations as the business (or in this case, the
railroad) grew and became disbursed. When I discuss decentralization, I am
also referring to the current practice of self-organizing teams like we’ve seen
depicted in recent scholarship in technical communication (Spinuzzi, 2015).
Sometimes these teams are geographically disbursed, and other times they are
collocated, using workplace networks to communicate. These teams often have
some decision-making capabilities so that they can work faster. As well, decen-
tralized teams may use elements of Agile and Lean development methodologies,
which influence how they manage projects. Decentralized teams tend to engage
in project management activities together, with people taking the lead at different
times when/if needed.
12 Introduction
Participation
Johnson (1997) called our attention to “the audience involved” because they are
“an actual participant in the writing process who creates knowledge and
determines much of the content of the discourse” (p. 363, emphasis in original).
Johnson’s conception of involvement is closer to Participatory Action Researcher
Alice McIntyre’s (2008, p. 15) idea that true participation in projects is reliant
upon a sense of ownership over the work. McIntyre also suggests that effective
participation should be defined by the community where work is being done. In
the context of civic participation, Stave (2002) complicates this discussion by
arguing that the mechanisms used for involving people in decision-making are
what matter most, but the systems usually in place are not effective. She explained
what I suspect is true of many project managers who work to communicate
in ways that facilitate participation across multiple audiences, “We know what
we need to do; we just do not have good mechanisms for achieving it” (p. 142).
In this book, participation refers to all the audiences working with a project team
(including internal and external stakeholders), not necessarily a group of end users
dictating individual needs or technological requirements to the team. As noted
earlier in this Introduction, participation should not be compared to collabo-
ration, as coordinating participation represents a different communication
need in the context of project work. Also, participation as I conceive it no doubt
has a conceptual history in Scandinavian Design and Participatory Design
(Kensing & Greenbaum, 2013), and in Lawler’s (1986) work in high-involvement
management, but deviates from these traditions by specifically focusing on
project management in networked organizations.
Participatory Communication
When I refer to participatory communication, I mean composed exchanges and
interactions, serendipitous and improvised, between networked actors in the
workplace. As well, when I refer to participatory communication I also mean
exchanges or interactions that are intentional. In other words, actors that inter-
act with other actors purposefully, and with specific logics and with particular
goals in mind. There are several potential uses for a communication, such as
persuasion, sharing information, or coordinating work. Additionally, participa-
tory communication depends on the social coordination that Stacey Pigg (2014)
described as literate activity. That is, the ways in which people coordinate infor-
mation and work across personal and professional networks. In this way, I view
participatory communication as networked and relational.
In Chapter 3, I explain three overlapping concepts that characterize partici-
patory communication. Here I introduce these elements as a preview. The first
is that communication is reactive and intentional. By that I mean people often
read (analyze) and respond (compose a purposeful message) to a given situation.
Introduction 13
Organization
In this book, organizations are made up of multiple human and nonhuman
networks. Spinuzzi (2015) describes organizational networks operating as a kind
of adhocracy supported, in part, by information communication technologies.
Additionally, he explains these organizational networks as nonhierarchical,
temporary, flexible, and, as a result, adaptive. To illustrate, workers are not always
connected by bureaucracy, but by a nonhierarchical network of ties often
maintained and sustained by information communication technologies. In
organizational networks, “individuals coordinate their own work, by commun-
icating informally with each other” (Mintzberg, 1980, p. 324).
Central to the concept of organizational networks is networked individualism.
Networked individualism is a “social operating system,” which can be contrasted
with “the longstanding operating system formed around large hierarchical
bureaucracies and small, densely knit groups such as households, communities,
and workgroups” (Rainie & Wellman, 2012, Chapter 1, Section 2, para. 2). The
networked individual operates from the center of their own network that they
maintain and sustain by multitasking and simultaneously communicating
with multiple people across different conversations (Rainie & Wellman, 2012,
Chapter 1, Section 2, para. 2). Networked individuals use information communi-
cation technologies to exchange information with others and coordinate work
in ways that supports mutual adjustment.
purposes, although, following the recommendation of Yin (2009), the results were
analyzed broadly across cases.
The first case asked how do project managers and leaders talk about their
communication practices, strategies, and philosophies. To answer this question,
I arranged interviews with 14 participants (seven men and seven women) that
identified in some way as a project manager or leader. Upon completion, the
interviews were transcribed and coded. As mentioned earlier in this chapter,
an important point discovered across the interviews was that communication
was discussed in terms of safety. Although the participants I spoke with did think
a great deal about communication, they did not often reflect on it as a set of
integrated practices. They reflected on unexpected situations and circumstances
that were unexpected. Yet, many of the participants were able to name certain
moves or strategies previously used to create safety, but when asked for a guiding
philosophy, they struggled to come up with an overarching framework of their
own. The interviews also produced an essential concept of Chapter 4, which is
the importance of making space for people to participate in project management.
The second case focused on how two people experienced communication as
they managed projects in the moment. A common notion reported during the
first case study is how workplace communication is often situational, so a more
thorough examination of how people make decisions on-site was the focus of
the second case. When designing the second case, I recruited two participants
from the first case to participate in experience sampling, or a diary study, which
focused on certain communication events at work as they managed projects. Each
week we discussed the reports that were filed in an interview session. Through
this work I learned the role of leadership philosophy in approach to participatory
communication.
The final case describes a team at a multinational software development com-
pany as they adopt a change in workflow, and how it influences their perception
of safety. The team struggled through a workflow reorganization that suggested
new methods (e.g., journey mapping) and methodologies of working (e.g.,
Design Thinking) and new information communication technologies meant to
support this work in participatory ways. This case explains the disruptions and
contradictions the team faced, noting especially how participation can be
challenging to arrange, sustain, and maintain. The case also ties together results
related to safety uncovered in Case 1 and Case 2. As the concluding case study
in the book, its results support and round out the discussion of the role of parti-
cipation to balance efficiency in project management.
What Is to Come
In the first chapter I describe a trajectory of decentralization and its influence
on project management. To do so, I discuss decentralization in the context of
organizations, development teams, development methodologies, project manage-
ment activities, and communication. The chapter explains how decentralization
has made it possible for teams to move more quickly and self-organize. As well,
the chapter explains the ways in which decentralization has shaped the work of
project management and project communication in meaningful ways. Decentral-
ization is an important context for participation as an exigence of communicating
project work in today’s development teams.
The second chapter frames a central concept in the book: participation. I argue
that project management is in the midst of a paradigm shift from an efficiency
model to a participative approach. To support this argument, I provide examples
of efficiency models in project management and explain how these approaches
now rely on communicating to gain the participation of teams and stakeholders
connected by an organizational network. In this view, efficiency and productivity
are outcomes of participation instead of the other way around. Furthermore,
the chapter argues that project management is a system and a methodology
for working that must be adapted to teams. I end the chapter introducing a parti-
cipative approach for communicating project management.
The third chapter argues that making space is an essential communication
concern of sharing in project management based on the results of the first case
study. By making space, I argue that project managers communicate to extend
a symbolic invitation to participate in project work. The invitation serves as an
opportunity for people to exercise agency. The case assembles the themes of the
interviews into factors project managers consider when making space as work-
place writers, and the strategies they use to invite teams and stakeholders to
participate in project work.
In the fourth chapter, I describe the role of leadership values in shaping com-
munication practices and strategies. To do so, I focus on two metaphors used to
describe project management: gardening and cooking,2 and describe the values
of each leadership approach. The chapter forwards the argument that leadership
identity relies on a project manager’s positionality on their team and in their
organization. Furthermore, I argue that project management leadership is a
rhetorical performance that relies on engagement from teams to be effective.
The fifth chapter demonstrates how participation works across a development
team that is managing a large-scale change project. Through focusing on the team’s
16 Introduction
workflow, readers get a sense of the disruptions and contradictions that surface
in a participative framework. The research presented in this chapter also builds
off the cases in the previous chapters to demonstrate how participation is essential
to managing change. An important takeaway from this chapter is that disruptions
in workflow can prove productive if they lead to participation and improved
efficiency.
The final chapter, Chapter 6, summarizes the chapters of the book and offers
a rhetorical framework for the communication strategies and practices discovered
within and across each case study. The chapter discusses the role of agency and
kairos in communicating project management and explains the importance of
communication aims that focus on coordination genres in participatory
frameworks. As such, the takeaways in this chapter are particularly noteworthy
for practitioners and instructors of technical communication.
Conclusion
The goal for this Introduction was to introduce this book. Specifically, I explained
the motivation for writing this book—to better understand and theorize
the relationship between efficiency and participation. I also introduced the con-
nection of my work to technical communication, noting that project management
is a form of technical communication. I also explained how I relate to the topic
of project management, particularly highlighting the importance of team jelling
and the influence of the physical and emotional environment on project work.
Then I reviewed important terms and situated them in the literature of project
management and technical communication. After reviewing the research in this
book, I also previewed the chapters to come.
While there will be more substantial takeaways for practitioners in future
chapters of this book, in this first chapter I hope it was clear that project managers
often work as technical communicators. That is, project managers work within
information and make it accessible to people who need to use it. As a result, it
is important to understand the work of project management as audience-
involved, and that those who are leaders understand their role as “technical
rhetoricians” (Johnson-Eilola, 2005). This view of project management is key to
balance its focus on efficiency with participation because it gives presence to the
human elements of managing projects.
In the next chapter I begin with a question: how did participation become so
important to managing projects for development teams? To answer this question,
I explain how decentralization, a process key to scaling organizations, plays an
important role in how people participate in project management. As such, I
assemble histories of decentralization and its influence on organizations, teams,
project management methodologies, and communication.
Introduction 17
Notes
1 Mintzberg (2013) suggested managers spend 80% of their time communicating.
2 I’d like to acknowledge Bill Hart-Davidson, who initially helped me develop the meta-
phors that brought about The Gardener and The Chef as we talked over the research
in this book.
References
Agboka, G. Y. (2013). Participatory localization: A social justice approach to navigating
unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites. Technical Communication Quarterly,
22(1), 28–49.
Allen, O. J., & Deming, L. H. (1994). Publications management: Essays for professional
communicators. Amityville, NY: Baywood Pub. Co.
Berkun, S. (2008). Making things happen: Mastering project management. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Blythe, S., Grabill, J. T., & Riley, K. (2008). Action research and wicked environmental
problems: Exploring appropriate roles for researchers in professional communication.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(3), 272–298.
Brewer, P. E. (2015). International virtual teams: Engineering global success. US: IEEE
Press.
Bridgeford, T., & St. Amant, K. (2015). Academy-industry relationships and partnerships:
Perspectives for technical communicators. Amityville: Routledge Ltd.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins.
Burnett, R. E. (1991). Substantive conflict in a cooperative context: A way to improve the
collaborative planning of workplace documents. Technical Communication, 38(4),
532–539.
Burnett, R. E., & Duin, A. H. (1993). Collaboration in technical communication: A
research continuum. Technical Communication Quarterly, 2(1), 5–21.
Burnett, R.E., Cooper, L.A., & Welhausen, C.A. (2013). What do technical communicators
need to know about collaboration? In J. Johnson-Eilola and S. A. Selber (Eds.), Solving
problems in technical communication (pp. 455–477) [Kindle version]. Retrieved from
Amazon.com.
DeMarco, T., & Lister, T. R. (2013). Peopleware: Productive projects and teams (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
Dicks, R. S. (2004). Management principles and practices for technical communicators. New
York, NY: Longman.
Dicks, R. S. (2013). How can technical communicators manage projects? In J. Johnson-
Eilola and S. A. Selber (Eds.), Solving Problems in Technical Communication (pp.
310–332) [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Faber, B. D. (2002). Community action and organizational change: Image, narrative, identity.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Flammia, M, Cleary, Y., & Slattery, D. M. (2010). Leadership roles, socioemotional
communication strategies, and technology use of Irish and US students in virtual teams.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(2), 89–101.
18 Introduction
There is no one best way to organize. The right structure depends on prevailing
circumstances and considers an organization’s goals, strategies, technology,
people, and environment. Understanding the complexity and variety of design
possibilities can help create formal prototypes that work for, rather than against,
both people and collective purposes.
(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 67)
After losing to the Dallas Mavericks in the 2011 NBA finals, Miami Heat Coach
Erik Spoelstra spent his off season rethinking the team’s offense. Spoelstra spoke
with a number of renowned sports coaches, but it was after talking with Chip
Kelly (at that time the Head Coach of the Oregon Ducks college football team)
that he developed the idea of the “pace and space” offense that eventually helped
propel the Heat to back-to-back championships in 2012 and 2013. Spoelstra
wanted the team to play at a fast pace—to change the rhythm of the game in
ways that would take advantage of the players’ athleticism. To make that kind
of space, he wanted the team to spread out across the floor because it would
empower them to be creative—to read and react to what was presented by an
opponent’s defensive scheme. For a pace and space offense to work, the coaching
staff had to prepare players to make good decisions. Coaches also had to let go
of more traditional ways of controlling the team, such as always calling a timeout
during the final moments of a close game. A pace and space offense can also
be characterized as a decentralized approach to managing teams because it
Decentralization and Project Management 21
empowers players to make decisions based on their read of the moment, and as
a result, the team is held accountable to each other for mistakes or poor choices.
At many organizations and institutions, comparable forms of decentralization
have become so pervasive that they have changed the work of development teams
and the implementation of project management communication. In many ways,
decentralized decision-making at the managerial level is used to produce the same
sort of outcomes Spoelstra wanted for the Heat. For example, decentralization
is used to create a faster rhythm for project work, to make space for creativity
and innovation, to avoid micromanaging decisions, to empower teams to
innovate on their strengths, and to make people accountable to each other. The
goal of this chapter is to explain how decentralization provides an important
context for understanding project managers as writers. This chapter explains
the impact of decentralization on teams and teaming, project management
methodologies, and project managers in general. The chapter begins with a
more detailed explanation of decentralization and contrasts it with centralization.
Then, the chapter explains how decentralization has influenced development
work. The chapter continues by discussing how project management method-
ologies were developed from scientific management to support decentralized ways
of organizing work. The chapter ends by overviewing the effects of decentraliza-
tion on communication at the project level of organizations.
Decentralization
The structure of an organization often depends on its size and its business goals.
Organizations with thousands of employees must decentralize managerial control
as no single person or group could realistically oversee the work of each person
in the company. On the other hand, start-ups with just ten employees may not
need to decentralize decision-making and control for the company to meet its
goals, unless it is positioned as a strategy for growing or evolving a business. At
root, decentralization is about structuring an organization to delegate control
(or decision-making) to other units or teams. Such organizational structures are
not limited to businesses, however. Democratic governments, like the United
States, generally operate under a decentralized model. Elected officials at the state
or local level proceed over laws and regulations in each state, county, province,
or city. In these instances, those in power are expected to involve people in
decisions about legislation, regulations, elections, and services (or they may be
voted out of office).
Decentralization can be contrasted with centralization, which is a more
concentrated form of decision-making and control. Centralization tends to grant
power for decision-making and control with a single person or group. While some
might bristle at the idea of a single decision-maker because of the power impli-
cations, centralization has practical applications that are useful for many
organizations and institutions. For instance, a judge oversees hearings to ensure
22 Communicating Project Management
hierarchy produces certain behaviors that influence the way decentralization and
centralization are practiced. In other words, Figure 1.1 and 1.2 demonstrate how
companies organize to decentralize decision-making and control, but the figures
do not capture the social factors of organization, such as company culture. An
organizational chart cannot capture how decentralization is implemented or how
24 Communicating Project Management
managing the work of development teams. While I will discuss this topic area in
depth in Chapter 2, it is worth noting here that development methodologies
should also be understood as methodologies that influence how project managers
communicate, not just as tools or techniques for developing digital artifacts. Also,
a point of clarification: my goal for the coming paragraphs is to give some context
about how development methodologies draw from decentralized approaches to
help structure the communication needed to support teamwork. I specifically
avoid purist debates about what qualifies as Agile or Lean—a conversation I believe
not relevant to this book and its offerings.
Agile Development
In February 2001, The Agile Manifesto was conceptualized by a group of
“organizational anarchists” (Highsmith, 2001, para. 2), who worked together to
describe a set of shared values for approaching software development. In History:
The Agile Manifesto, Jim Highsmith explains,
Agile Methodologists are really about ‘mushy’ stuff, about delivering good
products to customers by operating in an environment that does more than
talk about “people as our most important asset” but actually “acts” as if
people were the most important.
(Highsmith, 2001, para. 5)
has become relatively popular in the early 21st century and, as a result, has been
adapted to contexts outside of software development. In this book, for example,
the research participants are project managers and leaders that have worked with
flexible methods in the context of higher education, government agencies,
information technology companies, and medical organizations, but what makes
them “Agile” varies a great deal by what aspects of the methodology have been
adopted to their workplace context. More, as discussed in Chapter 3, many of
my participants claimed Agile was mostly a buzzword because the methodology
had been diluted by large-scale adoption. As a term, it seems Agile is often used
to describe a range of flexible working methods. Flexible approaches for
developing software and managing people are used widely in many workplaces
today.
Lean Development
Lean production is another model that works to simplify bureaucracy by keeping
employee numbers low and productivity high. It is also a management efficiency
model descended from concepts forwarded by Taylorism and Fordism (Schreiber,
2017). Even so, Lean demonstrates how companies, like Toyota, have become
quite successful by dismantling hierarchies, a key component of shared project
management: “Lean production calls for learning far more professional skills and
applying these creatively in a team setting rather than in a rigid hierarchy”
(Womack, Jones, & Roos, 2007, p. 12). The reevaluation of workplace hierarchies
was also forwarded by the approach, although it initially caused increased
stress: “‘workers’ may find their work more stressful, because a key objective
of lean production is to push responsibility far down the organizational ladder”
(Womack et al., 2007, p. 12). In Lean, control was delegated to employees rather
than to a single empowered manager.
The philosophy of Lean production has also been adapted to user experience
design and research, where teams intently focus on rapidly bringing value to
a project. Gothelf and Seiden (2013) outlined the approach emphasizing three
essential tenets. The first was to remove waste, especially in terms of the time
and effort it takes to document design practices (p. xiii). The second was to
“harmonize” cross-functional teams, including clients and users (pp. xiii–xiv).
