INTERPERSONAL POWER IN TEMPORARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

BY

DAVID L. WILEMON AND GARY R. GEMMILL

IN recent years, corporate managers and academic theorists have devised a number of organizational approaches that purportedly aid in reducing rigidities experienced by large organizations in coping with the infusion of new technologies and rapidly changing environmental demands. Attacks on the resistance to and inability of the large bureaucratic organization in coping with such problems is legend. Several approaches to organizational designs for ameliorating these problems have been proposed by both academicians and practitioners.

One approach that has received a great deal of attention is project manage- ment. Bennis, in fact, speculates that:

Organizations of the future. . . will have some unique characteristics. They will be adaptive, rapidly changing temporav systems, organized around problems to be solved by groups of relative strangers with diverse professional skills. The group will be arranged on organic rather than mechanical models; they will evolve in response to problems rather than to programmed expectations.. , . Organizational charts will consist of project groups rather than stratified functional groups, as is now the case. Adaptive problem-solving, temporary systems of diverse specialists linked together by coordinating executives in an organic flux - this is the organizational form that will gradually replace Bureaucracy. While some suggest that project management is the new wave of the future

some existing organizations already employ it as an overlay on the bureau- cratic organization - permitting them to capitalize on the advantages of bureaucratic organization and yet minimize its inability to cope with multi- faceted problems that transcend functional boundaries.

See Bennis, W. G., ‘The Coming Death of Bureaucracy’, Think. Magqine, 1966; Thompson, Victor A., Modern Orgunzration, New York: A. A. Konpf, 1961; Stewart, J. M., ‘Making Project Management Work’, Burinerr Horirons, Fall 1967, pp. 14-68.

The research for this article was supported in part by a NASA research grant (NGL 33-ozz-ogo) to Syracuse University to investigate the ‘Role of Project Management in the Apollo Program’. Quotations used are from project managers and project team participants within the Apollo Program; project managers and participants within supporting contracting firms to the Apollo Program; and project managers in private industry. In total, more than forty taped interviews were conducted with project managers, immediate project team members, and interfacing project participants from various functional areas.

* Bennis, W. G., ‘Post-Bureaucratic Leadership’, Trunr-Action, JulylAugust 1969; p. 4.

THE JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES OCTOBER 3 1 6

Our objective is to explore some of the organizational ramifications of these 'rapidly changing temporary systems' in terms of various project management organizational arrangements currently being employed in sophisticated product development activities. More importantly, however, we shall examine the effects of these new organizational modifications on the management styles of project managers who must operate within this emerg- ing organizational environment.

FUNiTIONAL MODLL

. . rvrhoriry --

STAFF MOUI L

FIG. I . MODELS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS

THREE APPROACHES TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT Organizations have employed at least three different approaches to project

management.3 These approaches can be placed on a continuum based on the amount of formal authority granted to the project manager and the amount of project interfacing required outside his immediate work unit. At one extreme of the continuum is the functional model of project management

3 For additional insights into project organizations employed see Wilemon, D. L., 'Project Management: A New Dimension in Complex Task Management', No. 6223-WP-9, Syracuse / NASA Program, July 1969. Also Janger, A. R., 'Anatomy of the Project Organization', Business Management Record, November 1963; pp. I 2-1 8.

‘97’ INTERPERSONAL POWER IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT 3’7 (see Fig. I).* It is characterized by a project manager being granteda high degree of formal authority over members of the project team and by a low amount of outside interfacing required for project completion. T y p i d y , the project manager and members of the project team are drawn or selected from a similar functional area within an organization. For example:

A large electronics firm making military electronic components recently established a functional project management organization. A project team was established within the engineering department to develop several prototypes of radar receivers. The project manager and the project parti- cipants were all drawn from the engineering department.

In the above case, the project manager’s role set is well defined. He is not required to go outside of the engineering function to elicit experts in other disciplines to work on his project. This type of project manager usually has a high degree of autonomy in decision-making and his authority is well defined both over the project and project team members.

