scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Project management turnover: causes and effects on project performance

TL;DR: In this paper, a web-based survey was designed and developed from a detailed literature review, with 67 completed surveys collected, equating to a 45% response rate, aimed to find the reasons for project management turnover; examine the extent to which Project management turnover is associated with a particular phase of the project life cycle; and investigate the effects of project management turning over on project performance.
Abstract: Changes in management personnel - variously termed displacement, succession or just turnover- have been found by many to have significant negative effects on project performance. However, researchers have often ignored the organizational context of succession, the timing of succession relative to the organizational life cycle, and the type of transfer undertaken in control surfaces. It has also been suggested that the idea of specifically choosing a project manager to see the project completely through its life cycle needs to be discarded in favour of selecting at each phase point, a new project manager best suited to the anticipated project environment. To examine this further, a web-based survey was designed and developed from a detailed literature review, with 67 completed surveys collected, equating to a 45% response rate. This aimed to: find the reasons for project management turnover; examine the extent to which project management turnover is associated with a particular phase of the project life cycle; and investigate the effects of project management turnover on project performance. The most significant findings are that project management turnover occurs predominantly in the execution phase of the project life cycle and that the main reasons for the turnover event are career motives, including the need for personal development, and dissatisfaction with the organisational culture and project management role. The results confirm that the turnover event disrupts and negatively affects the performance of the project team, the project, and potentially negates the competitive advantage of organisations in which it occurs.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the pursuit of explanations that rely upon identifying general patterns based upon cause and effect marginalises the particular, while a focus upon the particular frustrates the emergence of common patterns, shared meanings and normative recommendations.

259 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors extend transactional and transformational leadership theory by looking at it from the perspective of the temporary organization and develop a research model with testable propositions on the effects of temporary organizations' characteristics on leadership and on followers' commitment in projects.

158 citations


Cites background from "Project management turnover: causes..."

  • ...…which differ from standard organizational processes, and therefore cause uncertainty (Pich et al., 2002), discontinuous personnel constellations (Parker and Skitmore, 2005) with heterogeneous backgrounds (Chen et al., 2004) and differing (hierarchical) roles outside the temporary organization…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a study conducted in Hong Kong found that the construction contracting organizations favor a culture of clear goals with stability and a relatively lower emphasis on innovation, which suggests construction maintains a local industry mentality.

144 citations


Cites background from "Project management turnover: causes..."

  • ...From a project management perspective, Parker and Skitmore (2005) found that dissatisfaction with organizational culture is the primary reason causing project management turnover....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A framework identifying the key areas within IT projects where knowledge-based risks occur include a failure to learn from past projects, competence of the project team, problems in integrating and transferring knowledge, lack of a knowledge map, and volatility in governance is presented.
Abstract: This paper presents a framework identifying the key areas within IT projects where knowledge-based risks occur. These risks include a failure to learn from past projects, competence of the project ...

140 citations


Cites background from "Project management turnover: causes..."

  • ...Empirical research shows that a change of project manager is the most important governance volatility issue affecting project performance (Parker & Skitmore, 2005; Sauer et al., 2006)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper explored the development of the project culture of Environ megaproject during the project life cycle and found that innovative and entrepreneurial value orientations were dominant during the Gideon's gang (1996-2001) and Diplomats (2001-2004) episodes.

139 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a conceptual model is presented that suggests a need to distinguish between satisfaction (present oriented) and attraction/expected utility (future oriented) for both the present role and alternative roles, and a potential mechanism for integrating aggregate-level research findings into an individual-level model of the turnover process.
Abstract: Research on employee turnover since the Porter and Steers analysis of the literature reveals that age, tenure, overall satisfaction, job content, intentions to remain on the job, and commitment are consistently and negatively related to turnover. Generally, however, less than 20% of the variance in turnover is explained. Lack of a clear conceptual model, failure to consider available job alternatives, insufficient multivariate research, and infrequent longitudinal studies are identified as factors precluding a better understanding of the psychology of the employee turnover process. A conceptual model is presented that suggests a need to distinguish between satisfaction (present oriented) and attraction/expected utility (future oriented) for both the present role and alternative roles, a need to consider nonwork values and nonwork consequences of turnover behavior as well as contractual constraints, and a potential mechanism for integrating aggregate-level research findings into an individual-le vel model of the turnover process. Employee withdrawal, in the form of turnover, has sustained the interest of personnel researchers, behavioral scientists, and management practitioners. At the macro level, economists and personnel researchers have demonstrated the relationship between turnover rates and the aggregate level of economic activity, employment levels, and vacancy levels (see, e.g., Armknecht & Early, 1972; Forrest, Cummings, & Johnson, 1977; Price, 1977; Woodward, 1975-1976). At the micro level, behavioral research has established a consistent, although generally weak, correlation between job dissatisfaction and turnover (Brayfield & Crockett, 19SS; Locke, 1976; Porter & Steers, 1973; Vroom, 1964; Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwell,

2,194 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a group of 445 employees of a financial institution responded to a mailed survey and tested propositions derived from Steers and Mow day's (1981) model, through access to their personnel re...
Abstract: This study tested propositions derived from Steers and Mow day's (1981) model. A group of 445 employees of a financial institution responded to a mailed survey. Through access to their personnel re...

621 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A negative correlation was found between rates of managerial succession and effectiveness and change in succession rate and organizational effectiveness among sixteen professional baseball teams examined over two time periods, 1921-41 and 1951-58 as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: A negative correlation is found between (1) rates of managerial succession and effectiveness and (2) change in succession rate and change in organizational effectiveness among sixteen professional baseball teams examined over two time periods, 1921-41 and 1951-58. A set of ten variables from organization theory is applied to the analysis of team performance and administrative succession. A number of illustrative propositions are presented.

453 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present three explanations of the success-effectiveness relationship and the different predictions which they make, and suggest that the common-sense explanation, Grusky's explanation, and a third one which they will suggest each has different implications and can be tested with little difficulty.
Abstract: Oscar Grusky's \"Managerial Succession and Organizational Effectiveness\" (American Journal of Sociology, July, 1963) makes use of an ingenious source of data for comparative organizational analysis. By picking major league baseball clubs for his focus, he has available to him twenty organizations which are identical in goals and in a wide variety of other structural characteristics. There is considerable potentiality here, but unfortunately Grusky's analysis offers us no more than the fact that those clubs which have done the worst over the years have changed their field managers most frequently. For this rather obvious correlation Grusky suggests two possible explanations. He quickly disposes of the common-sense explanation of one-way causality: the manager is fired because the team performs poorly. Despite the fact that this explanation is consistent with the data he presents, he charges it with, among other things, the failure \"to stimulate careful empirical test.\" Such a charge is doubly puzzling. First of all, it is not at all clear why this particular explanation offers any less of a clear empirical test than the alternative offered. Second, one looks in vain for the careful empirical tests that Grusky's more complicated explanation has produced. At the very least, one might have expected the specification of how one might get data that would allow a choice. Faced with two explanations that apparently handle the available data equally well, we prefer the simpler one, Grusky's invocation of Ernest Nagel notwithstanding. However, we wish to suggest that the common-sense explanation, Grusky's explanation, and a third one which we will suggest each has different implications and can be tested with little difficulty. A small amount of data toward such a test is offered below. As a prior step, we present the three explanations of the successioneffectiveness relationship and the different predictions which they make.

383 citations