The last concept was to employ an iterative design approach that does away with
the “hero designer” mindset (p. xiv). These three principles allow teams to move
quickly, and gives them room to make rapid decisions during the design process.
To cut waste, Lean focuses designers on developing the Minimal Viable Product
(MVP) to get to market faster. That is, if I brought a company an idea for a new
mobile application, a Lean approach would focus our initial effort on defining
the MVP of the product in order to release it faster. Then future iterations
would work on rapidly developing iterations of that MVP. Lean teams aim to
Decentralization and Project Management 31
Six Sigma
Often combined with Lean, Six Sigma is not necessarily a development method-
ology, but a way for measuring a project system’s success. As such, Six Sigma
uses measurements that can be used to evaluate and improve development
systems. It is also compatible with user experience research and design, and is
often combined with elements of Lean and Agile. Six Sigma’s process improve-
ment model is based on what is called the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze,
Improve, and Control). In this model, the project manager develops feedback
loops to learn how to make the team work in an efficient and sustainable manner.
Like Agile and Lean, Six Sigma is a systems approach to managing teams and
improving internal processes. Popular methods, such as Scrum, are often
combined with approaches outlined in Agile, Lean, or Six Sigma. For example,
an organization might arrange work into sprints with a daily Scrum, but hold a
retrospective meeting upon completing a sprint to engage in a Six Sigma process
improvement exercise. The outcomes of such discussions are then implemented
prior to beginning the next sprint, and so on. In some organizations, the role of
project managers becomes one of facilitating when working with decentralized
teams (Lund, 2011), in part to help them self-organize and to help them rapidly
complete project work.
many projects, they can also have to learn how to share in leadership of the work
in different ways. If teams truly can be understood as a social system (see Hoegl,
Muethel, and Gemuenden, 2011), then they must develop communication strate-
gies and norms for working together. These strategies are often reliant on tacit
approaches to communicating and interacting, especially as a means of increasing
capacity for getting work done. Importantly, these strategies and norms are
written—that is, they are designed most effectively through participation.
technology enables workers the flexibility to be mobile, even within the physical
barriers of their own organizations. Some companies facilitate mobile working
styles by modifying the work environment. All of these changes certainly
communicate the values of the organization symbolically, but also require an
ability to use information communication technologies in flexible, audience-
centered ways.
As briefly explained earlier in this chapter, there are a number of different
kinds of decentralized communication approaches used to support and
coordinate communication across people and teams. These situations are used
to present opportunities to share information and solve problems. A good
example is a Scrum, which is a daily meeting where people huddle together to
engage in problem-solving activities. In Lean there is Kaizen, where teams engage
in an ongoing process of improvement by locating and removing waste from
processes. Project managers, or teams that share in project management activities,
facilitate these meetings by helping problem-solve and remove roadblocks. (As
composers of these meetings, if you will, that is the project manager’s role.) Project
managers are composers of Muse meanings. So, in Scrum, the team discusses
what someone has been working on, what they will be working on that day, and
what problems they need help solving. The project manager facilitates that
conversation through a range of communicative acts, such as active listening and
coordinating people who can help each other solve problems. In Kaizen, teams
follow a process of plan, do, check, act. There are other communication tools
meant to support participation, such as a Kanban Board (see Figure 1.3), a
retrospective meeting (where teams evaluate their internal processes and
procedures to improve them), and so on.
Movement toward thinking about project communication as networked is also
important to how project communication has been decentralized. To illustrate
these ideas, Rainie and Wellman (2014) coined a term: networked individualism.
Networked individualism is a decentralized practice because it involves how people
use digital, web-based networks to “connect, communicate, and exchange
Conclusion
Organizations delegate control to make development teams more productive and
efficient, but decentralization can introduce unproductive power dynamics that
play out through communication activities. In short, decentralization is another
form of control. While there are more opportunities for participating in decisions
about work processes and procedures, and for making changes to unhealthy
system behaviors, individuals on teams must also perceive that space is available
for them to participate in those processes. Decentralization of project work is
only effective if people on teams can or will exercise their agency to participate.
That is, decentralized approaches requires people buy-in to the system, adopting
36 Communicating Project Management
Notes
1 Peer-to-peer file sharing services, such as Torrents, create an organization of people
through sharing files across users. Self-organizing communities online, such as Reddit,
often develop community standards and norms that others are expected to follow if
they want to participate in the group.
2 See the article at www.businessinsider.com/google-20-percent-time-policy-2015-4.
References
Ackoff, R. L., Addison, H. J., & Carey, A. (2010). Systems thinking for curious managers:
With 40 new management f-laws. Devon: United Kingdom: Triarchy Press Limited.
Decentralization and Project Management 37
Antoncic, B., and Hisrich, R. D. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development. doi:10.1108/14626000310461187
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brafman, O. & Beckstrom, R. A. (2006). The starfish and the spider: The unstoppable power
of leaderless organizations. New York: Penguin Group.
Brewer, P. E. (2015). International virtual teams: Engineering global success. United States:
IEEE Press.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins.
Drucker, P. F. (2009). The essential Drucker: The best of sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential
writing on management (reissued ed). HarperCollins e-books.
Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2014). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement (30th
anniversary ed.). Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.
Gothelf, J., and Seiden, J. (2013). Lean UX: Applying Lean principles to improve user
experience. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Highsmith, J. (2001). History: The Agile manifesto. Retrieved from www.agilemanifesto.org/
history.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative
projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4),
435–449.
Hoegl, M., Muethel, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2011). Leadership and teamwork in
dispersed projects. In P. Morris, J. Pinto, and J. Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of project management (pp. 483–499). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in science research. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Lepore, J. (2009). Not so fast: Scientific management started as a way to work. How did
it become a way of life? The New Yorker. Retrieved from www.newyorker.com/
magazine/2009/10/12/not-so-fast.
Longo, B. (2000). Spurious coin: A history of science, management, and technical writing.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lund, A. (2011). User experience management: Essential skills for leading effective UX teams.
Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Malone, T. W. (2004). The future of work: How the new order of business will shape your
organization, your management style, and your life. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know
and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835.
Mintzberg, H. (2013). Simply managing: What managers do—and can do better. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K., & Söderlund, J. (2011). Introduction: Towards the third wave
of project management. The Oxford handbook of project management (pp. 1–11).
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-
run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Pigg, S. (2014). Coordinating constant invention: Social media’s role in distributed work.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 69–87.
Rainie, H., & Wellman, B. (2014). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
38 Communicating Project Management
Richards, S., & Culp, D. (2001). The peaceable kingdom: Building a company without
factionalism, fiefdoms, fear, and other staples of modern business. New York: John Wiley.
Saval, N. (2014). Cubed: A secret history of the workplace. New York: Doubleday Publishing.
Schreiber, J. (2017). Toward a critical alignment with efficiency philosophies. Technical
Communication, 64(1), 27–37.
Söderlund, J. (2011). Theoretical foundations of project management: Suggestions for a
pluralistic understanding. In P. Morris, J. Pinto, and J. Söderlund (Eds.) The Oxford
handbook of project management (pp. 37–64). New York: Oxford University Press.
Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to
information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication,
52(2), 163–174.
Spinuzzi, C. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace network. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Stave, K. A. (2002). Using system dynamics to improve public participation in
environmental decisions. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 139–167.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York: Basic Books.
Wajcman, J. (2014). Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Winsor, D. A. (2003). Writing power: Communication in an engineering center. Albany, NY:
University of New York Press.
Womack, J. P., Jones D. T., and Roos, D. (2007). The machine that changed the world: The
story of Lean production. New York: Free Press.
Yates, J. (1989). Control through communication: The rise of system in American
management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2
RETHINKING THE PARADIGM
OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
From Efficiency to Participative
The need for participation, in essence, recognises that tensions exist between
those with some form of knowledge and power and those without.
(Kensing & Greenbaum, 2013, p. 22)
The view that development methodologies are not neutral is likely intuitive for
those of us working in technical communication. The field has long believed
technological systems are political (Selfe & Selfe, 1994; Winner, 1980) and are
generally ineffective unless designed with people (Johnson, 1998; Kaptelinin &
Nardi, 2012; Potts, 2014 Spinuzzi, 2003; Sun, 2012). So, like any system or
experience that is developed for people to use, I begin this chapter with an import-
ant claim: project management methodologies are also not a neutral system.
Project management methodologies are political and have histories that include
some and exclude others. As Law (2004) argued of research methodologies, the
communication practices of project managers “produce the reality that they
understand” (p. 5). Further, project management practices symbolically make
arguments about how people should or can participate on teams and what
effective participation looks like in a given context and situation. Project
management forwards labor conditions that are normative and delimiting.
Under efficiency paradigms, which value speed and productivity above all
else, the methodologies of project managers can commodify and constrain an
40 Communicating Project Management
organization’s most important resource: people. And since efficiency tools and
processes on their own do a poor job of highlighting the importance of people,
this chapter makes an argument for a shift toward a participative communication
paradigm for project management.
As Chapter 1 explained, an underlying issue with decentralized management
structures is that people do not enter a neutral working environment,1 and
management structures alone cannot account for social hierarchies of influence
or unhealthy communication practices. Workplace bullying (or mobbing),
sexism, ageism, and other forms of discrimination can manifest themselves in
the culture of a team, even if that team is structured to be more democratic. This
chapter also investigates the theoretical underpinnings of project management
to argue it should be understood as praxis—so that it can be responsive to such
unhealthy communication activities. To do so, I refer to scholarship in writing
and rhetoric on research methodologies offered by Sullivan and Porter (1997),
which argues that methodologies should be applied as a heuristic rather than
“treating methodology as a set of antiseptically applied rules that govern research
practices” (pp. 45–46). In making this argument, I use theory that addresses
research practices because it has a great deal of alignment and overlap with
communication approaches used for approaching development work. I begin the
chapter by further explaining the roots of project management in efficiency
models. Further, I argue that participation, done effectively, is also efficient and
productive. Explicitly, my goal for this chapter is to theoretically ground and argue
for the importance of participatory approaches to managing and communicating
the project work of development teams. A participative project management
paradigm seeks to communicate in ways that involve development teams in
assembling—and sometimes in developing—the tools, resources, processes, and
procedures that support project management praxis, and is implemented through
effective communication techniques.
This chapter is also a response to a critique that surfaces a great deal in the
scholarship of project management. As I noted in the introduction, scholars have
been critical of the lack and type of research that exists (Dicks, 2013; Morris, Pinto,
& Söderlund, 2011). Hällgren and Söderholm (2011, p. 500) summarized these
criticisms as research that focused on “best practice[s] and the development of
tools and models” and a second area that is “process oriented and is primarily
empirical, with a descriptive focus.” This chapter forwards critical attention to
the tensions produced by project management paradigms, epistemology, method-
ology, and methods as a means for suggesting a more inclusive approach through
communication practices that respect difference and value participation.
and project management share some productive theoretical overlap. One area
where overlap occurs is in the importance of management paradigms. As
described by Dicks (2004), management paradigms illustrate the principles and
philosophies that contribute to how managers view their work. A useful definition
of paradigm is provided by Heron and Reason (1997, p. 274), who explain it as
“an overarching framework that organizes our whole approach to being in the
world.” There are many different management paradigms that exist, and as a
result, seemingly a never-ending supply of books and articles that argue for new
ways of thinking about managing and leading organizations and people.2
More recently, scholars have been working to situate project management with
its own theoretical discussions (Söderlund, 2011), identifying it as a scientific
discipline that focuses on implementing processes to coordinate human behavior.
Meanwhile, one result of the overlap between management studies and project
management is that seemingly little attention has been paid to the paradigm
that project management operates under, which is especially important to its
influence as a social workplace practice. In other words, the paradigm of project
management is directly tied to its historical role in organizations, which is to
maximize worker efficiency and productivity through organizing, coordinating,
and aligning teams.
Just like technical and professional communication, project management
began to professionalize in the 1950s. During this time, efficiency models of
managing work began to move from production plants to office environments.
It is important to note that project management as we understand it today
largely grew out of scientific management, which is a factory model of organizing
and coordinating teams. In scientific management, managers used analytical
methods to coordinate employees. These analytical frames would suggest how
long a task should take or create benchmarks for productivity. Yet, as Chapter
1 explained, the workplace has transformed quite significantly in the last half a
century, especially since organizations gained widespread access to the internet
and information communication technologies. Even while the workplace
conditions that project management operates in have changed quite a bit since
its professional inception, an efficiency paradigm for designing project
management as a system unfortunately remains in place.
planning. They are used to clarify how and when teams will interact, including
the frequency of meetings and what technologies will be used to support
communication. The goal for a communication plan is to provide interaction
touchpoints across a project lifecycle. It supports productivity by providing an
efficient overview of communication that people on teams can use to plan their
work and reporting on their work.
No doubt, a main concern of project management as a practice is planning
and coordinating information across projects and teams. Sometimes this
coordination of information is meant to communicate dependencies, such as
when one deliverable of a project directly impacts when work on another
deliverable can begin. Planning processes often rely on documentation that is
essential for efficient task management (see Geisler, 2003). These documents are
made-up tools, such as to-do lists and charters, and exist to clarify the goals of
a project so people stay focused on the goal. In fact, many of the documents
developed for project management—from Gantt charts to visual roadmaps—were
developed to help coordinate information in ways that maximize productivity.
In Yates’s (1989) work, we see a direct relationship between the tools people use
(i.e., typewriters, telephones, etc.) with the level of efficiency they offer for a given
task or activity. Networked computing technologies may be the most efficient of
all, affording development teams the ability to shrink space and time with just
a few clicks. On teams that develop products, services, and experiences, these tools
help distribute labor and cognition across a team.
To plan effectively and expediently, formalized project lifecycles were
developed to neatly communicate the breadth or scope of a project. Formalizing
the project lifecycle is also essential to the efficiency paradigm because it creates
a prescriptive process to follow. As outlined by The Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK), the project lifecycle is made up of four stages that clearly
relate to Fayol’s management concepts. The sequential stages are “Starting the
project,” “Organizing and preparing,” “Carrying out the work,” and “Closing
the project” (Project Management Institute, 2013, p. 39). Throughout these
stages, various documents are created in support of the project, and while the
documentation is often unique to the organization, there are recommendations
for a series of best practices offered by the PMBOK (e.g., project charters, project
management plans, communication plans, etc.). Additional representations are
provided in work by other professionals, such as Berkun’s (2008) simplified project
cycle that begins with planning, and continues with strategies for leading teams
through the middle and end of a project. Hackos (2007) offers a similar model
but in the context of information development called “The Information-
Development Life Cycle” (p. 318). The stages are made up of planning, design,
development, production, and evaluation, and each has an approximate
percentage of effort it takes to complete each activity. These examples of different
project lifecycles demonstrate the importance of managing projects with an
efficiency paradigm. That is, by emphasizing stages of a project lifecycle, the goal
Rethinking the Paradigm of Project Management 43
Criticisms of Efficiency
Efficiency as a value for working has been criticized for eliminating a focus on
the human factors of work in favor of a mechanization and standardization of
work processes and procedures. Many of these criticisms are covered quite
well in technical communication scholarship. For example, Killingsworth
and Jones (1989) explain how Max Weber, Frederick Taylor, and Henri Fayol
are largely responsible for how managerial control was practiced begin-
ning in the early 1900s. They further explain that it was Elton Mayo who
introduced a less bureaucratic approach that emphasized integrated teams and
44 Communicating Project Management
What is interesting about this example is people are participating, but not in
the prescriptive method offered by the structure of Scrum. Instead, people on
the team exercised agency and participated according to their individual needs.
In this example, the communication practices and the tools do not seem to align
with the actual goal: participation, facilitated through interactive activities of
problem-solving and coordinating work. It is the participation that leads to
productivity, not the other way around. That is, the outcome of effective
participation is productivity. Furthermore, it is through the effective participation
of people that methods are adapted to practice. Adapting methods and method-
ologies is about making space for teams to not just change practices, but to respond
to the unique needs of a given context and problem to be solved. Applied as a
template, methods like Scrum can actually marginalize an individual’s ability to
participate in important conversations about work.
Additionally, Agile itself presents an intriguing tension because it argues for
more team participation by operating under an efficiency paradigm. For example,
Ratcliffe and McNeill (2011, p. 9) describe Agile in this way: “The aim of Agile
is to get to code as quickly as possible.” Here the emphasis is on efficiency. The
authors explain that Agile makes use of cross-functional teams because they are
more efficient (p. 70). Yet, the authors also argue, “Software is a social exercise.
It should be about people and how they communicate, cooperate, and interact
as a team to deliver value to the organisation” (p. 25). Such contradictions
demonstrate the paradigmatic tension that development methodologies pre-
sent to communicating project management. Agile, in theory, operates under a
participative paradigm, but in implementation it is often preoccupied with
efficiency.
46 Communicating Project Management
A Paradigm in Transition
One important issue mentioned repeatedly in project management scholarship
is that the focus on tools and processes to enhance efficiency and productivity
have produced relatively little understanding about broader, theoretical issues
about how project managers can or should communicate. Simply put, teams are
given tools and processes, and they use them. Heron and Reason (1997) help to
explain an outcome of this approach in terms of paradigmatic thinking: “A basic
problem of positivist mind is that it cannot acknowledge the framing paradigm
it has created” (p. 275). By focusing so intently on practice, on adopting out-of-
the-box tools and processes, the development of a participative paradigm is
potentially less visible to those managing projects. Further, any epistemological
discussion seems impractical because it does not contribute in material ways
to the outcome of efficiency and productivity. In this way, the continuous
development of project management methodologies, methods, and tools appear
to repeat on an endless loop of situational practice without theoretical input.
The result is teams or project managers—not understanding the broader para-
digm their practices contribute to—working to improve practices without
understanding the broader communication activities also guiding or derailing
these processes and tools.
In technical communication scholarship, there is clear evidence that suggests
project management’s paradigm is in a state of transformation. For example,
consider Amidon and Blythe’s (2008) work with communication managers.
Managers report a constantly shifting workplace environment with more use of
information communication technologies to coordinate work. The changes
could “lead to flattened bureaucracies,” but they “heard of changes in both
directions” (p. 14), echoing what Goldratt and Cox (2014) intimidated about
trends in organizational design as a kind of merry-go-round. As well, in Spinuzzi’s
(2015) work, we learn how organizational networks, supported by information
communication technologies, are essential for supporting temporary teams that
assemble around solving problems. These temporary teams operate in a flat hier-
archy and share in project management activities, which requires participation.