The matrix model of project organization as depicted in Fig. I can be placed somewhere near the centre of the continuum. In contrast to the functional model it is characterized by the project manager requiring a greater amount of outside interfacing required for project completion and a lesser degree of formal authority over project inputs, i.e. resources and pro- ject participants. Typically, the matrix model is employed when a project requires multi-disciplined specialists and resources from various functions within the organization. The role of the project manager is one of integrating the service of diverse experts so that the project is completed within the desired time, cost, and performance framework. Usually in this approach the project manager ‘shares’ authority over resources with the organization’s functional managers. The degree of ‘sharing’, however, can be well defined or quite ambiguous. The following example illustrates one approach to establishing a matrix project organization.

A large defence supplier elected to use a matrix approach because of the complexity of a number of projects which it was undertaking. Skills and resources from engineering, manufacturing, research and development, and marketing were needed for each project. The skills needed were available from the company’s functional organization. The project managers were given the authority over the project, however, they were required to work through the organization’s functional managers to accomplish the objec- tives of the project. The project managers were responsible for determining

4 Some similarities exist between functional project managers and line managers in terms of the authority granted, the superior-subordinate relationships, and the reward power given to the project manager. It differs in that the functional project manager’s authority is finite. It is granted only for the duration of the project.

21

8 THE JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES OCTOBER

what needed to be done, but the functional manager determined how and when it would be done. In a real sense, the project managers and the functional managers were mutually dependent on each other. Of all the project management models the matrix approach most clearly

violates traditional organizational norms, i.e. chain-of-command, authority commensurate with responsibility, and unity-of-command.

The model of project organization placed at the other end of the con- tinuum of project organizations is called the staff project organization (see Fig. I) . In contrast to the functional andmatrixmodels, a staff project manager requires a greater amount of outside interfacing and possesses less formal authority. Stated differently, under the staff model almost all the work on the project is accomplished in the functional area. Moreover, the staff project manager has little, if any, authority over the functional areas performing work on the project. An example of how one corporation used a staff model is as follows:

Company X, an electronic component manufacturer elected to use the staff model because it was less ‘disruptive’ to the operation of the organiza- tion than the matrix approach and yet it promoted multidisciplined problem-solving. The project manager was placed in a staff position yet he was fully accountable for the project. All development and fabrication of the project was conducted within engineering and manufacturing. The project manager’s functions were to manage the relevant cost, schedule, and performance systems and to make sure that the functional areas per- formed adequately with regard to the development of the project. Other firms using the staff model testify that it is relatively easy to imple-

ment and is useful for identifying points-of-commitment for complex developmental tasks.

THE PROJECT MANAGER AS A BOUNDARY DWELLER These three models of project management are critical in understanding

the project manager’s role and the nature of his interpersonal relationships in the project environment. Under both the matrix and staff models the project manager occupies a boundaty position within the organization. A boundary position according to Kahn is ‘one for which some members of the role set are located in a different system - either another unit within the Same organization or another organization entirely’.s For a project manager the degree of ‘boundary relevanceys is determined by (I) the amount of

6 Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M , Quin, R. P. and Snoek, J. D. OtguniptiomI Sherr, New York John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964; p. 101.

Ibid. Kahn cf. ul., note that the general characteristics for determining ‘boundary relevance’ are ‘the amount of time a persons spends in business contacts with people outside his work unit, and the importance of such contacts to the person’s effective performance on the job’.

313 interfunctional or external interfacing required by his task, and ( 2 ) the cruciality of boundary interaction to project success. The greater the amount .of interfunctional or external interfacing required and the more crucial boundary interactions are to project success, the greater the boundary rele- vance of the project manager’s position.

