Chapter 3: Exploring project-related factors that influence leadership styles
3.2 Factors that influence leadership style
3.2.3 Organisational project management maturity
A number of project management maturity models (PM3s) have been developed since the mid-1990s and more than 30 models were available in 2012 (Pretorius, Steyn and Jordaan, 2012). Models include OPM3 (Office of Government Commerce, 2009), SPICE (Sarshar, Haigh, and Amaratunga, 2004) and (PM)2 (Kwak and Ibbs, 2002). The majority of the models consist of five distinct levels that
and its effect on project performance: A conceptual model.
describe an ordinal scale for measurement of maturity (Backlund, Chronéer and Sundqvist, 2014). Level 1 is the initial level where no project management is done and level 5 is the ‘optimising’ level where the company is fully mature. Figure 7 illustrates the typical five maturity levels. Ika, (2009) said in 2009 that no single maturity model was recognized worldwide and Yazici (2009) found that most organisations do not achieve level 3 or higher.
Figure 7: The PM3 (Pretorius et al., 2012)
Torres (2014) identifies three major roles of maturity models in organisations namely:
Measuring the current state of maturity;
Providing advice to reach a higher level of maturity; and
Benchmarking with other organisations.
and its effect on project performance: A conceptual model.
Although maturity models can be a useful tool (Nicholas and Steyn, 2017), Mullaly (2014) asserts that maturity models should not be the beginning and end in the science of maturity. Mullaly (2014) criticises project management maturity models by stating that there is insufficient evidence that an increase in project management maturity, as it is currently defined, actually leads to an increase in organisational value. Skulmosky (2001) suggests, but does not demonstrate, that there is a link between project management maturity and competency.
Recent longitudinal studies of organisational maturity have also been unable to prove an obvious link between project management maturity and performance (Mullaly, 2006, 2014). Mullaly (2014) further suggests that project management maturity models need to increase their focus from just process maturity to a broader cognizance of organisational maturity. Project management maturity models need to be more flexible in their structure, more adjustable in their approach and more receptive in their applications in order for them to be appropriately relevant and meaningfully useful (Mullaly, 2006, 2014).
Dooley, Subra and Anderson (2001) said that maturity comprises of having a well- defined, managed, measured, and continuously improved process. Although certain studies, including research done by Mullaly (2006, 2014) as discussed in the previous paragraph, failed to prove that high maturity in project management correlates to better results (Müller, 2017), Dooley et al. (2001) disagree. They found that higher levels of maturity were associated with projects that met organisational goals like cost goals; i.e. projects that perform well. High–performance teams typically execute projects that perform well/meet organisational goals.
and its effect on project performance: A conceptual model.
Studies by Shamir and Lapidot, (2003) showed that high-performance teams actively engaged in shared leadership, much more so than other teams. We thus deduct that high-performance teams are likely to be more mature and to engage in shared leadership. We therefore postulate that mature teams tend to engage in shared leadership.
The above leads to the following proposition (proposition 6):
P6: The higher the level of project management maturity in the organisation, the more shared leadership will be used.
3.2.4 The project’s position/level within the hierarchy of work in a project- oriented organisation
Gareis (1991) defines project-oriented companies as those organisations that execute small and large projects as well as unique and standard projects to deal with new challenges and potential in an ever-changing business environment. The balance between vertical and shared leadership may be influenced by the level within the hierarchy of a project-oriented organisation, i.e. the level within the hierarchy from programme, project, sub-project, down to work package and activity level.
PRINCE2® (Office of Government Commerce, 2009) indicates that programmes and projects focus on applying change initiatives in the “correct” manner while portfolio management selects the initiatives that will realize benefits that contribute to contracted objectives. It seems that strategic decisions would require more shared leadership than work executed at activity level. Management of programmes, and
and its effect on project performance: A conceptual model.
especially portfolios of projects, could therefore be expected to require leadership that is biased towards shared leadership.
Levels within the project hierarchy are however not well standardised; although terms such as project and work package have been standardised to a large extent, some organisations would, for example, use the term task where others would use activity. A set of sub-projects or even work packages of a single, large project can be as complex to manage as a set of several small projects. What one organisation would consider as a large project, might even be considered to be a programme by another organisation.
Nicholas and Steyn (2017) state that programmes and projects are different; a programme ranges over a longer time than a project, and it also consists of a number of parallel or consecutive projects in order to meet a programme goal. The projects within a programme utilises common resources and are often interdependent. A portfolio is defined as “projects, programmes, subportfolios, and operations managed as a group to achieve strategic objectives” (PMI, 2013).
While programmes and portfolios of projects cannot be considered as simply higher levels of project hierarchy (Pellegrinelli, 1997), the “Diamond of Innovation Model”
(described earlier) allows work entities such as projects, sub-projects, work packages and activities to all be measured on the same scales and compared with each other, regardless of the terms used to describe them (Steyn and Schnetler, 2015). Addressing the relationship between the type of project, as described by the diamond model, therefore obviates the need of investigating the relationship between leadership style and the level within the project hierarchy.
and its effect on project performance: A conceptual model.