In these shifts, efficiency and productivity are outcomes of effective participation.
Given the changes in the workplace and in development approaches, the focal
point of project management communication needs to be learning how to best
involve people in project management and development activities. If effective
participation breeds better outcomes and improved productivity, then project
management communication depends on making space for people to partici-
pate—to maximize opportunities for engagement and interaction.
48 Communicating Project Management
Your goal is to grow a productive Agile team that thinks for itself rather
than relying on you to lay down the Agile law. Showing people how to be
Agile isn’t enough: they need to change how they work and how they think
in order for Agile to stick. They often need to unlearn old habits before
they can work effectively as members of an Agile team.
(Davies & Sedley, 2009, p. 3)
One hears a great deal today about “the end of hierarchy.” This is blatant
nonsense. In any institution there has to be a final authority, that is, a
“boss”—someone who can make the final decisions and who can expect
them to be obeyed. In a situation of common peril—and every institution
is likely to encounter it sooner or later—survival of all depends on clear
command. If the ship goes down, the captain does not call a meeting, the
captain gives an order. And if the ship is to be saved, everyone must obey
the order, must know exactly where to go and what to do, and do it without
“participation” or argument.
(Drucker, 2009, p. 73)
Rethinking the Paradigm of Project Management 51
Even so, Drucker later acknowledged that “Other situations in the same insti-
tution require deliberation. Others still require teamwork—and so on” (p. 74).
I believe, just based on the widespread influence of decentralization alone, project
management qualifies as a situation that directly benefits from more participatory
communication. Yet, too often the frequency and nature of participation is pre-
determined by a methodology that may or may not be appropriate for a project,
a team, or an organization. Methodologies are not templates. Used as one, they
have the ability to produce behaviors that predetermine what qualifies as desir-
able, such as personality traits like extroversion or competitiveness. For people
on development teams with different ways of participating, the communication
prescribed by methodologies can provide very little space. In such cases, space
has to be made for people to participate, which means adapting the methodology
to enhance, not disrupt participation.
No doubt, we must balance the need for efficiency with an ethics of partici-
pation. Furthermore, I agree with Frost that inclusivity will ultimately help to
develop a participatory team environment that is even more efficient while also
being more inclusive.
Rethinking the Paradigm of Project Management 53
argued for in a given situation of inquiry. As Sullivan and Porter (1997, p. 65)
explain, “we can argue to the community that one or more particular frame-
work(s), justifiably reshaped by this situation, provide helpful filters/guides.”
In practice, project management methodologies, or specific communicative ele-
ments of these approaches, can prove useful to certain situations and less so to
others. Such an approach would enhance the participatory element of communi-
cation on project work without sacrificing efficiency. In this approach, project
management methodologies are more of a heuristic than a template. Using a
heuristic model, teams can evaluate methodologies by communicating about
them, and then critically adapting them to their work rather than implementing
them as a single identifiable process that must be followed. What counts as
participation in these instances? In the context of Participatory Action Research,
Alice McIntyre (2008) suggests that participation must be defined within and by
a community. This adaption can be made part of regular project management
practice. For example, posing the question: what are the expected levels of parti-
cipation throughout the project’s lifecycle for people on the team? And how will
the team define those expectations?
Another way to transition toward a heuristic approach to applying method-
ology is to focus on the circulation of ideas across the team. Lucy Suchman (2004)
explains that managers must move from being the “origin of change, or of new
things, to an understanding of the manager/designer as involved in the circulation
of ideas and objects” (p. 170, emphasis in original). Furthermore, Royster and
Kirsch (2012) argue that since information and knowledge are not static, we must
“pay attention to the way that ideas travel in order for us to become more
consciously aware of patterns of intellectual and social engagement” (p. 138).
These conceptualizations nicely connect to Simmons and Grabill’s (2007) view
of creating multiple entry points for inquiry and citizen action. An essential goal
in a participative paradigm must be to pay attention to how and when people
are involved in project work, specifically focusing on how the methodologies being
used might unintentionally undercut their contribution, because organizations
produce people (Collinson, 2003).
The mechanisms for a heuristic approach to communicating project manage-
ment methodologies are already in place for most teams. Planning sessions, check-
ins, Scrums, sprint retrospectives, Kaizen, process improvement efforts, and so
on are all instances where the system can be collectively examined and changed.
These spaces can directly elicit the “continuous critical framing” that Sullivan
and Porter (1997) advocate for in their work. Critically evaluating the project
management system is essential to its health. That evaluation work is done by
communicating about the current system, where it fails people, and the ways in
which it supports people. In contrast, Chapter 5 will discuss a more prescriptive
approach where the system is treated more like a template for working. The team
is given new tools and processes and asked to change their workflow, but they
Rethinking the Paradigm of Project Management 55
The ideas forwarded are a good starting point for emphasizing participation
on teams, and are in alignment with several other practices already used by
industry. For example, the workgroups approach described by Berkun (2008)
that emphasize incremental improvement to process throughout a project, or
the more targeted DMAIC process improvement principles outlined by Six
Sigma (George, 2005). The benefit of thinking about McIntyre’s approach is
that it foregrounds participation over efficiency by making space—even if people
choose not to use the space in ways we expect. As Chapter 3 will show us,
communicating in ways that make space for participation occurs in a range of
ways.
process who creates knowledge and determines much of the content of the
discourse” (p. 363). Johnson’s conception of involvement is closer to McIntyre’s
(2008, p. 15) idea that true participation in projects is reliant upon a sense of
ownership over the work. It is through communication that participation in
project management gets done.
Examples of participation exist in participatory design (Spinuzzi, 2005), Parti-
cipatory Action Research (McIntyre, 2008), participatory healthcare (Oldenburg,
2016), participatory government (Stave, 2002), environmental policy (Simmons,
2007), disaster response (Potts, 2014), civic participation (Simmons & Grabill,
2007), and so on. Simmons and Grabill (2007), in particular, provide a useful
discussion of participation in democratic spaces, which I find comparable to the
situation presented by decentralized organizations and teams. Simmons and
Grabill (2007) suggested that citizens, to participate, need to have a rhetoric of
invention and an element of performance to participate. They say, “We believe
the design of civic information must allow for multiple entry points, multiple
types of questions, and multiple angles of investigation to allow citizens to invent
usable knowledge from the available information” (Simmons & Grabill, 2007,
p. 434). The same can be said about project management information under a
participatory paradigm. Project management systems are designed and should
allow for similar points of entry as a means for participating and exercising agency
into the system.
In this book, the central concern of a participative paradigm is effective
communication. A rhetoric for participation on development teams must be
co-constructed, sometimes serendipitously, and as Spinuzzi (2015) explained,
this work often happens during moments of collaboration. The communication
that supports the co-construction of project management on these teams has three
overlapping characteristics that depend on constant reflection:
While these characteristics are certainly not rules for communicating, they are
useful as theoretical guideposts for understanding how the cases in this book
describe communication. Below I explain each of these characteristics in more
detail.
Reactive
By reactive, I mean that project managers tend to read and respond to com-
munication problems when they surface. Also, because every project is unique,
the different kinds of rhetorical situations that surface are hard to predict.
Spinuzzi (2015) describes all-edge teams sharing in project management activities
Rethinking the Paradigm of Project Management 57
trust, many of these teams do not have time for incremental negotiation of buy-
in or agreement. Instead, participatory communication is relational, supported
by an organization’s network. As Paretti and McNair (2008) determine of
distributed project teams:
These shared orientations are often supported by the very processes and
procedures used to build trust and co-manage projects. In some organizations,
those processes are supported by technology such as instant messaging. In others,
that work is done face-to-face, typically in meetings. Technologies, tools, and
resources are often used to make space for the right kind of communication
to occur at the opportune moment so that teams can participate in project
management.
Future Action
By future action,4 a term I borrow from Pigg (2014), I mean that project man-
agers are thinking about how communicative actions might influence future
events. This way teams can anticipate roadblocks and build trust and goodwill
with fellow teammates. A participant in Chapter 4 discussed this communication
strategy as “putting money into a trust account.” Since some project teams are
temporary, people often work as intrapreneurs, and must treat communicating
in team situations as preparing and inventing future work opportunities. When
working on teams that assemble temporarily around a project, people recog-
nize that they will eventually work with these same people again, even if in a
different configuration. The ways in which goodwill is constructed with temporary
teammates has an influence over how future work and work opportunities may
unfold.
For Pigg (2014), future action also means that people recognize their current
work is setting the stage for potential work down the line. As people work to
develop career trajectories, they recognize that with each opportunity another
potential future project awaits. Future action is, in many ways, an entrepreneurial
mindset (see Lauren and Pigg, 2016). But, as Rainie and Wellman (2014) describe
the networked individual as autonomous and distributed across a number of
personal and professional networks, future action must occur in multiplicity. That
is, people must always understand that actions today have the potential to
influence and create the work relationships of tomorrow.
Rethinking the Paradigm of Project Management 59
Systems-Based
By systems-based, I mean that communication occurs across a flexible, adaptive
organizational network that is built upon relationships and feedback loops.
Donella Meadows (2008, p. 11) defined a system as “an interconnected set of
elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something.”
Additionally, organizational systems have histories and cultures that develop
and sustain over time. Looking at the whole of an organization is essential
because “systems thinking looks at relationships (rather than unrelated objects),
connectedness, process (rather than structure), the whole (rather than just
its parts), the patterns (rather than the contents) of a system, and context”
(Meadows, 2008, p. 6). In fact, organizational systems of communication are
influenced heavily by a company’s culture, which is represented in both tacit and
explicit ways. For example, there are implicit rules on every team (e.g., attend
meetings on time) just as there are explicit rules (e.g., do not interrupt people
during ideation sessions). These rules are often unique to an organization or a
team. On temporary teams, the implicit rules must be learned more quickly.
There is an interplay between organizational culture and hierarchy, and team
communication often works within these systemic considerations by treating them
as context. For example, Mintzberg (2013) explained “In contrast to decision
making as a form of controlling, culture is decision shaping as a form of leading”
(p. 50, emphasis in original). While people make decisions about communicating
with others, they often consider what they know about previous interactions with
a specific person. As a result, project managers appear to grapple with histories
and cultures of organizational systems, sometimes as a means of working within
a set of system constraints and other times with an eye toward making some sort
of change to the work or team environment.
Systems are also made up of feedback loops. Feedback can be written and
formalized, such as in evaluations of work that get filed with Human Resources,
or it can be less formal and referential, such as a brief follow-up conversation
after a meeting. To this point, Meadows (2008, p. 72) argued that the goal “is to
60 Communicating Project Management
recognize what structures contain which latent behaviors, and what conditions
release those behaviors—and, where possible, to arrange the structures and
conditions to reduce the probability of destructive behaviors and to encourage
the possibility of beneficial ones.” The systems approaches described in the prev-
ious quote suggest that teams must work in participation with each other in order
to achieve their objectives. In Chapter 4, we see examples of mutual adjustment
as people work to make space through communication strategies and practices.
In fact, it is the concept of making space for participation that proves essential
to a participative paradigm for project management.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I argued that the paradigm of project management has trans-
formed from an efficiency model to a participative one. To support this claim,
the chapter demonstrated several tensions that exist that demonstrate evidence
of the transformation. Recognizing this transformation is important because it
emphasizes participatory approaches to communicating project management.
The chapter additionally introduces the idea that project managers must com-
municate in ways that make space for individuals to exercise their agency and
participate at opportune moments throughout a project lifecycle. The goal for
making space is to give people on teams, including stakeholders and customers,
multiple opportunities to participate in project work, either through using
information communication technologies to solicit feedback or to structure
conversations and meetings for engagement. In my view, making space for
participation is a bedrock principle of project management communication.
In a participative paradigm, people must discover pathways for engaging and
participating in project work. What this chapter concludes is that engaging with
effective communication is one essential way to make space for people to
participate in project work.
In the next chapter, I focus on the results of the first case study, which dis-
cusses the social factors and strategies project managers consider when
communicating. The chapter further illustrates how project managers make
space for people using rhetorical communication strategies that are intentional
and reactive, focused on future action, and based on systems thinking. The chapter
also addresses how by making space for people to effectively participate, project
managers deliberately try to find methods for teams to coordinate work across
organizational networks. Furthermore, making space is an important part of
positioning project management methodologies as a heuristic because as projects
unfold, the exigency of the moment tends to disrupt the rigidity of development
methods. Finally, the next chapter also contests the idea of making space by
providing examples of communication that shows misalignment and/or a lack
of engagement with people on the team.
Rethinking the Paradigm of Project Management 61
Notes
1 Recently a Google employee wrote a ten-page memo about why women do not make
effective programmers, arguing it is partly biological. For more information visit:
www.cnbc.com/2017/08/10/3-reasons-the-google-anti-diversity-memo-is-wrong-
about-women-in-leadership-according-to-data.html.
2 One useful approach is offered by Mintzberg (2013), who walked readers through five
example mindsets, such as “The Energetic Thread” (p. 151), “The Reflective Thread”
(p. 152), and “The Collaborative Thread” (p. 156), the latter where “There is a sense
of respecting, trusting, caring, and inspiring, not to mention listening” (p. 157).
3 A “Yes, and . . .” approach is a game used in improvisation. The goal of the game is
not to dismiss any one person’s ideas by saying no. Instead, the prompt “Yes, and
. . .” forces people to build on each other’s ideas instead.
4 By using this term, I do not mean to suggest an Aristotelian deliberative rhetoric, which
focused on making political arguments or arguments for the future. Rather, I mean
future action as a method of thinking about building relationships in the future.
References
Amidon, S., & Blythe, S. (2008). Wrestling with proteus: Tales of communication manag-
ers in a changing economy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(1),
5–37.
Apke, L. (2015). Understanding the Agile manifesto. Raleigh, NC: Lulu Publishing.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., . . .
Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile software development. Retrieved from http://
agilemanifesto.org.
Berkun, S. (2008). Making things happen: Mastering project management. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly Media.
Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Collinson, D. L. (2003). Identities and insecurities: Selves at work. Organization, 10(3),
527–547.
Davies, R., & Sedley, L. (2009). Agile coaching. Raleigh, NC: Pragmatic Programmers LLC.
Dicks, R. S. (2004). Management principles and practices for technical communicators.
New York: Longman/Allyn & Bacon.
Dicks, R. S. (2013). How can technical communicators manage projects? In J. Johnson-
Eilola & S. A. Selber. (Eds.), Solving problems in technical communication. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Doerfel, M. L., & Gibbs, J. (2014). Field research. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and
methods (pp. 223–244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Drucker, P. F. (2009). The essential Drucker: The best of sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential
writing on management [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Fleckenstein, K. S., Spinuzzi, C., Rickly, R. J., & Papper, C. C. (2008). The importance of
harmony: An ecological metaphor for writing research. College Composition and
Communication, 60(2), 388–419.
62 Communicating Project Management
Mir, R.A., Mir, A., & Upadhyaya, P. (2003). Toward a postcolonial reading of organizational
control. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical
engagement (pp. 47–73). Houndsmills, UK, and New York: Palgrave.
Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K., & Söderlund, J. (2011). Introduction: Towards the third wave
of project management. The Oxford handbook of project management (pp. 1–11).
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Oldenburg. J. (2016). Participatory healthcare: a person-centered approach to healthcare
transformation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
Paretti, M. C., & McNair, L. D. (2008). Communication in global virtual activity systems.
In K. St. Amant & P. Zemlianksy (Eds.), Handbook of research on virtual workplaces and
the new nature of business practices (pp. 24–38). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Phillips, K. W. (2014). How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American. Retrieved from
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter.
Pigg, S. (2014). Coordinating constant invention: Social media’s role in distributed work.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 69–87.
Potts, L. (2014). Social media in disaster response: How experience architects can build for
participation. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Project Management Institute. (2013). The project management body of knowledge (5th ed.).
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Rainie, H., & Wellman, B. (2014). Networked: The new social operating system, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Rasmusson, J. (2010). The Agile samurai. Raleigh, NC: Pragmatic Programmers.
Ratcliffe, L., & McNeill, M. (2011). Agile experience design: A digital designer’s guide to agile,
lean, and continuous. New Riders.
Richardson, G. L. (2010). Project management theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Royster, J. J., & Kirsch, G. (2012). Feminist rhetorical practices: New horizons for rhetoric,
composition, and literacy studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Saval, N. (2014). Cubed: A secret history of the workplace. New York: Doubleday.
Selfe, C. L., & Selfe, R. J. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in
electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45(4), 480–504.
Simmons, W. M. (2007). Participation and power: Civic discourse in environmental policy
decisions. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Simmons, W. M., & Grabill, J. T. (2007). Toward a civic rhetoric for technologically and
scientifically complex places: Invention, performance, and participation. College
Composition and Communication, 58(3), 419–448.
Sims, C., & Johnson, H. L. (2012). Scrum: A breathtakingly brief and Agile introduction.
Dymaxicon.
Smith, T. (2000). Technology and capital in the age of Lean production: A Marxian critique
of the “new economy.” Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Söderlund, J. (2011). Theoretical foundations of project management: Suggestions for a
pluralistic understanding. In P. Morris, J. Pinto, and J. Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of project management (pp. 15–36). New York: Oxford University Press.
Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to
information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication,
52(2), 163–174.
Spinuzzi, C. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace network. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
64 Communicating Project Management
You can easily structure a conversation to open up space for other people.
Participant 8 in this chapter, personal interview
place and space each have a different influence on how people communicate and
participate in project work. In Physica, Aristotle argued that place was a kind of
definitional container that delimited certain types of action and had historical
elements. In the context of communicating project management, place is repre-
sented by built environments that have rhetorical features that influence
participation and interaction. In short, certain environments promote rhetorical
action and meaning based on their design. To illustrate, the floor of an office
building with a group of closed-door offices and cubicles clearly indicates
hierarchy and collaboration expectations (that is, those with offices are generally
higher up in the organizational hierarchy and will likely be expected to collaborate
less often). Meanwhile, an open floorplan with no assigned seating indicates
decentralized hierarchy and collaboration expectations (that is, everyone should
participate in collaboration when appropriate). While practice does not always
follow design, the built environment very clearly promotes specific ways of par-
ticipating and communicating at work.