The boundary relevance of a project manager’s position depends upon the form of the project organization under which he operates. A project manager operating under a functional project management organization operates in a position with a ‘low boundary relevance rating’. This implies that the amount and cruciality of his interfaces outside of his function would be rather small. By contrast, in the matrix and staff models the project man- ager operates in a position with a ‘high degree of boundary relevance’ because of the built-in need to interact with organizational specialists outside his immediate work unit for purposes of project support and the cruciality of such contacts for project success. Project managers in positions of high boundary relevance face important problems of interpersonal influence since they often lack formal authority over interfunctional and external inter- faces. In an analogy equally applicable to project management Kahn notes:

Lacking formal power over role senders outside his work unit, a person at the boundary has a reduced ability to guarantee that the performance of these outsiders will be as he needs and wishes. In compensation for this lack of formal authority, a boundary person relies heavily on the affective bonds of trust, respect, and liking which he can generate among the outsiders. But these bonds are unusually difficult to create and maintain at the boundary.

Differently put, the greater the degree of boundary relevance and the more limited the formal authority, the greater the pressure on a project manager to employ other forms of influence besides formal authority.

Project managers in the matrix and staff models of project management are thus often faced with the difficult task of eliciting performance from others not under their direct control since they must journey across functions to accomplish their task objectives.8 To accomplish their mission across organizational boundaries they must rely on interpersonal influence bases

‘77’ INTERPERSONAL POWER I N PROJECT MANAGEMENT

’ Kahn, op. cit., p. 123. In project management, ‘outsiders’ would refer to those within the organization on whom the project manager depended for services but who are not on the immed- iate project team.

* In the Apollo Program, for example, project managers not only seek services from the numer- ous research and development laboratories within NASA which are not under their direct control but they also must seek services from prime contractors and sub-contractors external to the NASA Organization. Due to the intensive interactions which occw among the project managers, the various NASA laboratories and the contractors, the Apollo project managers can be characterized as possessing an extremely high degree of boundary relevance.

320 THE JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES OCTOBER

other than formal authority. These are three influence bases that are of major importance: rewardpower andptrnisbment power, expert power, and referent power. Each of these power bases take on special meaning to the manager occupying a boundary position.

Reward and Ptlnishment Power One relatively unexplored but important basis of influence available to

the project manager is reward and punishment power. The reward and punishment power of a project manager is centred in his ability to reward or punish in some way, either directly or indirectly, those with whom he interfaces. The more highly those he interfaces with value the rewards and penalties they believe he can directly or indirectly administer, the more willing they will be to comply with his requests.

To clarify the nature of reward and punishment power, it is essential to distinguish between possessed and attribtrted reward and punishment power. 9

Possessed reward and punishment power refers to what a project manager can do to directly or indirectly block or facilitate the attainment of personal goals of people who balk at his requests. I t provides them with a partial answer to the question: ‘What can he do to me if I fail to comply with his request?’ If a project manager is actually capable of directly or indirectly influencing a promotional decision of a functional manager or a project team participant who desires a promotion, by definition he possesses a reward and punishment power base. Possessed reward power is derived in large part from the charter given to the project manager by his superiors. Some organizations queried believed firmly in a strongly articulated and definitive charter. Other organizations employing project organizations were more ambiguous in the nature of the charter given to their project managers. As one top executive stated: ‘We let the project manager make his own charter in this company. He’s the only one who really knows who and what he needs’. Another top administrator, by contrast, gave his perceptions of the project manager’s charter this way:

Unless the project manager’s charter is delineated very clearly, not only to him but also to the other line management functions in the organization, he’s neither fish nor fowl. The chief engineer, the manufacturing manager, the quality control manager, even the personnel manager, all have the same door open to the general manager as does the project manager and unless he has a charter he isn’t a master of his own destiny. (The charter) is the environment that is created for the project manager. I believe it’s 0 For an excellent discussion of the necessity for analytically distinguishing between perceived

and possessed power, see Wrong, D., ‘Some Problems in Defining Social Power’, Amwicut~]owm/ of Socio/oo, Vol. 73, No. 6, May 1968; pp. 673-681; also Gemmill, G., ‘Managerial Role Mapping’, The Management .f PersonndQwrter~, Vol. 8, No. 3, Fall 1969; pp. 13-19.