In comparison to place, space is a less tangible concept. Spatial relationships
can have a similar influence as place, but are more of an abstraction—a precursor
of sorts. Aristotle also argued space is place not made. Space, as an abstraction
of place, innately contains the affordance of being constructed and reconstructed
in perpetuity until the ideas being produced are given a physical representation.
For example, imagine an ideation session where people think through the design
of an artifact. The group may engage and consider several ideas without physically
representing them, but once they assemble the ideas in physical form, they move
from one location (an idea space) to another (a piece of paper). Theoretically,
space is a flexible and abstract notion, and in the context of development projects,
can be understood as socially constructed. If place serves as a constraint of the
rhetorical situation, moving a person to act and strategize toward particular
orientations, then space represents the constraint of potential, (re)configuration,
and social influence.
Let me further illustrate this interplay with an example related to how place
and space can influence participation in development work. When facilitating a
design thinking workshop in a long, narrow boardroom with a single table at
the center, the room and its furniture will no doubt influence how people
interact. The physical room itself is a constraint the facilitator of the workshop
must consider in the delivery of materials. That is, the room may make certain
kinds of interactions (for example, small group discussion) more difficult to
arrange. The walls and furniture cannot be moved because, pragmatically, they
are what makes the conference room a meeting place. Meanwhile, the ideas,
realizations, and interactions produced throughout the session are socially con-
structed in the context of that place. Space signals these less tangible and social
elements of the built environment, and is also highly dependent on the individual
or group of individuals that collectively work together in that room.
68 Communicating Project Management
Tim Peeples (2003, p. 321) explained that “social space refers to the relation-
ships produced (or made impossible or difficult to form) between people and
ideas.” Furthermore, Peeples argued, “the things we produce become, or are
themselves, actions. If I produce a shoe, I am not simply producing a shoe. I am
also acting on my world and others within it” (p. 320). The idea of “acting on
my world and others within it” is essential to understanding how people perceive
and participate in social space at work. It is the near constant collision of people
acting on their worlds made up of built environments and social spaces that
concerns making space for participation in project work. Project managers must
make space for people, yes, but they must also make space for the team, project,
and organization in that configuration. I do not mean to imply that spaces where
people interact are not socially constructed, but I am suggesting that effective
project managers often communicate in ways that make participation in project
work possible.
ICTs also have a direct influence in how social space is extended across these
different places for working. A good example of this can be found in Spinuzzi’s
(2012) inquiry into coworking spaces in Austin, Texas, where he learned that
these spaces provide a range of resources and tools for professionals working in
and across diverging markets. People work alongside others who are employed
by separate entities. They share ideas and give each other feedback. As noted in
Chapter 2, organizations can no longer be understood as a kind of container where
work is done (and left behind), but as networked—comprised of linkages between
people, resources, tools, places, and spaces. Rainie and Wellman’s (2014) work
emphasizes this point by explaining how ICTs can lead to blurring the boundaries
between private and professional activities and identities. When managing
projects across networked organizations and teams, project communication
naturally grows more complex. There are more technologies and resources for
making space for participation in project work, but also for misunderstanding
the intent of communicating across working environments. The solutions to these
problems have inspired companies to reiterate the importance of face-to-face
contact, as evidenced by The New York Times article “Yahoo Orders Home
Workers Back to the Office” (Miller & Rampell, 2013). Interestingly, many of
those who participated in the interviews emphasized that face-to-face
communication is often preferred over interacting over ICTs.
One reason ICTs are so pervasive is because they make communication
efficient. ICTs afford people the ability and flexibility to send symbols,
photographs, alphabetic text, audio recordings, and audio-visual capabilities—
all in a single transmission and to multiple audiences at once. Project managers
and leaders can participate in several conversations while monitoring others.
Certainly the information conveyed via these platforms has an important
influence over the messages people send over ICTs about project work. For
example, in referring to Blitefield’s (2000) work, Swarts and Kim (2009, p. 212)
concluded, “possibilities for rhetorical action are tied to the transformation of
the spaces and places through which we move and that occasion us to speak.”
That is, writers and communicators also construct, by inventing or discovering,
the environments in which they act (Swarts & Kim, 2009). Importantly, because
workers no longer participate in environments that may have been tied to
physical workplaces in organizations in the past (i.e., watercooler conversations),
project management activities must also account for digital spaces and commu-
nication practices afforded by ICTs. In digital spaces, worlds can collide across
time zones, regions, cultures, and so on. These collisions create power dynamics
that influence the communication around project work and dynamics in
sometimes less visible ways, in which making space for participating a more
complex undertaking.
To illustrate the implicit power dynamics created by communicating with ICTs,
I turn to Participant 12, whom we will meet again later in this chapter. Partici-
pant 12 worked on a globally distributed team. As a result, the team relied heavily
70 Communicating Project Management
researcher stance. In the results section of this chapter I discuss the factors and
strategies in more depth.
Participants
The people who elected to participate in the study varied by field, training, and
experience. Some of my participants were early-career while others were mid-
to late-career. I interviewed entrepreneurs alongside project leaders working inside
of technology companies that specifically had experience on development teams.
Some had degrees in Technical Communication, Engineering, Business, or
Information Science. Intentionally, I recruited participants that would provide
a range of responses across levels of experience, industry, and preparation. Most
participants were geographically located in the United States, although I did
manage to interview someone who had lived and worked in Sweden as a project
manager. The participants in the United States tended to work on the eastern
seaboard, midwest, and southern states. As well, all the participants reported
working with globally distributed teams or remote workers in some way, and as
a result, the interviews also discussed communicating in these contexts.
In Table 3.1, I give information about each participant. While not all
participants had the job title of project manager,2 each identified with being in
a project leadership position in some way. For example, Participant 9 noted
teaching project management classes at a university and had engaged in project
management activities in a previous position. Meanwhile, Participant 4 had
been given informal project management training and duties at work. Across each
of the participants, many had also discussed sharing in project management
activities as part of their work. For example, Participant 12 worked remotely on
a team that did not have a traditional project manager, but used a project
management system. In this way, Participant 12 needed to be self-directed while
relying on the system to help keep her organized. Other participants worked in
organizations where product management was innately involved with project
management in some way, whether through assembling charters or other relevant
project-level activities.
In the next section, I discuss the factors and strategies that surfaced during
interviews. Additionally, the implications of the factors and strategies are dis-
cussed in the context of making space for participation in the final section of the
chapter.
time to perform a certain function, such as testing prototypes. This same person
may be spread across several projects, so participation looks different for that
team. In this way, participation is not always egalitarian, and while I’ve made
this point before, it seems a timely moment to remind readers that participation
can ebb and flow in ways that make sense for a project and project team.
During the interviews, seven clear factors surfaced that seemed directly
influential to making space for participation on project teams. Some of the
strategies under each factor were widely adopted, whereas others were used by
only one or two people in my participant pool. My goal was to collect as many
strategies as possible to illustrate the contextual variance of the communication
work done across the pool. Additionally, it is important to note these factors and
strategies are not meant to be uncritically adopted. Rather, they are presented
for careful consideration and reflection. To make each factor and strategy
accessible, Table 3.2 details each factor and associated strategy.3
continued
76 Communicating Project Management
and Drivers.” She explained, “there are different ways to talk with those types of
people. And different ways to make sure they both stay committed to common
goals, but also stay effective and on board with all the work that is being done.”
Finally, Participant 6 argued that introversion was far less important than a
person’s propensity for and interest in learning new things.
People think of online mediums as easier for the introvert, or that people
will participate more there. But we have had a couple things where we will
have these super long, like hundred message email threads, where the entire
company will have conversations, which is equally overwhelming. That’s
terrifying and loud.
[Is] nobody will say anything. So my strategy has been, and it hasn’t
worked yet, is like: “If you’d rather come and talk to me one-on-one or
send me an email about your concerns that is absolutely perfectly fine. You
don’t have to give me an answer now.”
It’s more likely that when I’m communicating internally with my own IT
staff [. . .] I will bring things [up] about video games and comic books and
techie stuff. When I deal with my own staff, they tend to be more male,
whereas when I’m communicating with a stakeholder that is a female, I’m
not necessarily bringing that up.
While Participant 1 might have also been reflecting on the formality of rela-
tionships across teams and stakeholders, particularly external stakeholders, he
was also suggesting that finding common interests is an important part of
building relationships across genders.
in project teams and work: “In being on a team that’s all guys, I do actively try
to make myself not gendered. Making sure that I’m being one of the guys and
cool.” In this way, she made space for herself in the social environment of the
team by working to downplay her gender.
Even though my whole executive board at this company is white and male,
I don’t think gender is a thing. Even though the only female . . . I think
there’s one in HR and there’s one in QA . . . otherwise the managers are
male. But I mean, from my perspective, I don’t feel any kind of shift based
on gender. I’m not sensitive to it.
For Participant 12, a lack of gender equality seemed less important because
she felt as though she was treated well by her managers.
I have had situations in the past where, and I don’t know if this might be
the ways that ideas are adopted, but I will say something and say something
and say something, then later when ideas are coming up from someone
else, and they start repeating it it’s like “Oh yeah, that’s a great idea!”
Even so, Participant 2 later explained gender issues were elusive because it is
unclear that gender caused the sequence of events. She explained, “I don’t know
if it’s in the way I am presenting it or just if that’s just the good way ideas are
spread.” Making space for participation also means giving credit to people for
their contribution (see Turner, et. al, 2017).
her organization. She offered, “I want to say that at the moment, in that situation,
I would be more reserved and would wait to address it with someone else after
the fact.” Additionally, Participant 5 explained:
I have never been in that situation where I think in my head, “oh, because
of this situation I need to plan ahead.” That’s something gender-specific—
I have never proactively worked on it. It may be more of a reactive situation
to know how to deal with it the next time.
that confusion more often had to do with misunderstanding “the project or their
own professional deficiencies, rather than their language [abilities].” Participant
11 had similar experiences and told the story of her first report that was from
India. She gave her employee instructions on how to complete an installation
and was surprised the next week to learn the person had not started. The person
explained, “Well you gave me the instructions but you didn’t tell me to start.”
For such reasons, Participant 11 felt being explicit rather than implicit when
communicating across cultures is important.
‘So what you mean is . . .’” She called it “restating.” In doing so, her goal was to
“[make] sure that it was heard in all of the different languages. And if three people
say they are saying the same thing, but don’t understand each other, then you
have to keep working at it.” Participant 8 explained this as being an advocate for
people. He told the story of one person on his team who bowed every time he
met someone. He eventually took him aside to tell him bowing too often was
making people in the group uncomfortable, and that bowing once to the entire
group would be more appropriate.
So I find out, that the program manager had full-blown Asperger’s. So all
of these things started coming together. Things that were initially extremely
aggressive, weren’t intended in that way, and I was responding like they
were coming off as aggressive.
From this interaction he learned that people on teams can take sides over a
divide between the context and content of a message. Removing that barrier is
important for effective communication to occur.
Because I am Indian I can be direct, [and] they just assume that I am going
to be American in the way I deal with them, which is a strange thing to
work through. It’s more about organizational culture. It’s the way they see
headquarters culture, and satellite offices, that kind of thing. Anytime I go
to visit Spain or any other missions in whichever country, it’s like I have
Communicating to Make Space for Participation 83
New York on my forehead. No matter what I say or how I do it, [they think
I’m saying] “go fuck yourself, get it done.” There’s nothing I can do about
it, and I have to just deal with that.
inclined and engaged a person seemed to be, and how to best engage with them
during informal instances where discussion about non-work items would occur.
Choose ICTs that Get the Job Done (Not Always the Latest
Technology)
Participants noted the importance of making space by choosing ICTs that
supported the team’s needs. Participant 3 noted that teams often choose the ICTs
to communicate with each other because “when a project manager has tried to
do that, it has been less successful.” Additionally, Participant 3 explained that
86 Communicating Project Management
for any conversations like that, I try to make sure that they have multiple
opportunities not only to see it, but also to chime in. For quieter folks on
Communicating to Make Space for Participation 87
the team, I make sure that they have time to review and have time for
feedback, before communicating it out to the rest of the firm.
Then I want you to take that comp time immediately. So go home, do your
laundry, see your kids, wash the car, sleep—I don’t care. But I want you
rested and rejuvenated so that you can come back to work.
Also, building time off into project cycles was essential for negotiating
timelines, roadmaps, and so on.
What I care about is that my time with this person produces a more
significant output to the product, and that’s what I am paid to produce.
So taking the time to call out the contribution, stuff like that relationship
building is really important.
Listen Actively
All participants discussed the importance of active listening in making space for
participation. Participant 9, for example, mentioned that listening could influence
the quality of project outcomes. Participant 3 tied learning about active listening
to her training in education and human development, although she also
cautioned that it “doesn’t help me move my ideas forward.” When asked what
advice they would offer people looking to work on project management skills or
to become a project manager, many noted something similar to Participant 10:
“Leave a lot of room to listen and really hear what other people are saying.”
88 Communicating Project Management
Be Empathetic
Participant 10 explained how empathy can materialize in a range of ways, and
as a result, project managers have to sometimes give people space to ideate even
when it isn’t practical, because it makes work exciting for the moment. Participant
10 also felt when asking people to adopt new tools, “for that kind of thing you
just have to shut the fuck up, because for them it’s more like a mind change, and
an adjustment to their reality.” Participant 1 echoed this sentiment, but focused
instead on installing enterprise software in organizations, where a great deal of
his work was situated. From his view, “you have to be pretty tolerant and have
a lot of empathy for what your users are going through.” At another point in the
interview, he offered additional need for empathy: “the whole philosophy of a
project is that it’s something new to the user.” Participant 1 stated his experience
taught him that pushback on new initiatives like he described was normal,
and that he worked to understand pushback as “emotional or professional
constraints” rather than some sort of personality defect.
wasting time, noting that he expends a lot of mental and physical energy in order
to not waste people’s time.
breaking the rules. Participant 6 explained how meeting agendas were also used
to support safety, specifically to limit fear. When she planned meetings for
people “who were more afraid of technical things, I had a very clear agenda so
they knew in advance what we were supposed to be talking about. There was no
surprises at all and it was very clear.”
You don’t get a sense of—I don’t mean to sound hippie—but, energy until
you are around [the team]. You get a sense of cool or not cool. You get a
sense when working with them too, and you get a sense of trusting people.
I think the big thing for me is that you trust them to (a) have your back,
and (b) not fuck up.
Feedback also took the form of paying attention to how people were
participating and comparing it to previous experiences. Participant 5 discussed
noticing if people seemed distracted or not paying attention during meetings,
and then would follow up with an email or in-person conversation to see if all
was well. Participant 7 saw this form of feedback as a way to protect people. Her
way of paying attention was to measure progress during project meetings. She
explained, “So if I heard the same thing two or three weeks in a row, we would
stop and have a discussion about that.” Her reasoning was that
efficiency of the project. Sometimes it’ll take twice as long to do something, but
if we are doing the right thing, it can have a huge impact on the business.” Rather,
he argued for an approach that focused more intently on businesses meeting their
goals and anticipated outcomes.
Agile was more of an influence than a strict methodology. Every participant knew
that it had changed the ways in which people work. Some spent time comparing
the differences between Agile and Waterfall, actually noting that using a Water-
fall approach was more appropriate for large companies. On the other hand, it
seemed Agile’s influence was pervasive. For example, Participant 7 explained, “To
me, Agile just showed up as a daily Scrum” and also explained, “I have seen design
studio influence as much as Agile.” Yet, as a way of working, there was also an
expectation that everyone was Agile. Participant 12 went so far as to say, “I think
you can’t be in this industry if you’re not [Agile].”
We have a tendency to say that we are Agile, but then we also have a
tendency to have one shot at a feature or goal, and then are left with a list
of things that we wanted to accomplish or features that were either cut for
unknown reasons or just never got back to completing.
Be Strategically Agnostic
There were also accounts of agnostic Agile. That is, participants knew the
methodology had some benefits to offer, but did not, one way or the other, feel
tied to a specific way of being Agile. Participant 11 summed up his thinking this
way: “I’m agnostic. I believe in Agile methodologies, but I don’t subscribe to one
in particular.” The most common methods used to be Agile seemed to be Scrum
or stand-up meetings and working in sprints, although there were exceptions.
Participant 12, in particular, noted not having a specific process because if
something in the documentation was broken, the team would just go ahead and
fix it by resolving the ticket in the system. Participant 7 had a similar comment:
“They talk about Agile, and all that, but it doesn’t really affect my part of it. What
has changed by the way, isn’t so much that, it’s the number of Post-It notes that
appear in big team meetings.”
teams participated in project work. This finding demonstrates that while every
project is unique, so is every organization. Understanding the shape of teams helps
project managers assemble a context for making space for people on the team.
Less frequently, teams were organized around products. In the data, project
managers did not note this sort of team configuration occurring all that
frequently. Participant 9 was the sole person to note,
Even so, a caveat was added that these teams were always coordinating
information across the organization with other teams to make sure everyone was
on the same page. As a constraint, participants situated organizational culture
as a large influence on their communication practices. Interestingly, organiza-
tional culture seemed to influence teams and project work, but participants noted
teams could have their own cultures inside of the organization. When describing
cultural influence on project work, participants believed it to be one of the most
central factors in how space is made for people. In some instances, the culture
of an organization was praised, and in others, criticized as problematic.
be managed. Participant 2 explained, “The first company that I worked with out
of college was a very fixed team, but there were only nine people at the company,
so there wasn’t really a lot of change.” In larger organizations, Participant 7
explained more matrix-like formations were implemented.
Remove Silos
Some participants discussed siloing, or compartmentalizing, as problematic for
making space for participation in project work. In these instances, teams were
not working in cross-functional ways. At times, participants believed that had
to do with national cultural identity traits. At other times it simply had to do
with issues related to territorialism. Participant 7 gives an example of one
manager, who was being left out of informal discussions about the project.
When she asked why, her coworkers explained that she was too hard to reach,
even though she was just one floor above in the same building. She concluded,
“it was really because it was a departmental lines thing, and they really didn’t
like that she was part of the team. And it was really more of a personality issue,
then a logistical issue.” Participant 7 did not necessarily think siloing was an
organizational culture problem, however, and likened it to cliques at work.
Addressing that sort of approach to working was important when assembling
teams. She explained, “I think that the most clever teams I have worked on that
were cross-siloes actually rearranged the seating.”
different ways. Efficiency models do not always prioritize space for people in the
project. Time and again interviews showed this tension in interpersonal strategies,
particularly when teams would interact through meetings to support project work.
While some participants still argued that focusing on the project rather than
communication was key to success, others argued for the importance of the
social—even at the expense of productivity.
Agency as an Invitation
For the project managers and leaders I interviewed, agency manifested in the form
of an invitation to participate. The factors and strategies discussed during
interviews were used to shape how the invitation was delivered. That is, project
managers worked to find the appropriate invitation and did that communication
work through learning about individuals, teams, and organizations, and did this
work by engaging as a member of a community (see Blythe, 2006). When con-
sidering an organizational context, they would look to how the culture shaped
the work of people. On the other hand, if they knew specific people identified as
introverts, that they would have to find other avenues to extend the invitation
to participate. They worked within constraints presented by the individual and
Communicating to Make Space for Participation 101
Future Action
In building and maintaining relationships there were similar examples of the
overlapping traits in practice. For example, some participants noted the
importance of telling certain people of changes ahead of time, likely a reaction
to a previous situation where someone was caught off-guard and responded
poorly. The goal of telling this person was to make the meeting where the rest
of the team learned about the changes more productive. In the example I’m
pointing to, Participant 8 knew that one person’s reaction unproductively
influenced how space was made for others on the team to process the changes,
so explaining the information to that one person was a better way to make space
for the group.
Participants directly worked to facilitate psychological safety by reacting to
issues that harmed trust and provided very little space for people. For example,
Participant 6 intentionally changed the structure of team meetings as a reaction
to failures that occurred in the past. The goal of changing meeting structures was
to make the team more comfortable in the future and a more productive system
as a result. Others noted the importance of feedback, and so making space for
that kind of interaction was both intentional and reactive to the needs of the
team and the project. The goal of these interactions was to build trust for the
future and improve the system.
104 Communicating Project Management
Systems-Based
When considering the role of development methodologies in making space for
people, there are several examples of the overlapping traits. For instance, project
managers and leaders intentionally worked with organizations to adapt
methodologies, making ongoing changes to the use of meeting spaces like Scrum,
to suit the project and team needs. The goal was to improve team processes and
make a better system for managing projects in the future. Participants also noted
the purity debates about methodologies, specifically about the differences between
practice and theory. This is further evidence of teams and organizations reacting
to methodologies in ways that support process improvement.
Finally, the consideration of organizational and team culture was equally
pervasive as the other considerations. In some of the interviews, participants felt
that organizational culture could weigh heavily on team culture, so it was import-
ant to understand how hierarchy influences the ways in which teams can
communicate. For example, Participant 12 worked on a distributed team where
everything put into the project management system was stored in perpetuity.
Understanding such dynamics influenced what she would write into the system
because she was concerned about how it might be seen in the future. The system,
in this instance, had a direct influence over how she communicated. In other
examples, the role of siloing across a system affected how teams would interact
with people in different departments. By working to remove silos, development
teams could improve communication and find spaces to support collaboration
and achieve improved project outcomes.
Conclusion
In this chapter I explained the results of interviews in the context of making space
for participation. While not every important social factor surfaced during
interviews (for instance, ageism, accessibility, or discrimination related to sexual-
ity or gender identity were not discussed), the interviews did provide a foundation
for considering social factories in communicating project management. The
discussion offered in this chapter shows that making space manifests in several
ways that sheds light on how people, through interaction, exercise agency and
participate on development teams. It also raises a question about how individual
project managers approach making space from a systematic standpoint. In other
words, do project managers follow a prescriptive set of rules to make space? Or
is their application of a participatory approach to communicating intuitive to
their experience managing development projects?
In the next chapter, I demonstrate two models of leadership, and how
leadership values influence the way people approach communicating project
management. To explain these models, I use two metaphors about how to best
assemble and lead development teams. The first metaphor is gardening and the
Communicating to Make Space for Participation 105
Notes
1 For additional direction as to how I approached data analysis early on as the book
developed, a more explicit example is available in the Journal of Organizational
Knowledge Communication (Lauren, 2017).
2 See Berkun (2008) for a discussion of project management titles and job activities. Note,
however, that the conceptualization of project manager varies by organization and field.
A construction project manager has a different role than a development team project
manager. Also, recall from the first chapter that when I refer to project manager, I
am broadly addressing project management activities. As such, a broad array of
participants provided a better look at project management communication.
3 I want to highlight that I chose to embed information communication technologies
into each factor, rather than make it a factor of its own. There are two reasons for this.
The first and more important reason is that information communication technologies
were rarely discussed out of context during the interviews. That is, they were always
brought up alongside one of the factors listed below (for example, if Person A is this
way, I would not email them, which I would code as personality type). The second
reason is that habits of use produced information that was not all that interesting other
than noting a generalized widespread adoption. In other words, everyone used
information communication technologies as part of their work. What I did find notable
is that most participants preferred face-to-face communication when it was possible.
The general consensus was information communication technologies still cannot
replace face-to-face communication.
4 As a caveat to this statement, I would also like to acknowledge that as a white male,
some of my participants may have felt uncomfortable discussing gender issues
with me.
References
Amidon, S., & Blythe, S. (2008). Wrestling with proteus: Tales of communication managers
in a changing economy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(1), 5–37.
Aristotle (1994). Physica. (R. P. Hardie, and R. K. Gaye, Trans.). Retrieved from http://
classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html (Original work published in 350 BCE).
Berkun, S. (2008). Making things happen: Mastering project management. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly Media.
Blitefield, J. (2000). Kairos and the rhetorical place. In F. J. Antczak, C. Coggons, and G.
D. Klinger (Eds.), Professing rhetoric: Selected papers from the 2000 Rhetoric Society of
America conference (pp. 69–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
106 Communicating Project Management
Blythe, S. (2006). Agencies, ecologies, and the mundane artifacts in our midst. In P.
Takayoshi & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Labor, writing technologies, and the shaping of
composition in the academy (pp. 167–186). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Drucker, P. F. (2009). Management as a social function and liberal art. The essential Drucker:
Selections from the management works of Peter F. Drucker [Kindle version]. Retrieved
from Amazon.com.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Flynn, E. A., Sotirin, P. J., & Brady, A. P. (2012). Feminist rhetorical resilience. Logan, UT:
Utah State University Press.
Gaonkar, D. (1993). The idea of rhetoric in the rhetoric of science. Southern
Communication Journal, 58(4): 258–295.
Geisler, C. (2004). How ought we to understand the concept of rhetorical agency? Report
from the ARS. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 34(3), 9–17.
Grabill, J. T., & Pigg, S. (2012). Messy rhetoric: Identity performance as rhetorical agency
in online public forums. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42(2), 99–119.
Hewlett, S. A., Marshall, M., & Sherbin, L. (2013). How diversity can drive innovation.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-
drive-innovation.
Kelly, D. (2012). Forward. Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration. Institute
of Design at Stanford University
Lauren, B. (2017). Experience sampling as a method for studying in situ organizational
communication. Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication, 3(1), 63–79.
Miller, C.C., & Rampell, C. (2013). Yahoo orders home workers back to the office. New
York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/technology/yahoo-orders-
home-workers-back-to-the-office.html.
Peeples, T. (2003). Professional writers produce social space. In T. Peeples, (Ed.),
Professional writing and rhetoric: Readings from the field. London: Longman.
Phillips, K. W. (2014). How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American. Retrieved from
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter.
Potts, L. (2014). Social media in disaster response: How experience architects can build for
participation. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Rainie, H., & Wellman, B. (2014). Networked: The new social operating system, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators.
New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Sibley, S. S. (2016). Why do so many women who study engineering leave the field? Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/08/why-do-so-many-women-
who-study-engineering-leave-the-field.
Simmons, W. M., & Grabill, J. T. (2007). Toward a civic rhetoric for technologically and
scientifically complex places: Invention, performance, and participation. College
Composition and Communication, 58(3), 419–448.
Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441.
Swarts, J., & Kim, L. (2009). Guest editors’ introduction: New technological spaces.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(3), 211–223.
Communicating to Make Space for Participation 107
Turner, H. N., Nguyen, M., Keller, B., Sackey, D. J., Ridolfo, J., Pigg, S., . . . Grabill, J. (2017).
WIDE research center as an incubator for graduate student experience. Journal of
Technical Writing and Communication, 47(2), 130–150.
Willerton, R. (2015). Plain language and ethical action: A dialogic approach to technical
content in the 21st century. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
4
ON SITE WITH THE GARDENER
AND THE CHEF
Project Leadership and Communication
Agriculture isn’t entirely controllable. You enrich the soil, you plant seeds, you
water according to the latest theory, and you hold your breath. You just might
get a crop; you might not.
(Demarco & Lister, 1999, p.143)
But just as a chef with excellent experience uses the guidance of good cookbooks
and recipes to create consistently delicious meals, an experienced project
manager needs to use industry standard processes [. . .] as a cookbook to help
reproduce consistently effective PM results.”
(Lammers & Tsvetkov, 2008, n.p.)
I’ve come across two metaphors used to describe leadership philosophy at the
project team level. The first, offered by Demarco and Lister (1999), suggests that
teams can be grown, but not built. This leadership approach describes project
managers who cultivate the conditions for teams to succeed as a member of a
team. The second approach was described by Lammers and Tsvetkov (2008), and
it positioned project managers as chefs because they must deliver successful project
results consistently. The chef, they argue, uses “industry standard processes” to
achieve these results. Chefs tend to have a more complicated power relationship
with the team, as they are very clearly responsible for managing its processes and
procedures. Leadership models in project management offer important insight
into communication practices. This chapter explores leadership at the project
level by embodying the two metaphors of gardening and cooking to understand
how these leadership values influence approach to communicating. Through a
closer examination of two participants, this chapter explains how leadership values
influence communication at the project level, and to what extent they shape
invitations to participate in project work.
On Site with The Gardener and The Chef 109
At the end of the reporting period, I asked each participant to sketch a mental
model of their communication around project work. The mental model was a
useful artifact for better understanding their approach to communication.
Fairhurst and Sarr give a useful rationale for this approach:
Leaders who understand their world can explain their world. That is the
principle that makes mental models important to communication. Mental
models of how the world works (or is supposed to work) help us to size
up situations and formulate goals for communicating.
(Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996, p. 23)
In this way, the mental models each participant produced helped to illustrate
their perception of project communication, and how their leadership values were
enacted into a response to the rhetorical situation.
You can’t make teams jell. You can hope they will jell; you can cross your
fingers; you can act to improve the odds of jelling—but you can’t make it
happen. The process is much too fragile to be controlled.
(Demarco & Lister, 1999, p. 143)
On Site with The Gardener and The Chef 113
As they asked what could be done to create the circumstances teams needed
to jell, the authors noted they needed to change their terminology. “We stopped
talking about building teams, and talked instead of growing them” (p. 143,
emphasis in original). As it turns out, the metaphor of gardening is also not new
to professional and technical communication either.2 The gardening leadership
model for project management values team-building and developing people, and
as a result, a gardener approach is more appropriate for shared control over
leadership and internal processes. In a cultivation model, project management
is treated as a more democratic process that requires frequent input from people
on the team.
When the research for this chapter began, The Gardener had just started a
new job at an automotive company designing infotainment experiences. Her title
was Senior User Experience Designer. When I asked how she was involved in
managing or leading project work, she explained how she did so from inside the
team:
She did qualify this statement with an important point that she was not the
team lead, although she had an informal role in how the work of her team was
done.3 She explained how she participated in project management:
Some of the stuff that I do naturally like scheduling things, and laying out
timelines, or taking more detailed notes. I have been sharing that
somewhat—almost to get a sense of how much other people appreciate it
and if other people find it helpful.
Given that The Gardener was new to the company and team, her approach
made sense because she was looking for ways to add value to her surroundings.
She wanted to fit in, but also make an impact inside of the organization. She
explained one way she was adding value to project work—which had influenced
how it was being managed—was building a shared calendar. She felt that by
creating timelines in this calendar, she could help other people on the team see
the dependencies of the project. She explained the team had previously used a
slideshow template, but that it wasn’t visible enough. She translated that
information into something she felt was more effective and thought,
hey, I can do it in this way and I can share it with them and if it’s appreci-
ated then I can kind of manage that piece of things or it can be adopted
by everybody and then we can all kind of manage that piece.
114 Communicating Project Management
In the end, she explained that the team adopted her approach to scheduling
and making dependencies visible.
The Gardener described the approach to project management at her company
was Waterfall, but with some Agile elements practiced only by her team. This
structure made sense because The Gardener worked for an automotive company,
and much of her team’s work had to do with people’s experience in the car—
perhaps the most flexible space of an automobile. The Gardener explained, “we
do design thinking as an approach to problem solving, and there have been
discussions with my team in particular about trying to incorporate some of the
methods of those methodologies,” such as a Kanban Board. To potentially help
facilitate some of this transition, The Gardener practiced using a Kanban Board
to guide her own work, but did not introduce it as a collaboration tool with her
team during data collection.
to teach people how to treat her or how she hoped her behavior would influence
others. For example, she reported receiving an email request about a feature of
a product from a coworker who had authority over her in the organization’s
hierarchy. The email asked her to immediately give feedback to a proposal. The
Gardener felt the request was unreasonable, and responded she would get to it
soon as she could, but did not make promises about when that would be. Since
her response was written as an email, she used a polite and diplomatic tone, but
remained firm that she did not have the time to get to this specific request at the
moment. Her thought about responding in this way was “I didn’t want to teach
him that he could get me to react by communicating in that way.”
Another example manifested itself for The Gardener during an informal chat
session with a new person at her organization. The event occurred because the
new person was working to understand how to use the scheduling system, and
felt confused by it. During the event, the new employee instant-messaged with
The Gardener, who clarified how to use the system. In this example, The Gardener
used this opportunity to express her value of modeling behavior. By helping this
person, even though it wasn’t a part of her job, The Gardener was modeling the
kind of flexible and informal communication she wanted to see in others within
the organization. Further, The Gardener believed this communicative act could
potentially develop a rapport that seemed to be missing in the group. She said,
“I got this sense that there’s not a lot of proactive sharing here,” although she
also acknowledged she did not believe it was about “hoarding information” either.
By spending time walking this new person through the scheduling system she
explained:
The Gardener was working to grow the knowledge of a teammate, while also
making visible the kind of interactions she hoped others would adopt on the team.
She described her motivation also as a way to support future action when/if others
needed to access the scheduling system: “when she asked me for help I thought,
‘Man, I should really go in here and update all this and pull it together—like
update this page—so that the next person can have something to go towards.’”
Of the situation, she concluded, “there are things that I can have some control
and influence over in terms of culture and that’s how I communicate with other
people and how I teach people how to communicate with me.”
I could really manage a lot more than I am right now, but I know I don’t
know everything I need to know to understand where the boundaries are.
So, I’m kind of backseating a little bit just to see how things play out—to
get a sense of the culture.
This could be a gender thing—I’m still making first impressions and I don’t
want to come in and give people the impression that I’m going to railroad
people or take over all the work or just be a difficult personality or anything
like that.
Since her design team had scheduled a meeting in a private room at work,
she chose this moment to ask a question about organizational hierarchy. Rather
On Site with The Gardener and The Chef 117
than continue with the meeting as planned, the group spent a great deal of time
discussing organizational hierarchy and explained how it influenced decision-
making at her company. When reflecting on what she learned in that moment,
The Gardener once again noted how her organization treated the timing and
dependencies of project work as more open-ended from previous places she’d
worked, and she found flexible deadlines somewhat disorienting.
idea that she wanted the team to understand there was an “expectation we
should have of each other when we’re coming to the table with something [for
feedback].” In this case, she relied a great deal on modeling that inclusive
behavior for people, and in this particular example, hoped that her informal
strategies would cultivate more formal inclusive practices across the team.
I was with the same group of people over the course of two days and it was
essentially figuring out how to work together, how to attack a problem,
and then what space in which to do that from a cadence perspective given
what we had to accomplish.
By “cadence perspective,” she meant how quickly the team would need to
collaborate. She could tell, based on the reaction of people in the room, that there
was some resentment surfacing across the group. A person on the team seemed
disengaged and disinterested in the work. The Gardener could sense the tension,
so she brought it up to the team during the meeting after the collaborator
unexpectedly walked out and did not come back. People on the team were
feeling as if the person had dishonored an unspoken rule and team norm. The
Gardener saw this as a moment for learning and took note of how the context
of the situation was influencing the group. She said, “I feel like I’m always
thinking about context. I think [about] choosing how to conduct my work,
whether that’s actually designing something or whether that’s collaborating with
people.” The Gardener believed, had this person felt more responsible to the team,
On Site with The Gardener and The Chef 119
he would have explained why he left the session and did not come back. Without
additional explanation, the team did not know if there was an emergency or if
he was upset with how the collaboration was going, and was left to assume the
worst.
this way: “I started with audience, essentially, because that’s what determines how
I communicate with people. So, I kind of tried to lay it out by some of the
significant groups that I work with most often.” Each strand is thusly organized
by the audience. As we follow the flow of each strand of her mental model we
eventually arrive at her depiction of situation, which directly influences how she
perceives herself as a communicator. An underlying theme across her mind map
is the importance of collaboration and working together.
Moments of collaboration appeared to be where and when The Gardener felt
most comfortable asserting herself as a leader. These were moments where she
could engage in practices like teaching people how to communicate, modeling
desirable behavior, and learning about the people on her team. Her sampling
reports showed she focused a great deal of energy empathizing with the people
she collaborated with during meetings. As a result, she looked for more
opportunities to collaborate because she felt it allowed her to add value to the
work of the team. She also pointed out that meetings often influenced cultural
or logistical factors, which means that the frequency of many meetings are out
of her control. Thus, she had to find and choose specific moments to lead. She
felt there were social forces at work in meetings, and that is also why these settings
proved so important to be inclusive rather than exclusive in terms of communi-
cation. How her leadership surfaced in communication activities had to be
timely—woven into the fabric of the team in predictable and unpredictable ways.