‘97’ INTERPERSONAL POWER IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT 321

j o per cent of the battle of whether he’s successful or not. It says does he have the authority to run the programme as he sees fit, or does the engineer- ing department, are they the most powerful?

What must be remembered, however, is that the project manager’s charter can be granted indirectly as well as directly. For example: ‘To whom does the project manager report ?’ ‘What was his previous organizational position?’ ‘What is his anticipated position within the organbation once the project is terminated ?’ These questions all have important implications for the project manager’s charter whether formally stated or implied. Attributed reward and punishment power, on the other hand, refers to the reward and punish- ment power assigned to the project manager by those with whom he inter- acts. It is what they believe he can do directly or indirectly to them to block or facilitate their personal goals if they neglect his requests. If, for example, they believe he can damage or facilitate their career chances by feeding nega- tive or positive comments to higher levels of management, they perceive him as having reward and punishment power even though in reality he may not be capable of influencing their career chances. Project team member A, for example, was careful in his interface with Project Manager B because A perceived that the project manager had a ‘direct line’ to the executive offices.

While possessed reward and punishment power is usually the basis for attributed reward and punishment power, it is not always present. Differ- ently put, a project manager has as much reward and punishment power as others perceive him as possessing. If others believe he possesses it when he does not, for all intents and purposes, the effect is the same as if he actually had it. Such bluffing is often effective because the power world of an organ- ization is unofficial and ambiguous and the reward and punishment power of a project manager is more often than not indirect. An interfacing functional manager simply does not ask a project manager how much power he has, or how much influence he has over a third party, or what he can do to him if he fails to do what is requested.

The reward and punishment power of a project manager can be either direct or indirect.l0 When he has direct reward power, he is officially or for- mally empowered to administer such things as salary increases, promotions, interesting work assignments, project funds, and assigning new projects for members of the project team with whom he interfaces. If he cannot offici- ally make decisions in these areas, however, by definition he lacks direct reward and punishment power. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that he is totally deficient in reward and punishment power if he does not possess direct reward and punishment power. That is, indirect reward and

lo For an excellent discussion on the necessity for distinguishing between indirect or direct power, see Goldhammer, H. and Shils, E., ‘Types of Power and Status’, Jowml .f SociohD, September 1939; pp. 171-182.

THE JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES OCTOBER 322

punishment power over salary, promotion, and work assignments, can be just as potent a force in influencing those with whom he interfaces. In the case of indirect reward power, the people who are officially empowered to reward others rely on him for evaluative information. Thus, while functional managers or project participants in functional areas may correctly perceive that a project manager has no direct control over their performance ratings, they may believe that indirectly he has some control since he is in a position to informally furnish evaluations to people who are in a position to do so. As one project manager who did not formally evaluate his project partici- pants put it: ‘If I think someone is doing a particularly good job, I’ll mention it to his superior.’l’ By contrast, a project participant remarked:

On one of the projects I worked the project manager reported directly to the divisional vice-president. In that case, I always tried to comply with his requests. . . probably more so than I did with some of the lower ranking project managers here. I was sure he had the vice-president’s ear and could help or hurt me, depending upon the job I did for him. The closer the relationship project participants perceive between a project

manager and the people they believe directly control their career chances, the more likely they are to attribute indirect reward and punishment power to him.

How much direct or indirect reward and punishment power a project manager has is, of course, problematic. Hodgetts, however, in a study of influence techniques used by forty-six project managers took the lack of direct reward power as a given. As he put it:

The project managers have an ‘authority gap’ because they do not possess authority to reward or promote their personnel.12 Given this ‘authority gap’, he asked forty-six project managers to indicate

which of four influence techniques they felt were important in overcoming it: negotiation, personality and/or persuasive ability, competence, and reciprocal favours. The first three were viewed as more important than the last. From our perspective, however, this is not an authority gap, but a direct reward gap. Moreover, as we have attempted to show, even if a project manager lacks direct reward and punishment power, he may have a great deal of indirect reward and punishment power.