As a result, she perceived leadership as situational and reactive to context, which
was one reason she emphasized being responsible to the team. Honoring the social
rules and norms of teams was closely contributed to the production of psy-
chological safety.
Overall, the most important thing about The Gardener’s mind map was
that her leadership mental model contained specific communicative practices that
relied heavily on her perception of the different audiences she encountered at
work, as well as her position in those groups. These practices helped her to cultivate
effective team environments and behaviors by empathizing with people on the
team as they worked together. Jointly, the experience sampling and mind map
suggested The Gardener tended to lead by emphasizing people over the project
without diminishing the importance of getting work done. To invite participation,
she started with considering communication factors and strategies that related
to people on her projects.
The Gardener’s focus on people is important as a descriptive feature of her
leadership mental model. When we compare that with The Chef in the next
section, we see that he tends to focus on the project over the people. While he
certainly does not minimize the impact or importance of people, his mental model
tends to position him to make space for participation in the system used to manage
project work, especially in terms of coordinating workflow and dependencies.
The people that inhabit that system tend to be secondary in his value system.
Can range from design collaboration and
feedback gathering to social chit chat; doesn’t
Informally
occur as often as I would like
F2F
Design direction decision making, feedback
discussions, requirements gathering. Feels less
Scheduled Meetings
collaborative
Phone Call
Chat
Mostly project-oriented Community Teammates
communication of questions about Twitter
Informally
larger departmental concerns
Email
F2F
Gather feedback on job performance, ask My Communication
questions or have discussions about how we Slack
Scheduled Meetings Manager
work, and status updates
create awareness of the intersection across all the different departments, but the
adoption of that system was more about creating an improved customer experi-
ence across business units. He noted his role was partially to help address this
issue: “this is me coming in after the fact and telling you my impression of it
—a combination of company culture along with the product that they bought.”
During the research, The Chef focused intently on the social aspects of
communicating in a high-tension environment that was focused on making
productive change. He worked to invite participation across several layers of the
organizational network—from executive management to individuals on his
team.
mistakes working with teams in the past. He called this approach “loss avoid-
ance,” where you avoid losing productivity or harming a relationship because of
a preparation error. In this way, The Chef put a lot of pressure on his own personal
performance to deliver successful projects.
To provide another example, during a phone meeting, two people on the line
derailed the meeting agenda by engaging in a pop-up conversation. He explained,
“I could feel the cyclical nature of this conversation and not feeling like it was
progressing. And only two people were talking.” His purpose for communicating
was to get the meeting back on a productive track, so he acted by asking the two
people to follow-up with each other after the meeting. He noted that no one
seemed offended by him requesting the two to follow-up after the call, and that
he even heard a few laughs. He also reflected that this wasn’t the first time he’d
asked this specific group to stay on task, and that in previous meetings he’d
wadded up a piece of paper and jokingly threw it in someone’s direction to get
them to focus. As a result, he communicated his leadership value to the team
that staying on task is important, but worked to do so in an inclusive, good-
humored way.
[I] set a goal for the team to reach by next Friday, in order to make our
work sync up with other efforts in the system. I first sent out an email
yesterday, and today I followed up with each person individually to
reinforce and make sure they understood the goal and purpose.
He felt this approach could help make people more productive. In this way,
The Chef enacted his view that the team needed to be responsible to the project
in order to produce successful outcomes.
ultimately good for the project and for the team. He acted by engaging in a
discussion about the situation of his coworker, as she worked through feelings
about someone she felt was directly rejecting her authority. The Chef perceived
his role as offering a “because?” As in, this person has frustrated me, and his role
was to ask her why. When I asked him to reflect on the situation in our interview,
The Chef said, “The two metrics results and retentions—everything else falls into
those.” In other words, “if she wants to get action on this, [the outcome] needs
to be linked to results or retention.” So, his application of empathy was strategic
and action-oriented. He certainly felt conflicted by his use of empathy because
during our interview he explained, “I still in my mind link empathy with some
sort of action that is showing support for the feelings, but I do think it is
important in order to get things done. It is important to acknowledge that
people’s feelings are a valid source of data.” In other words, The Chef perceived
empathy as a useful way to act if it motivated action that benefited the project
in some way.
I try to stay focused on the goal when I’m communicating because this is
kind of that safe space to talk about the system; to talk about the goal rather
than what someone is doing. Because in my experience I’m not going to
get much traction talking to someone about what they are or are not doing.
TABLE 4.1 Comparing the Values of The Gardener and The Chef
people. Meanwhile, The Chef took a different role of making space by focusing
on creating and iterating a management system for the project to succeed, which
would ultimately benefit the team and the business.
Table 4.1 is a comparison of the values discovered across the two leadership
profiles in this chapter. I present these values not to position one approach against
the other as more or less desirable, but to demonstrate how values influence how
leaders communicate. I placed each of the elements in relation to each other to
make comparisons easier to make.
The unique positionality of The Gardener and The Chef also demonstrate
an important aspect of their leadership values and agency as project managers.
That is, The Gardener also acted in specific ways because of her role on the team.
The situation and context helped to determine how she perceived this role. At
the same time, The Chef was brought in as a consultant because of his train-
ing and experience. His role was to act as a chef. From what we’ve learned from
The Gardener and The Chef, leadership communication can be understood
as a rhetorical performance that builds from the project manager’s positionality
and is refined through interactions with the team and extensions of the team.
Leadership values are linked to the rhetorical context and situation. Further-
more, a leader’s identity is not fixed, but its value-centric identity is constantly
shifting. The Gardener and The Chef show how leadership identity is formed
and reformed through rhetorical performance. In other words, leadership identity
can be formed through interaction and participation, but an individual’s values
are far more reliant on other factors, such as training, education, and other pro-
fessional experiences. These values are sense-making guideposts for The Gardener
and The Chef, and help them shape approaches to communication.
Conclusion
In this chapter we learned about two prevailing metaphors for describing
leadership in project management. To illustrate these metaphors, we met The
Gardener and The Chef and learned about their experiences communicating at
work. The cases demonstrated two leadership models and uncovered their asso-
ciated values for communicating. These leadership approaches also demonstrated
how space for participation can be constructed according to different mental
models. The implementation of participative approaches to communicating are,
in a way, constrained by the leadership values of a project manager. Furthermore,
the chapter discussed how agency is enacted through the positionality of a project
manager on a team, which is also reinforced and modified through interactions
with the team and other stakeholders. The chapter ended with a brief discussion
of how leadership identity is also linked to social factors, and can be influenced
by communication events focused on project work.
So far in this book, we have isolated individuals’ experiences and views to learn
about communicating project management. In the next chapter, we will turn our
attention to a team working through a large change management effort that had
a significant impact on project work. Broadly speaking, the team was making a
transition to a participatory paradigm for project work by changing what they
developed and how they developed it. We will learn about how the team
communicates and participates in the change process, and what disruptions
surfaced during the reorganization that negatively impacted their productivity.
As the final case study in this book, Chapter 5 provides an important social view
of communication and participation in project management.
132 Communicating Project Management
Notes
1 In Chapter 1, I briefly mention jelling as a concept for team formation, specifically in
the context of being a musician. DeMarco and Lister (1999) describe them as having
a few qualities: “low turn-over” (p. 136); “a strong sense of identity” (p. 136); “a sense
of eliteness” (p. 136); “a feeling of joint ownership over the product being built by the
jelled team” (p. 137, emphasis in original); and, a sense of “obvious enjoyment”
(p. 137).
2 Bill Hart-Davidson (2001) used the work of Bonnie Nardi and Vicky O’Day (1999) to
suggest that technical communicators are also well-suited to act as gardeners on IT
development teams.
3 Leading parts of projects and initiatives is something we saw reflected in the interviews
in Chapter 4 because some products involve multiple project teams. We will also see
a similar situation in the team that makes up Chapter 6.
4 The 80/20 rule suggests project managers spend 20% of their time on project
management activities that will lead to an 80% return on investment in the future.
References
Amidon, S., & Blythe, S. (2008). Wrestling with proteus: Tales of communication managers
in a changing economy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(1), 5–37.
Asghar, R. (2014). Leadership is hell: How to manage well—and escape with your soul. Los
Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press.
Biesecker, B. A. (1989). Rethinking the rhetorical situation from within the thematic of
“différance.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, 22(2), 110–130.
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary
and experience sampling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Demarco, T., & Lister T. (1999). Peopleware (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Dorset House
Publishing Company, Inc.
Drucker, P. F. (2009). The essential Drucker: The best of sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential
writing on management [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership.
San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Grabill, J. T., & Pigg, S. (2012). Messy rhetoric: Identity performance as rhetorical agency
in online public forums. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42(2), 99–119.
Hart-Davidson, W. (2001). On writing, technical communication, and information
technology: The core competencies of technical communication. Technical
Communication, 48(2), 145–155.
Hart-Davidson, W. (2007). Researching the activity of writing: Time-use diaries, mobile
technologies, and video screen capture. Studying the mediated action of composing with
time-use diaries. In H. McKee, & D. DeVoss (Eds.), Digital writing research:
Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues (pp. 153–169). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Herrick, J. A. (2009). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Higgs, M. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 273–284.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley and Sons.
On Site with The Gardener and The Chef 133
Lammers, M. & Tsvetkov, N. (2008). More with less: The 80/20 rule of PM. TC World.
Retrieved from www.tcworld.info/e-magazine/content-strategies/article/more-with-
less-the-8020-rule-of-pm.
Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership workbook: Follow them and people
will follow you (revised and updated 10th anniversary ed.). Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson.
Moskowitz, D. S., & Sadikaj, G. (2012). Event-contingent recording. In M. R. Mehl and
T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 160–175).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
5
MANAGING A REORGANIZATION
PROJECT AT DTI
Participation and Making Space for
Communicating Change
Stories help us negotiate between those factors that restrict and limit our
possibilities and our free ability to pursue our own choices.
(Faber, 2002, p. 25)
was now responsible for developing customer experiences that “inspired delight,”
to quote one of the participants in the chapter.
Technical and Professional Communication as a field has documented similar
organizational and structural changes in its scholarship on content strategy and
user experience. For example, the shift in how the team at DTI was working
might have been thought of as the organization “coming to content management”
(Hart-Davidson, Bernhardt, McLeod, Rife, & Grabill, 2008). That is, the organ-
ization had begun to see content as knowledge assets, and the delivery of content
as representative of customer experience and the public perception of its
products. Inevitably, the participants in the study understood that their role in
the organization was rapidly evolving, repositioning them as central to building
positive customer experiences—a development process that could not be
automated. The problem from my view was the team didn’t fully understand
why this change was needed. Also, some of my participants did not appear to
know when and how the changes would occur. While upper management
had made clear that the change would be good for DTI and for each person on
the team, the rollout of the reorganization was incremental, so each person
on the team experienced the reorg at a different time. In other words, their agency
to participate in the reorganization as a team was constrained by the system
designed to implement it. Furthermore, management implemented the change
rollout without involving employees in the process, leaving them little space to
shape the system..
As a point of clarity, reorganizations such as the one depicted herein can be
understood as a kind of project. This chapter considers what disrupts participative
approaches during reorganization projects by discussing the communication of
the information development team at DTI during the early stages of the process.
At the center of this discussion are the circumstances the team faced when
struggling with the changes presented to them. The reorg as described so far might
have been popular with employees as it created opportunities to participate in
project work in cutting-edge and even career-defining ways. Yet, by the time I
began visiting people on the team at work, there was a sense of anxiety and
paranoia weighing heavy around the office. As this chapter illustrates, one reason
for the discomfort surrounding the change appeared to be a central contradiction:
the organization wanted to use more participatory approaches to collaborate with
customers, but instituted that change without involving employees in the con-
versations about how to implement these new ways of working. In short, it was
a top-down effort. Because employees had not participated in conversations about
the change process, and also because of an unfortunate series of events—like the
departure of their manager and the arrival of a new, unfamiliar manager—
psychological safety on the team had been eroded.
This chapter explains how lack of space in participation can influence
organizational change projects. To do so, the chapter explains the organizational
change project and situation at DTI, providing an analysis of the team’s
136 Communicating Project Management
text, is itself a technology (see Ong, 1982; Hart-Davidson, 2001). Further, as Faber
(2002) explained of stories and storytelling in the second epigraph of this chapter,
people are sometimes limited—perhaps even confined—by the affordances
of language as a technology. Language can be a kind of constraint. Activity Theory
makes similar assumptions that work is mediated by tools and technologies, but
also that people always act as part of a social system. Activity Theory works to
establish a context for understanding what influences how people work. As a
method, it is useful for understanding the reorganization experience of the team
at DTI because participative environments tend to operate with norms that
support team psychological safety. These norms are the “rules” of the
“community,” and influence everything from “division of labor” to a person’s
perception of their own subject-positioning.
In the case of DTI, as psychological safety eroded during the organization’s
change, some people on the team grew more resistant to transforming their work-
flow. There are similar examples we can point to in the literature on Activity
Theory. For example, Daniels and Warmington (2007) explained how they used
Activity Theory to examine professional learning in British workplaces. Particularly
important was their discussion about resistance to change among workers,
despite understanding that modification in professional practice is necessary.
Resistance to change was somehow related to the participants’ identity and
perception of agency over their own labor practices. In other words, as Participa-
tory Design forwarded (see Ehn, 2008), people ought to be involved in decisions
made about how they work. Activity Theory affords us the ability to understand
how people work toward supporting organizational change as an objective.
Methods
To assemble a strong understanding of the activity system of the team, I used
the following methods. The approaches build on Spinuzzi’s (2013) approach
discussed in Topsight and Hart-Davidson’s (2007) on ideas on diary studies (which
I refer to as experience sampling).
Observations
To observe a first-hand account of how each employee worked, I observed each
participant as they worked at the DTI office. During observations, events were
hand-recorded on a legal pad. During natural pauses, I asked each participant
questions as he or she worked to help me better understand his or her various
activities and to make sure what was happening was clear to me. The questions
asked were unscripted and mostly took the form of prompts to explain what was
happening when an activity stalled, similar to think-aloud protocol. Then, notes
were transcribed to a text file and arranged alongside other data collected for the
study. All observations were completed over a three-week period.
Managing a Reorganization Project at DTI 139
Artifact Collection
Throughout observations, artifacts were collected from each participant’s work-
space related to the study. Artifacts included copies of project plans, to-do lists,
training documentation, generic contracts, visual plans, books, screenshots,
timelines, and email. Participants redacted these artifacts before turning them
over for analysis. Participants decided which artifacts he or she felt comfortable
turning over, and sometimes artifacts could not be secured if they were categorized
as sensitive information.
Interviews
Immediately following the observation session, I conducted one semi-structured
interview with each participant. The interview used questions including many
of those recommended by Spinuzzi’s (2013) Topsight. As well, I developed
additional questions related to what was observed during each session. To come
up with these additional questions, I wrote down larger questions during the
observation to discuss during interviews. A second semi-structured interview was
conducted with each participant after analyzing experience sampling reports. As
with the observation session, interview questions were based on what was
observed in experience sampling reports.
Analyzing Data
A modified version of Spinuzzi’s (2013) method of analysis for detecting patterns
across the micro (individual), the meso (team), and the macro (organizational)
levels was used to analyze the data. The goal for adapting Spinuzzi’s analytical
approaches was to understand what contradictions and disruptions occurred as
the team communicated about project work. As data was assembled, I worked
to discover how the reorganization seemed to be affecting communication.
Participant 1: Bob
Bob had a college education in the humanities and training in Stanford d.school
methods (listening and innovation). Bob regularly completed DTI-sponsored
on-site courses in areas such as difficult conversations, giving presentations with
impact, and conducting behavioral interviews. Also, Bob’s position at DTI
frequently required cross-organizational collaboration on projects. During the
initial survey with the team, Bob noted a great deal of information-sharing
technology used in various projects, ranging from GoToMeeting, internal instant-
messaging programs, and telephone. Bob relied on tools such as a WYSE virtual
desktop, a laptop, an iPad, an iPhone, a whiteboard, and Post-It notes.
Participant 2: Tom
Tom also had a college education in the humanities and training in Stanford
d.school methods. Tom regularly completed DTI-sponsored onsite courses
on how to be a better coach, presenting with impact, and resolving difficult
conversations. As the Senior Manager of the Customer Experience Department,
Tom’s position required project and people management, working through
others, and setting direction. Tom reported, “Teams I work with—Development,
Test, Product Management, Program Management, Customer Experience
(Product Design, Customer Insights).” To support work, Tom noted tools such
as email and instant messaging, and also human resource tools for tracking the
goals of employees. The devices Tom used to access information related to work
were an iPad, a PC (at home and work), a WYSE virtual desktop, and an Android
smartphone.
Participant 3: Don
Don also had a college education in the humanities, and training in management
and employee personality assessment. Don’s position involved people and project
management in the information experience organization of DTI. Don’s focus at
DTI was an experimental evaluation program mixing traditional (e.g., text-
based) and nontraditional (e.g., digital) technical documentation. To support
sharing information at work, Don mostly used the team’s project management
system. The devices Don used to access information were a tablet and notebook
computer. Don most frequently worked with others overseas, particularly in other
DTI offices, and so routinely connected with others using digital technology.
Managing a Reorganization Project at DTI 141
Participant 4: Tammy
Tammy had a college education in the humanities, and instead of specific train-
ing, reported “I’ve observed role models, learned by doing, and received feedback,
good or bad, from my managers or supervisors and other stakeholders.” Tammy’s
position entailed managing the projects of a technical writing team working on
how-to documentation for enterprise-level software that will be released
concurrent with the product. Tammy also used a range of digital and analog tools
to support work, including email, video-chat and a telephone. Generally, Tammy
used a laptop computer docked through a WYSE system with external monitors,
keyboard, and mouse.
Participant 5: Steve
Steve had a college education in the humanities, and reported no additional
training, certification, or education in teamwork and communication. Steve
explained the current position at DTI: “I am on the newly renamed information
experience team. We’ve recently been moved to the Customer Experience
department. Prior to that, we were in Engineering and were called Technical
Publications.” To communicate with peers, Steve explained “I prefer in-person,
telephone, [video chat,] email because they are direct and I know they are
happening. I don’t like social media for important information because it requires
I always check it to discover the information exists.” Steve used a laptop computer
docked through a virtual desktop with dual monitors, keyboard, and mouse.
Participant 6: Sheila
Sheila had a college education in the humanities, and regarding training,
explained “the only thing I remember is a Dale Carnegie course that most [DTI]
employees were required to attend several years ago, and an email course.”
Sheila’s current position required a great deal of communication with employees.
To do so, Sheila reported “daily standup meetings, weekly or biweekly status
review meetings, project management system workspace, project plans, and
[other] meetings.” She also explained:
We operate with transparency and all plans and reviews are published so
anyone on the project can see them or look them up. Meetings are recorded
for the benefit of those in other geographies (e.g., India) and are available
for anyone to review.
Similar to all the other participants, Sheila used a laptop and WYSE sys-
tem, but also used a personal laptop and tablet occasionally when working from
home.
142 Communicating Project Management
As far as where the department is heading, I have a good sense for it, but
there is still fuzziness around what it’s going to look like and how we’re
gonna get there. We recently had a leadership [summit] off-site with some
of the most senior people in management to walk through a few things.
We are still digesting it. It takes a while to shift from the way you’ve been
doing something for a long time to a new way of doing things, especially
when you have to build up those skillsets. For me, I’m certainly flexing some
of the change management skills that are necessary to keep members of
the team focused. At the same time, I understand that it falls to each member
of the team to handle the changes that are happening around them and
that there is some uncertainty. The best thing I can do is be upfront with
them about what I know.
Managing a Reorganization Project at DTI 143
The discomfort related to the reorg was further reflected in interviews. When
I asked each participant in the study about where they saw the organization
in the future, many of them were unsure about what the reorg meant for them
as employees of DTI in the short and long term. Some thought the team would
be dissolved. Others believed the team would need to evolve, which would
naturally force some people to find new jobs. Even so, the response of my
participants to the reorg was mixed. Some of the participants believed that
that technical documentation was still necessary for DTI’s customers, and felt
the new direction could alienate those who required special accommodations.
At the same time, there appeared to be a lot of collective enthusiasm about the
potential for individual and career growth. Meanwhile, the uncertainty hung heavy
because many people on the team still had not started these new projects. That
is, they had only heard about the changes that were behind the reorg because the
rollout was incremental, so they had not experienced the changes in any
meaningful way.
Adding to the uncertainty, a new manager had recently been hired at the
same level as Tom. There was a lot of distrust of the new senior manager across
most of the participants. Since he was new, he was often associated with many
of the changes afoot, and his interpersonal skillset seemed to frustrate a lot of
people because he was very direct and asked a lot of questions. As a result, there
seemed to be a sense of paranoia surrounding how people approached work.
For example, one of my participants created a private virtual workspace to colla-
borate “unmolested,” because team dynamics felt so strange at that moment.
Purposefully, only a few trusted people on the team had access to that workspace.
Another one of my participants regularly used a tinted piece of plastic over her
computer screen at work because she was worried about privacy when sending
and receiving messages. There were inside jokes told that clearly spoke to things
communicated at previous meetings about the goal of the reorg. The confusion
grew throughout the study as people continued to be reassigned and tasked. While
people were informed of new roles they would have in the organization, they
weren’t sure what those roles meant in practice or how they would be evaluated
in them. Later, the team’s senior manager was let go, and the new senior manager
put in his place.
Some of my participants felt the problems associated with the new senior man-
ager were cultural issues. Don explained during our observation session that there
was a great deal of confusion about the new senior manager’s role and what value
he brought to the team. Don also explained there was a perception on the team
that the new senior manager did not come across as transparent in how
he collaborated. Further, Don said that people on the team wanted to work with
the new manager, but they also didn’t trust him. Compounding these issues, the
new manager burned bridges with other managers on the team. Don felt he was
getting involved in too many ongoing projects, which was causing some division
144 Communicating Project Management
of labor issues and a lot of off-the-record conversations. People felt scared when
he asked them to meet because they could sense the political changes. From my
view, there was a palpable tension across the team’s management in meetings.
For example, during a meeting I attended, one of my participants took a screen
capture of the new senior manager’s calendar, which he had mistakenly opened
as he shared his screen over video chat. After the meeting, three of my participants
huddled to see what they could learn from the screen capture. It was clear they
did not trust the new senior manager, and felt threatened by his role in the reorg
as well.
The disruptions related to the reorganization were not always explicit. They
were sometimes tacit or hidden from view, such as the secret workspace or the
use of tinted plastic to cover a computer screen. By disruptions, I mean breaks
in participation and stalled productivity. That said, the disruptions seemed to
present themselves at the project level as individuals on the team worked under
the new set of rules introduced by the reorganization. The new rules suggested
people collaborate face-to-face as often as possible, especially to do “high-touch”
or “physical” activity, such as affinity diagramming using sticky notes. From
my perspective, the goal of the reorg was to remove silos and spark more colla-
boration among the group. It placed technical communicators at the center of
developing valuable customer experiences. Furthermore, it put technical
communicators into leadership positions as they would act as content developers
and strategists. Nonetheless, to accommodate the changes in processes, DTI
implemented some new tools. The main one was a project management system
that looked and operated quite a bit like a social network. There was a timeline
that streamed information that could be scrolled through. A user could also email
and video chat with someone using the software. As well, DTI implemented a
few workshops to train people in design thinking or in new tools. The remainder
of the changes seemed to be handled at the project level. So, while the rules of
their work changed (more collaboration on multimedia content), people on the
team tried to implement them with largely the same division of labor and tools.
Without opportunities to participate in the change project, however, people on
the team had no way to point out this contradiction presented to them by the
new rules of the reorg.
connecting as a virtual team. But, the division of labor made people somewhat
insulated from each other. Each technical writer at DTI incrementally learned
to manage projects, which seemed tied to their title. For example, a lead technical
writer may have several people that report to them, whereas a more junior level
author would be tasked with managing smaller portions of projects, like
addressing bugs.
To connect globally distributed virtual teams, DTI was using several virtual
environments to support project work, such as asynchronous project manage-
ment software or video-chat tools. Activities typically relegated to a specific
physical space, administrator, team, or unit could become, instead, extended
around the globe virtually to those best positioned or suited to do the work at a
given time. Even so, many of the participants felt absolutely tethered to their desks
since many of their collaborators did not work in the same office, state, or time
zone. To accommodate integration of distributed team members, managers had
to learn to schedule common times. Meeting rooms also had to be flexible and
incorporate people working at a distance.
The tools the team used to manage projects also had to be flexible. In the past
they had used several platforms to support collaboration on technical
documentation, such as SharePoint, OneBug, Kampile, and so on. Authors were
well-versed in Darwin Information Type Architecture (DITA), for example, and
many of them felt quite comfortable writing technical documentation using
programs such as Xmetal. One tool caused quite a bit of controversy, however.
As noted earlier, a new project management system had been implemented to
centralize and make communication more transparent, but the system seemed
to be too far a leap for some people on the team. The system incorporated a social
networking approach to coordinating teams and information, but some of the
participants just didn’t see its benefits to managing project work. In fact, these
participants felt it was actually a detriment and there were better tools already
in place.
The old school ways of doing things—two months ago [another employee]
and I were working on the previous project and we actually did this in Podio.
We did a [video chat] and we started in a Word document, and we said,
“What do we need to do between now and the product release?” And we
came up with a schedule. I was at my cube and she was at home on her
phone.
participation. I frame each of the examples into themes that represent each of
the broad disruptions employees experienced.
Although there was a strong push for face-to-face communication, there was
still a great deal of asynchronous work being done by the team. Asynchronous
collaboration at DTI tended to be classified as low-touch, which under the
rules of the reorganization, was a less desirable way for people on the team
to collaborate. Additionally, asynchronous collaboration had been an important
part of the team’s work. The process of farming bugs, for example, was an
asynchronous way of working because it relied on coordinating information across
the team in steps that did not occur in real-time. During the study, members of
the team were still farming bugs for technical documentation while also working
on other projects. One of the problems associated with asynchronous methods
of communicating was that it was ingrained into the team’s method of working.
They used email to share important information, such as meeting notes, but email
was generally asynchronous. Management wanted to do away with email for
coordinating work, and instead asked for those updates to be posted in the project
management system.
The disruptions in the section are all related and in some important ways,
they overlap. While the disruptions demonstrate a technical problem with the
reorganization in terms of technology, it also shows human elements that are
both cultural and primordial. Change can be hard for some personalities on teams.
Time and again the participants across Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 would discuss
how to approach different situations and audiences to deliver a message and move
a project forward. So, while the resistance to the project management system was
largely masked as technical, there were also hints in the data that suggested the
problems were also about finding space for exercising agency during this specific
moment of change.
on different configurations to make sure their plan would succeed. During the
session there were issues with communication because of interruptions in the
internet connection. While they were able to discuss issues related to the project
and test the software, the connectivity issues temporarily stalled participation.
Internet lag was the most common infrastructural disruption observed, and it
would occasionally require an employee to repeat what he or she had said.
Technical issues with the organization’s virtual desktop software also influ-
enced participation, making it more difficult to access tools and files. For example,
during one of the visits on site, the DTI virtual desktop app was not functioning
for the whole organization. Throughout the visit employees explained they felt
lost without the ability to access their virtual desktops. The reason for this was
that participants used a cloud computing system to connect to DTI servers and
used a virtual desktop to work. Employees were unable to access apps they had
grown accustomed to using to support work. Also, on a different day and during
a product demonstration, I watched as Steve experienced difficulty getting his
virtual desktop to work. He restarted the computing device in the hopes of making
the app function. It didn’t work, and he eventually gave up, opting to describe
rather than show the benefits of the product. During another site visit, issues with
DTI software required Bob to make a phone call to the DTI help desk.
Additionally, technical issues with software functionality sometimes impacted
connections between employees. During my interview with Sheila, I asked about
an impromptu comment made during the observation session regarding
discomfort with video chatting. Sheila explained, “I don’t like it as much because
the way the camera is positioned is not the same as making eye contact.” Later,
she continued, “I can’t see their face if I’m looking at my camera and I expect
the opposite is true.” To avoid video-chatting, some participants preferred email
conversations and others would instead make phone calls or try to schedule face-
to-face meetings. A person’s comfort level with the software would, in part,
determine how they would connect to others on the team.
Technical and infrastructure issues did not disrupt participation permanently,
and had a minimal amount of impact on productivity. These issues did
occasionally influence how people chose to interact with others while working,
and caused disruptions related to the digital infrastructure of the work environ-
ment. In some instances, employees would prefer to speak to a colleague face-
to-face or over the phone, especially when technology failed or caused issues.
Those conversations would still lead to productive ends, however, and sometimes
the digital tools appeared to stall participation rather than support it.
because the team’s tools did not appear to support it. Sometimes, the use of the
tools by participants made high-touch virtual collaboration difficult, particularly
when working with others at different sites. In speaking with Tammy about this
disruption, she explained, “It’s a little weird for DTI because one of the things
we sell is anywhere, any device, any way. So I think we actually have to develop
the tools to have high-touch at a distance.” In other words, the team’s tools
demonstrated a propensity for sharing information, but not for real-time
collaboration teamwork that would support multiple forms of participation.
I observed a snippet of remote user test during one site visit. The user test
was being hosted at another DTI office, presumably in a usability testing lab. The
moderator dialed in members of the team through video chat and they watched
as the user worked with a product. Meanwhile, when members of the team noticed
usability issues, they filled out virtual sticky notes. There was also an instant
messaging backchannel transpiring across the team, discussing what they were
watching. The team could see, in real-time, what was being updated on the virtual
sticky notes. It appeared, however, that employees were taking turns filling out
each note and there were also some delays that caused minor interruptions to
the internet connection. There also appeared to be limitations to the amount of
participants able to work at once. More than ten people filling out the sticky notes
would have been too chaotic, particularly because the screen size of the device
made it difficult to see all of the ongoing activities simultaneously. On the other
hand, because participants were taking turns updating each sticky note, it likely
enabled backchannel communication to run more freely.
Steve explained that many employees use video-chat software differently.
Some people would use video, some preferred only voice without video, and still
others opted for instant messaging, depending on internet speed or the person’s
location at a given moment. Also, because configuration of software can be
individualized to the user, it could be easy to overlook something as simple as
an instant message given the screen size and view. The team’s video chat software
provided many avenues for communicating, but at times that flexibility also
caused disruptions when participating.
I learned, either through observations, interviews, or experience sample
reports a variety of examples of one-on-one activities that were highly collaborative
and others that were more one-to-one, where the manager simply gave feedback
to help the person move forward on the project. For instance, Bob and Tom
worked face-to-face in a conference room on a survey designed to help them learn
more about the customer experience. The collaboration was serendipitous in that
questions were being reformulated together on the spot through reimagining what
the survey could learn. Earlier that same day I observed a one-on-one meeting
between Tom and Steve in the same room about an ongoing project to curate
documentation for products no longer being supported by DTI. Tom gave
feedback to Steve and told him how to proceed. There seemed to be very little
planned serendipity in that specific session. Both of these sessions were completed
150 Communicating Project Management
face-to-face, but used virtual tools (a computer, a projector, and a project screen)
to assist the work. In other words, face-to-face collaboration did not always lead
to similar kinds of participation.
In general, there was also disagreement in the team about which tools to use
for information sharing and retrieval to support real-time collaboration. There
was a frequent amount of redundancy of information posted in the project
management system and sent through email. Perhaps a result of this redundancy,
Tammy’s first daily reported activity (as noted on her experience reports) was
to check email and the project management system (always in that order). Other
participants took a similar approach, although sometimes it was voicemail and
then email, but the project management system was never the first place each
participant checked, perhaps indicating that using the platform had not yet
become a habit or that its adoption into workflow was still relatively new.
These issues were exacerbated by status updates, which were weekly reports
about the progress made on project work. These were usually sent to the relevant
members of a project via email. Later, the status reports were updated in the
project management system by the project lead. In discussing this process with
Sheila, she explained that people were overwhelmed by choices to share
information and that it would be much easier to manage projects if information
was only posted in the project management system. Others simply did not agree
and felt it was too much work to ask everyone to update the project management
system.
Earlier, I referenced that Steve frequently chose to send meeting notes over
email rather than post them in the project management system. He took this
approach even though centralizing communication was one of management’s
goals for the reorganization. The project management system was meant to be
the communications hub of the team. Meanwhile, Steve noted the project
management system could be used to build apps, but he hadn’t learned how to
make them. When asked if he would be more interested in using the project
management system had this training occurred, the response was telling: “Yes,
if I didn’t have to spend a lot of time figuring out things for myself.” Additionally,
he also explained how he had used email in the past to survey his team, but had
trouble duplicating that approach in the project management system:
Shedding light on training at DTI, Tammy told me that training had waned
in recent years at DTI. In her interview, she explained, “For specific skills we do
a lot of internal training. I don’t see this very much anymore. [Sheila] trained
everyone on [the project management system] and then we bring new people
in as things come out.” While a clear indication that some sort of training
was done to help people engage with the project management system, Tammy
also suggested that software training had recently grown less frequent. Despite
the training that had occurred, my observation session with Tammy reflected
her depth of confidence using the system. At one point she commented, “This
is a work in progress and I don’t even know what I’m doing. I’m on the path
but I can’t see but 10 or 20 feet in front of me.”
Even so, it was clear some sort of training had occurred with the system,
but there was a mismatch of expectations for the session. During my observa-
tions, I learned Sheila asked the team to play with the new project management
system for a period of time and then help her design a workshop by crowd-
sourcing suggestions, ideas, and general questions. The goal for this approach
was for the team to learn through experimentation with the product, and to
focus the training on the parts of the software individuals were struggling to grasp.
As Bob explained, it was not a hands-on workshop to teach people every aspect
of the software. Interestingly, the approach invited participation, but for some
it was not the kind of training they felt was useful. In his interview, Steve
suggested that one reason Sheila’s approach did not work well for him was the
deadline-driven nature of the team’s work made playing with new software
counterproductive. In his view, there were more important tasks to complete.
Managing a Reorganization Project at DTI 153
To be fair, he made a similar claim after a meeting when he had not completed
a storyboard that a manager requested. He felt the request was a waste of time,
even though it invited him to participate in ideation surrounding a DTI
product.
The most obvious reason for the team’s struggles with the project management
system seemed to be the tension between productivity and participation. There
was a general attitude that employees were capable and smart so they should be
able to figure out new software without too much assistance. Sheila, for instance,
explained during her site visit that through blogs and training videos she was
able to learn how to use the project management system. Bob said learning to
use unfamiliar software was a skill he had learned in college, and the ability
to learn new software as needed was an ability DTI looked for in new employees.
As a caveat, Bob noted, “[The project management system] was really different
though. [It] took me a little longer to learn how than others.” This form of
participation, however, did not feel productive to others. They felt it would be
more productive to learn through comprehensive training, and that would make
centralizing communication in the project management system far easier to
leverage. Implementing the project management system proved challenging for
other reasons as well.
We are being asked to shift what we produce, how we produce it, and how
we work. And there are people that are getting that and getting on board
with it just through being on projects where it’s starting to happen, but
it’s not like everyone is experiencing it at the same time.
One of the clear issues presented in the data was the project management
system was not yet being adopted by every group at DTI, and as a result,
employees were expected to navigate many different and overlapping tools, some
of which they believed worked better. During our observation session, Tammy
opened a SharePoint file and remarked how useful it had been when managing
154 Communicating Project Management
email. Experience reports also supported this conclusion. While DTI posted
information in the project management system, I was not able to get a sense of
how or how much, so I do not fully know in what ways DTI as a company used
the project management system to share information with employees. Tom
indicated that an employee could reach the DTI helpdesk team through the project
management system because they monitored the activity stream, which showed
an active commitment to the platform. Nevertheless, based on my observations,
systematically moving away from email contained challenges not only with
behaviors and attitudes of employees in the Customer Experience organization,
but with the tools that were being used to support participation in work. During
my observation session with Tom, he indicated as much, and argued that it would
take a total culture change to widely adopt the project management system across
the team.
meaningful way, both in project work and in helping the organization create a
vision for the future of customer experience and technical documentation at the
company. That dialogue, however, was not facilitated during my time with
the team.