The scope of a project manager’s reward and punishment power varies by the type of project management model used. For example, in the functional model the project manager typically has a great deal of direct reward and

11 In some project organizations the project manager does not formally evaluate his team members or recommend salary increases. Rather the formal evaluations are left to the team member’s functional managers.

Hodgetts, R. M., op. cit., p. 211.

‘971 INTERPERSONAL POWER IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT 3 2 3

punishment power over members of the project team. Usually he is em- powered to grant salary increases, evaluate performance, and make work assignments. Under the matrix model the project manager tends to possess less direct reward and punishment power. He may, however, possess a great deal of indirect reward and punishment power particularly when he is required to evaluate the performance of the project participants, and forward the evaluation to superiors in the functional area.l3 On the other hand, when the project is organized dong a staff organization basis, the project manager would not formally evaluate the participants working on the project. Indirectly, however, he may influence evaluations through casual comments to the team member’s functional superior. A mitigating variable in the use of performance evaluation as a reward base is the length of stay on a project team. For short durations, the performance appraisal activities are normally retained by the participants’ functional area. However, for the longer periods of project participation, the appraisal function may be shifted to the project manager. This is a problem in handling project personnel which has not been completely resolved in project oriented organizations.14

Expert Power Another basis of influence available to a project manager is expert power.

Expert power refers to the ability of a project manager to get those with whom he interfaces to do what he wants them to do because they attribute greater knowledge to him or believe he is more ‘qualified‘ to evaluate the consequen- ces of certain project actions or decisions. The strength of expert power varies directly with the range of expertise others attribute to the project manager. He, so to speak, has as much expertise power as others are willing to attribute to him. This conception of expert power suggests that other managers evaluate a project manager’s expertise in relationship to their knowledge or some assumed standard and attribute expert power to him when they feel it is greater than these standards.

In the project environment, two situations occur where expert power can be rather easily identified. First, a project manager may be selected on the basis of his technical expertise, especially if the project involves advances in the state of the art,l5 such as the conception and development of a new product or process. In this case, the project manager would most likely be

la See h e r , R. G. and Kellner, A. D. ‘Personnel and Organizational Development in an R & D Matrix-Overlay Operation’, ZEEE Transactions an Engineering Management, June 1964; pp. 78-82.

1‘ It should be noted that project managers can sometimes provide interesting work assignments for their project team members and possible promotion opportunities.

16For observations on the selection of project managers, see Rubin, I. W. and Seefig, W.: ‘Experience as a Factor in the Selection and Performance of Project Managers’, ZEEE Trans actions an Engineering Management, September 1967; pp. I 3 1-1 3 I.

324 THE JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES OCTOBER

perceived by his project team members as having superior technical expertise, but not necessarily by people in other areas. In the functional model, for example, the project manager may be chosen because of his technical expert- ise in the function and he would be deferred to by his project team members. In the matrix model of project organization, on the other hand, the project manager most likely would deal with several disciplines which would make it more difficult for him to rely strictly on his technical expertise as a basis of influence.

The following quote from an interview with a highly specialized project participant in a large science-based organization aptly illustrates the lack of technical expertise being attributed to project managers:

A lot of the time you spend your time trying to educate some of the project managers. They haven’t had the experience or they have been in the management field so long that they’ve forgotten their engineering and you spend a lot of time sometimes going over the basics before you can really get to the point where they understand the technical problem well enough so that they can make a good decision.

In contrast to the state of the art projects, other projects may be primarily concerned with developing projects within the realm of existing technology which might require managerial skills in addition to the technical skills. Because of the project manager’s grasp of certain administrative techniques, project participants may attribute managerial expertise to him. When a project manager establishes complex management systems for monitoring the project’s progress (i.e. configuration control systems, Programme Evalu- ation and Review Techniques, schedule and reporting plans, budgeting and cost estimating, and the various data and financial reporting systems) he becomes the focal point of a complicated management information system. Due to his knowledge of these systems and his ability to manage them effectively, he may be perceived by the other project participants as being more qualified to judge certain events and decisions that affect the project. In such cases they may assign managerial expertise to him because of his prior management experiences or background and defer to his requests for ‘the good of the organization’ even though they perceived him as lacking technical expertise in their area.