From an activity perspective, the reaction to the uncertainty of the reorgan-
ization negatively influenced both participation and productivity. In some cases,
managers like Don spent a fair amount of time listening to people as they vented
over issues related to the reorganization. The first minutes of several meetings
focused on finding information in the project management system or with try-
ing to understand how the system itself functioned. While some of these issues
could be written off as part of any change project, they were also directly related
to how people used tools to connect and manage projects. In this case study,
organizational change was not just a concern of upper management, it seemed
to influence several communicative activities that facilitated project work. It influ-
enced attitudes toward people on their team and new technologies.
These results reflect back to Suchan’s (2006) idea that a communication
framework is needed to help managers support employees during change. The
results of my work with the team at DTI suggest that it is possible managers can
see resistance to change initiatives all the way down to the project level. To use
Suchan’s terms, the “cognitive underpinnings” were often displayed in how
people approached the new project management system. For example, the project
management system represented an “official” communication channel, but
people preferred to have discussions about project work outside of it. The results
also suggest that psychological safety was important for this team, but that the
method of rolling out the reorg seemed to erode trust, which directly influenced
158 Communicating Project Management
how people on the team approached project work. In other words, while the
nature of any reorganization is often difficult because it can end with layoffs and
loss of pay, a lack of participation from employees can cause problems at the
project team level.
Conclusion
The team at DTI provides an example of what disrupts and contradicts the
communicative activities that support participation in change projects. While
organizational change initiatives are not always described at the project level, they
do seem to influence participation in project work and communication in
important ways. As Hornstein (2014) recommended, the case in this chapter
suggests that project managers see the relationship between change initiatives and
project work as deeply related rather than parallel processes. In using an Activity
Theory analysis, we learned how participation in project work seemed to respond
to disruptions by inventing innovative solutions. The chapter also explained
that the reorg forwarded a contradiction that the team do more face-to-face
collaboration, but the division of labor and tools did not change. A participative
approach might have made space for the team to have those discussions, which
might have helped the reorg make steadier progress.
The next chapter assembles the results of all the cases into a theory of par-
ticipatory communication in project management that is based on agency and
what I call “a collective sense of kairos.” It also helps to create a broader picture
Managing a Reorganization Project at DTI 161
of the results across all of the case studies, specifically highlighting how project
management relies on a participative approach to communicating. Finally, the
chapter ends looking forward to future opportunities for researchers, practi-
tioners, and instructors of project management and technical communication.
Notes
1 Please note, this model and design of the consolidated activity system originated from
the work of Spinuzzi (2013).
References
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2011). Cracking the code of change. On change management (pp.
137–153) [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
Brafman, O. & Beckstrom, R. A. (2006). The starfish and the spider: The unstoppable power
of leaderless organizations. New York: Penguin Group.
Daniels, H., & Warmington, P. (2007). Analyzing third-generation activity systems:
Power, contradictions, and personal transformation. Journal of Workplace Learning,
19(6), 377–391.
Ehn, P. (2008). Participation in design things. In D. Hakken, J. Simonsen, & T. Robertson
(Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008
(pp. 92–101). Bloomington, IN: ACM Digital Library.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity Theory and individual and social transformation. In
Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R. Punamäki-Gitai (Eds), Perspectives on Activity
Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Faber, B. D. (2002). Community action and organizational change: Image, narrative, identity.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hart-Davidson, W. (2001). On writing, technical communication, and information tech-
nology: The core competencies of technical communication. Technical Communication,
48(2), 145–155.
Hart-Davidson, W. (2007). Researching the activity of writing: Time-use diaries, mobile
technologies, and video screen capture. Studying the mediated action of composing with
time-use diaries. In H. McKee, & D. DeVoss (Eds.), Digital Writing Research:
Technologies, Methodologies, and Ethical Issues (pp. 153–169). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Hart-Davidson, W., Bernhardt, G., McLeod, M., Rife, M., & Grabill, J. T. (2007). Coming
to content management: Inventing infrastructure for organizational knowledge work.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 10–34.
Hornstein, H. A. (2014). The integration of project management and organizational change
management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 291.
Miller, C. C., & Rampell, C. (2013). Yahoo orders home workers back to the office. New
York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/technology/yahoo-orders-
home-workers-back-to-the-office.html.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Rainie, H., & Wellman, B. (2014). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
162 Communicating Project Management
Spinuzzi, C. (2013). Topsight: A guide to studying, diagnosing, and fixing information flow
in organizations [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
Spinuzzi, C. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace network. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Suchan, J. (2006). Changing organizational communication practices and norms: A
framework. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(1), 5–47.
6
CONCLUSION
A Participatory Rhetoric for
Development Teams
Poetry and philosophy are rare topics in managerial training, and business
schools seldom ask if spiritual development is central to their mission. It is no
wonder that managers are often viewed as chameleons who can adapt to any-
thing, guided only by expediency.
(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 433)
Throughout this book I’ve made the argument that participation is essential to
effectively communicate project management. It is an unapologetically humanist
view of communicating project work. This view is based on my claim that
project managers are writers who have an important influence on the social spaces
that surround development work. I’ve also argued that participatory communica-
tion leads to efficiency because it brings teams and stakeholders together in ways
that help to effectively coordinate information and collaborate on work using
intentionally participative communication strategies. Furthermore, participation
is important to practicing development methodologies, like Agile and Lean, that
project managers are often responsible for implementing in some form. Without
focusing on participation, methodologies become a template rather than what
they should be: a heuristic. So, the foundational concept that this book forwards
is that the role of participation—of writing communicative practices that make
space for stakeholders and individuals on teams—is an essential consideration
of successful project management.
As this book concludes, let’s take some time to review what has been covered
so far, highlighting some of the main points and arguments that surfaced across
the chapters.
164 Communicating Project Management
to manage the project. The Chef started with the system to work toward future
action and also to understand how to best react to project issues in the moment.
His communication work was not always that tidy, but his mental model
demonstrates that as his preferred approach. Nonetheless, there were examples
where The Chef focused on relationship-building activities because he was trying
to build a system for managing projects with the team. The Gardener, however,
tended to focus on future action. Her interests in the timing of work and
dependencies were very important for her contributions as a communicator. She
would introduce systems to manage that leadership value and communicate to
help her team build towards her goal to organize for the future.
In Chapter 5, the values of people on the team certainly clashed. As a result,
the participative approach varied across each participant. And, of course, the reorg
was directly influencing how people on the team chose to participate given the
ongoing change with the systems being used to manage projects. So, while parti-
cipants like Steve tended to be more reactive to information, Sheila was far more
systems-based in her communication approaches. Then again, Sheila was also
reactive in that she tended to comment on blog posts and customer-submitted
bugs. Don, meanwhile, seemed more invested in getting things done because of
dependencies for future projects, but also spent a great deal of time on the phone
working through project adjustments related to the reorg. In this way, his day
could easily be derailed as he helped others work through the reorg. Tammy
seemed to be more reactive and intentional in her approach, specifically as it
pertained to the reorg. It seemed to me she didn’t want to be viewed as non-
compliant, but that she also felt lost and would just respond to issues as they
168 Communicating Project Management
popped up. For me, Bob seemed most focused on future action in his approach
to communicating. He had a sense there was a vision for the future, and he was
working to make that vision a reality by developing design thinking workshops
and leading the team toward different ways of thinking about their work.
In breaking down each of the chapters to further illustrate the characteristics
in action, the cases seem to show how communicative actions are demonstrative
of values, but require a great deal of seemingly invisible reflection and strategizing
that is inherently done through interaction with people. For example, the
considerations and strategies in Chapter 3 were assembled through experience.
The values behind the communication approaches in Chapter 4 grew from train-
ing, identity, context, and situation. Even the use of email as a discussion tool
in Chapter 5 shows the importance of interaction behind the scenes of a project
before going on some sort of official record. These examples seem to suggest that
project managers often focus their communication on what Spinuzzi, Hart-
Davidson, and Zachry (2006) subjugated to “helper” genres. The authors contrast
“communicative genres,” or those “that are the focus of the individual’s actions,
that are created or modified” (p. 47) with “helper genres,” which are “nontrans-
actional” and help to “make the communicative genres work” (p. 47). For project
managers, the helper genre is actually more important because it is interactive
out of necessity. The project manager’s communication is not just transactional
because it is used to gain participation. Examples of helper genres in this case
might be information collected about how certain individuals respond to bad
news. Or, how some managers prefer visual charts to look. In other words, helper
genres are the informational tidbits project managers constantly use to learn how
to communicate in ways that make space for people. It is where they learn how
best to invite participation most effectively.
User knowledge is always situated. By that I mean what users know about
technology and the experiences they have with it are always located in a
certain time and place that changes from minute to minute, day to day,
era to era. Hence, the complexity of understanding what users know grows
with each new experience or story that we tell or hear. At the same time,
Participatory Rhetoric for Development Teams 169
As we saw throughout the book, project managers did seem to have strategies
they relied on that were quite well-defined in specific situations and contexts.
And, like any user researcher, they did not assume that their knowledge about
a team or situation was fixed. Further, their knowledge could constantly change
from project to project. It is no surprise that project managers use rhetoric to
strategize communication for people and teams because it helps make the situated
knowledge more visible.
In this way, project management benefits from thinking in terms of par-
ticipation for two discernible reasons. The first is that participation is stable.
It is going to happen across a spectrum of project-related activities and com-
munication events, even if in unexpected ways. At the same time, as Johnson
notes, participation can be nonlinear—and in development work it some-
times has to be. The nature of development work today is about learning and
discovery. On the outset of a project, it is difficult to predict what will be learned
as data is gathered and experiences designed. There can be checkpoints, or
check-ins, like we saw from the use of Scrum in Chapter 3, The Chef in Chapter
4, or with Steve or Don in Chapter 5, but what needs to be communicated is
situational. What a participative framework suggests over a transactional view is
that we write those involved directly in to the conversations—not just in the
moment, but in how we think about and structure the communication in that
moment.
While I also recognize that participation can be unpredictable, I see com-
municating in support of participation essential to how we move beyond the
development practices we’ve outlined over the past 20 years. In other words, this
book has not been about locating and describing another methodology or
framework on purpose. Rather, I freely have argued that tools and processes alone
won’t bring every voice that needs to be heard out into the open. Instead this
book points out the need for a better understanding of participation and what
seems to influence it. And it simply notes that agency in project work is at least
equally constrained due to social factors as methodological ones. Yet, project
management continues, in scholarship, practice, and teaching, to focus on tools
and processes rather than critically evaluating the design of its systems from a
communicative standpoint. That is, it’s time we recognize project managers as
writers.
We saw this happen in Chapter 3, when several of the interview participants spent
time soliciting feedback from people before, during, and after meetings. In
Chapter 4, The Chef and The Gardener both worked to find ways to support
others on the team, whether it was through developing a scheduling tool or
through scheduling meetings with upper management to clarify the goal of the
work. In Chapter 5 there were additional examples, particularly evident when
Don would take meetings to unblock people who were stuck in drama surround-
ing the reorg. In each case, the communication actions were meant to help
distribute agency across the team because it would lead to improved performance
outcomes in their view. That is, a participative framework for communicating
works to distribute agency across development teams for practical reasons as well.
Do not misunderstand, I am not suggesting project managers award agency.
Agency certainly exists independently of them. But, a project manager’s role is
often one where they coordinate the efforts of groups of people. One reason for
the distribution of agency is that project dependencies matter. That is, project
work is often kairotic—not just for individuals, but for teams. Teams must
collectively identify opportunity for seizing upon a specific finding as key to the
success of their project. In this way, coalescing agency and kairos are interrelated
aims of a participative approach.
When we talk about kairos, it is important to understand that it can be
understood in three ways. The first, as Carolyn Miller (1994) explained, is kairos
“combines both realist and constructivist understandings of situation” and how
these understandings relate to each other, particularly “the ways in which they
may be defined or constructed” (p. 83). In this way, kairos helps project managers
and teams understand the emergent urgencies of a project, and how these needs
define the project. For project management activities, kairos can help define the
work for a sprint. For example, when a sprint ends, development teams have
usually learned and/or delivered something (code, design, research) to the client.
After that moment, the team decides what they should focus on next. The end
of the sprint is therefore a kairotic moment because it helps teams to identify
what should the next sprint should focus on. In this way, kairos helps project
management activities be both reactive and intentional.
Second, Miller (1994, p. 83) suggested that kairos acts as a kind of marker
for moments of transformation, either as continuous or discontinuous. In this
designation, kairos helps project managers see to what extent there are patterns
in a given phenomenon or experience. Kairos can help both project managers
and teams find moments of transformation during a retrospective. As teams look
backward, they can identify key moments where opportunities were seized,
missed, or overlooked. We saw The Chef do this when he discussed the import-
ance of the team understanding the goal for their work. Without understanding
the goal, he felt the team would not seize opportunities for improving their
performance. These sorts of transformational moments can be identified as a way
for negotiating future action. If markers can be developed by a project manager
Participatory Rhetoric for Development Teams 171
Final Takeaways
As the book concludes, I’d like to take time to offer some final considerations
for future research for researchers, project managers, and instructors.
For Researchers
The research in this book convinced me there are opportunities to do more
research on project communication around development methodologies. It
would also be useful to learn more about how methodologies are influencing
communication once they are extended online. How do individuals and teams
respond to always being on? How do people assemble resources to help them
learn and work in the ways they need to? These insights would prove valuable
as a next area of study.
I believe technical communication could also use more work on project teams
around psychological safety. Just like with the impact of development method-
ologies, like Agile and Lean, we aren’t keeping up with workplace practices in
these areas. Recent restructuring of Human Resources into employee experience
programs provides interesting insight into the future of the workplace. Work in
this area is focusing on creating enjoyable environments for working, but not
necessarily discussing hierarchies of influence and other important social factors.
These need to be discussed as workplace structures continue to evolve.
For Instructors
While it is not my intention to review curriculum in project management in
this section, I do think there are some gains to be made from the research in this
book. That is, what would a course on project management look like if it focused
on teaching future project managers to be writers? What does that mean about
how we teach the genres around project work? Working to distribute agency is
a form of literacy essential to working as a collective to find moments of “critical
openings” in a project. Coursework in project management, just as certification,
does not often take on the social aspect of communicating. I invite instructors
to consider how to best teach students to be communicative in participative
ways. Teaching students to develop a clear leadership strategy and to understand
writing as a broad symbolic activity that includes writing project management
systems would be a useful starting point.
Approaching a course in project management with a focus on communica-
tion might critically reflect on some of the factors and strategies offered in
Chapter 3. Or, an instructor might ask students to decide if they are more of a
gardener or a chef as a leader (or maybe a bit of both?). And finally, the final
case would be useful as a case study about how change can be managed at the
project level. What could a project manager do to help make space for people
on the team? What sort of invitation to participate would prove to be both
instructive and productive for a project manager?
Conclusion
In the Introduction, when I asked “why another book on project management?”
my answer was, in part, to see what we could learn from positioning project
managers as writers. At the end of the book, I ask the second half of that question
that I’ve been thinking about all along. That question is, simply, “To what end?”
174 Communicating Project Management
My response to that question, just as the first, went unanswered for quite some
time as I wrote this book, shared drafts, received feedback, and revised the
ideas. Of course, there were a range of practical reasons for writing the book that
I’ve already covered, but when it came down to it, what exactly was I looking to
achieve? So, my answer is this: I wrote this book to start a conversation about
how to effectively communicate project management. I worked to introduce a
theory that emphasized a need for a participatory approach—a theory that could
be proven, disproven, complicated, and transformed. In other words, my goal
for writing the book was not to offer the final word, but to extend an invitation.
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Geisler, C. (2004). How ought we to understand the concept of rhetorical agency? Report
from the ARS. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 34(3), 9–17.
Johnson, R. R. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other
mundane artifacts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Merholz, P. (2015). Shaping organizations to deliver great user experiences. Presentation
at the Information Architecture Summit, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from www.
slideshare.net/peterme/designing-organizations-to-deliver-great-user-experiences.
Miller, C. R. (1994). Opportunity, opportunism, and progress: Kairos in the rhetoric of
technology. Argumentation, 8(1), 81–96.
Spinuzzi, C., Hart-Davidson, W., & Zachry, M. (2006). Chains and ecologies: Methodological
notes toward a communicative-mediational model of technologically mediated writing.
Paper presented at the SIGDOC, 43–50.
INDEX
Page numbers in bold refer to tables. Page numbers in italics refer to figures.
Page numbers with “n” refer to notes.
accountability 91, 155 behavior 23, 41, 51, 60; and leadership
active listening 87 109; modeling 114–115, 118
Activity Theory 137–138 Brandeis, Louis 27
adhocracy 13 buy-in 6
agency 45, 56, 65; distributing 169–171,
173; as invitation 100–101; in centralization 21–22, 25–26; and scientific
participation 70–71; and positionality management 27
110; postmodern critique of 70; change management 136; see also
and reorganization 135, 138, 158 reorganization
Agile 5, 10, 11, 28, 29–30, 31, 44, 50, 51, Chef, project manager as 122–123, 165,
94–95; coordination 33; decentralized 166–167; assigning roles to individuals
communication 34; estimation of and teams 124–125; clarification of
schedule 46; paradigm of 45; rhythm goals 125; empathy 126–127; keeping
of communication in 92 people on task 123–124; leadership
Agile Coaches 50 values 123–127, 128–129, 129; mind
Aristotle 67 map of communication 127–128, 128;
artifact collection 139 responsibility to project 125–126
asynchronous communication, civic participation 12
disruptions during 147; email 154–156; coaching 9
inconsistent adoption of project code-and-fix mentality 29
management system 153–154; lack of collaboration 53, 57; methods, teaching
training in project management system 114–115, 120; vs. participation 5–6;
151–153 and reorganization 143, 144, 145–146,
audience 55, 57, 120, 128; learning about 148–150, 155; virtual 148–150
116; participation of 4, 12, 16 commodification of labor 44
automated email 155 common interests, and gender 78
autonomy, and decentralization 25, 32 communication managers 47, 110
communication plans 33, 41–42
backchannel communication 80, 149, 154, communicative genres 167
158, 159 consolidated activity system 156–158, 157
176 Index