Due to the difficulties of a project manager becoming an expert or even highly proficient in several technical disciplines, one can find a wide range of attributed technical expertise to project managers from the various project participants. One project team member, for example, may rate the project manager highly on his technical expertise because the participant and the project manager come from the same discipline. By contrast, a project team member in another discipline may give the project manager a low rating on

‘97’ INTERPERSONAL POWER IN PROJECT’ J1AK;lGEMEh’T 325

his technical expertise because the manager has had limited experience in that field. The reverse may also be true because of the participant’s inability to judge the qualifications of the project manager. It is, however, often difficult for project participants to judge each others’ technical expertise because of differences in their backgrounds. It may, for example, be difficult for a mechanical engineer in the engineering department to evaluate the technical competence of an electrical engineer in the research and development department even though both are on the same project team. In cases when technical conflicts develop on the project, the person interfacing with the project manager may legitimately feel that the project manager lacks the competence to evaluate his advice. Consequently, they will not defer to him because of their respect for his technical expertise. Thus, the project manager may have to use other methods of influence besides technical expert- ise for resolving the conflict.

Rejeer-eiit Pouw Another form of influence available to a project manager is referent power.

Referent power refers to other managers or project participants meeting a project manager’s request because they are, for some reason or other person- ally attracted to him and value both their relationship with him and his opinion of them. Project participants and project managers seem to have referent power in mind when they refer to the ‘charisma’ of a project manager. By definition, the more they are personally attracted to him and value the relationship, the greater his referent power. The greater the referent power attritubed to him, the more likely other participants are to meet his requests in order to maintain the relationship, his favourable opinion of them, and to trust and respect his judgment.

The root of personal attractiveness of a project manager can take many forms, including friendship dcsires, identification with him as a model, and feelings of a shared identity (he’s one of us). For example, feelings of a shared identity are facilitated by the project manager evolving out of the same discipline as other project participants. As one manager stated, ‘There’s a philosophy in this organization that you aren’t a good project manager unless you’ve been an engineer. . . and that’s felt from the top on down’. Another project manager put it this way:

I guess I’m sort of lucky in that I came up with these people so that they don’t resent me. I have no trouble in getting along with them . . . It’s been indicated that other managers who haven’t come up through the ranks might have had more difficulty than I’ve had.

As mentioned above, friendship relationships often become the basis for referent power in the project environment. One manager was asked when he

326 THE JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES OCTOBER

needed help from other disciplines how he knew who to go to and who to seek out for advice. He replied: ‘Strictly personal friends that you’ve cdti- vated over the years’. This question was then asked: ‘What about the new manager who comes in as a project engineer?’ He answered the query this way:

Any project manager has to develop relationships with people - that’s the way to get things done. You can’t look up in the phone book and find the organization that should be responsible for solving a specific problem and call, them up and expect to get the job done. It just doesn’t work that way. . . . Logically, if you were a new project engineer and you had a flight problem like we did on the last flight, you would expect to go there (flight evaluation) and get the details, what happened, etc. Not so. That’s not where you go. There’s a task team working on it. You’ve got to build these relationships to keep informed and to know where to go for information and help - you’ll be lost if you don’t. . . . Thus, personal friendships and alliances can become an important source

of influence for a project manager.l

IMPLICATIONS Too often research on project management has concentrated on strictly

the formal authority possessed by the project manager. It is our feeling that a more viable explanation of the influence of the project manager and the influence problems he faces will come through understanding the various power bases available to him. A more complete picture of his array of influence entails a detailed examination of the formal authority granted to him, the direct and indirect reward and punishment power attributed to him, the expert ,power attributed to him, and the referent power he commands. There are important implications for the project manager depending upon the project organization utilized. In the functional model, for example, the project manager normally will have formal authority over his subordinate team members. The authority delegated to him is similar to that granted to a line manager. However, that authority in comparison to that given the line manager is only granted for the finite duration of the project and may be more restrictive. Due to the authority given him, the project manager in the functional model normally has greater reward power over his team than

1 6 It is interesting to note that a project manager may actually have negative referent power when others have a personal dislike of him and either do not value or devalue their relationship with him. That is, if project participants or interfacing functional managers dislike and evaluate negatively a project manager, he does not simply lack referent power in the sense that they have neutral feelings toward him, but possesses negative referent power which makes his task of influ- encing them more difficult.

327 project managers in either the matrix or staff models. The expert power attributed to him may also be greater than in the staff or matrix models if the scope of the project is narrowly defined and he is more expert in the base discipline of the project than his team members.

As mentioned, the matrix and staff models of project organization differ from the functional model in terms of the degrees of formal authority granted to the project manager. The matrix manager has some degree of authority over personnel and resources while the staff project manager has little, if any, formal authority. The direct reward power, consequently, would normally vary depending upon the authority given to the project managers in each model. Differently put, the greater the degree of authority granted to the project manager the more reward power he will have over those who interface with him. Consequently because they occupy boundary positions and lack the degree of formal authority found in the functional model, the use of expertise, indirect reward power, and referent power become crucial for the project managers in the matrix or staff model.

Understanding the power spectrum has important implications for both project managers and top level management. It can, for example, aid in helping a project manager understand the different types of influence that might be employed in gaining the cooperation of project participants and functional managers. Project managers who lament over their lack of formal authority over project participants or interfacing functional managers may simply be acknowledging an inability to influence people in the absence of formal authority. For example, in a highly technical project, the scientists serving as support personnel may only respond to ‘colleague authority’ or expert power and not to the formal authority of the project manager who they view as an outsider. In such cases, the project manager may need to audit other available power bases in the power spectrum to determine if they could benefit him in influencing these project participants. For example, given the lack of expert power, he might attempt to have more formal authority granted to him or try to gain reward power over the personal goals of the scientists, or try to establish referent power by building up friendships or personal alliances with them.

Equally important are the implications for top level management. Top management, for example, may blame the failure of a project on ‘poor leadership’. From the perspective of the power spectrum, a more definitive answer might be that the project participants working with the project manager ( I ) did not respect his technical or managerial skills (lack of expert power) or (2) did not feel that he was sympathetic to their view and did not view favourably their relationship with him (lack of referent power) or (3) did not feel he has influence over the attainment of their personal goals such as promotion or interesting assignments (lack of reward and punishment

797’ INTERPERSONAL POWER I N PROJECT MANAGEMENT

328 THE JOURNAL OF >fANAGEMENT' STUDIES OCTOBER

power) or (4) he either was not granted sufficient formal authority or did not properly use it to supplement deficiencies in the other bases of influence.

Top management can, to a degree, alter the form of influence available to a project manager. They can, for example, increase the amount of formal authority of the project manager and the amount of direct and indirect reward and punishment power available to him. Overcoming deficiencies in expert and referent power is more difficult since they are based on personal rather than positional characteristics of project managers. Expert power, however, can be controlled to a degree through selecting project managers who command the respect of their peers or through additional managerial or technical training of the project manager. While referent power is per- haps most difficult to change, it is not impossible. Training in leadership skills or certain forms of sensitivity training aimed at helping the project manager understand the human organization in the project environment may facilitate his acquisition of referent power.17

Our objective has not been to provide definitive answers to the complex influence questions raised by project management but to formulate a con- ceptual framework for guiding and stimulating research. Research focused on determining the effects of different combinations of power, employed by project managers on project performance may eventually provide the building blocks for theories on how project managers can effectively use influence to accomplish their project objectives. Equally important, however, is that the stimulation of future research may also uncover insights into why project managers often fail on grounds other than from a lack of technical competence.

li See for example, Likert, R., The Hu7nuti OrpziZuiion, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.