Skip to main content

The Red Principle: Collaborate through Interdependence and Trust

  • Chapter
Breaking the Code of Project Management
  • 142 Accesses

Abstract

In 1911, Fredrick Taylor, the father of “scientific management,” said, “In the past man has been first. In the future the system must be first.”1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. R. Kanigel. 1997. The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. New York, NY: The Penguin Books, 19.

    Google Scholar 

  2. T Cooke-Davies. 2002. Its People Who Get Things Done. Project Manager Today 14, 1 (January): 16–21;

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lechler T. 1998. When It Comes to Project Management, It’s The People That Matter: An Empirical Analysis of Project Management in Germany. In IRNOPIII. The Nature and Role of Projects in the Next 20 Years: Research Issues and Problems, eds. F. Hartman, G. Jergeas, and J. Thomas, 205–15. Calgary, CA: University of Calgary.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. J. Hoffman, C. S.Kinlaw, and D. C. Kinlaw. 2000. Developing Superior Project Teams: A Study of the Characteristics of High Performance in Project Teams. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, June. Paris, France: 29–35. The Agile Manifesto goes a long way from Taylor and McNamara. This document, formulated in 2001 by a group of software developers, describes the four underlying values of a new project management approach called “the Agile Method”:

    Google Scholar 

  5. Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

    Google Scholar 

  6. Working software over comprehensive documentation

    Google Scholar 

  7. Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

    Google Scholar 

  8. Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. M. Fowler and J. Highsmith. 2001. The Agile Manifesto. Software Development, (August), last accessed February 14, 2007. http://hristov.com/andrey/fhtstuttgart/The_Agile_Manifesto_SDMagazine.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  9. see M. Poppendieck and T. Poppendieck. 2003. Lean Software Development—An Agile Toolkit. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley;

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Cockburn. 2002. Agile Software Development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley;

    Google Scholar 

  11. K. Beck. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained—Embrace Change. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Collins. 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Dont. New York, NY: Harper Business, 13–5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Kilts. 2007. Doing What Matters: How to Get Results That Make a Difference—The Revolutionary Old-School Approach. New York, NY: Crown Business, 146.

    Google Scholar 

  14. T. Peters. 1999. The Project 50 (Reinventing Work): Fifty Ways to Transform Every “Task” into a Project That Matters! New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 156.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Laufer and E.J.Hoffman. 2000. Project Management Success Stories: Lessons of Project Leaders. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 115–7, 219–24.

    Google Scholar 

  16. One camp is probably best represented by three McKinsey consultants who published the book The War for Talent on the basis of a comprehensive study. They assert that talented people are scarce and that superior talent makes a huge difference in company performance. E. Michaels, H. Handfield-Jones, and B. Axelrod. 2001. The War for Talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G. Colvin. 2006. Why Dream Teams Fail. Fortune, June, http://cnnmoney.printt.his.clickability.com

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. Yourdon. 1999. Death March: The Complete Software Developers Guide to Surviving “Mission Impossible” Projects. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 120–3.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. R. Katzenbach and D. K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 18, 120;

    Google Scholar 

  20. T. Peters. 1999. The Project 50 (Reinventing Work): Fifty Ways to Transform Every “Task” into a Project That Matters! New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 84–6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Using Tom Davenport’s classification of knowledge workers, one can easily see that the criteria for “right people” depend on the context and, in particular, are not the same for permanent and temporary (projects) organizations. T. H. Davenport. 2002. Can You Boost Knowledge Work’s Impact on the Bottom Line? Harvard Management Update (November): 10–1. Campitt and DeKoch conclude that in an uncertain environment, it is not sufficient to hire very intelligent people who are low on “emotional intelligence,” since only those with high “emotional intelligence” “can overcome the inevitable setbacks associated with attempting new tasks.” P. G. Campitt and R. J. DeKoch. 2001. Embracing Uncertainty: The Essence of Leadership. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 154.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Carbonara. 1996. Hire for Attitude, Train for Skill. Fast Company 4 (August): 73.

    Google Scholar 

  23. L. Crawford. 2005. Senior Management Perceptions of Project Management Competence. International Journal of Project Management 23, 1: 7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Studying four great project managers, Alan Webb asks the eternal question, “are great project managers born or made?” and his reply is “both.” A. Webb. 1996. Great Engineering Project Managers: Are They Born or Made? Part 1. Engineering Management Journal 6, 1 (February): 33–40;

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. Webb. 1996. Great Engineering Project Managers: Are They Born or Made? Part 2. Engineering Management Journal 6, 2 (April): 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  26. H. Mintzberg. 2004. Leadership and Management Development: An Afterword.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. JA. Raelin. 2004. Don’t Bother Putting Leadership into People. Academy of Management Executive 18, 3 (August): 131–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. See also two studies by O. Gadeken. 1990. A Competency Model of Program Managers in the DOD Acquisition Process. Defense Systems Management College. February;

    Google Scholar 

  29. O. Gadeken. 1991. Competencies of Project Managers in the MOD Procurement Executive. Royal Military College of Science, July. Shrivenham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See, for example, L. Huff and L. Kelley. 2003. Levels of Organizational Trust in Individualist versus Collectivist Societies: A Seven-Nation Study. Organization Science 14, 1 (January-February): 81–90;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. J.B. Barney and M.H. Hansen. 1994. Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal 15 (Winter): 175–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. F. Fukuyama. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, NY: The Free Press, 7. Fukuyama proposes that it is the social capital of a given country (or even area within a country) that defines how its economy functions.

    Google Scholar 

  33. K. Kelly. 1999. New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Radical Strategies for a Connected World. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 118–39.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Alistair Cockburn discusses the contribution of collaboration between two parties to their formal contract and maintains that “good collaboration can save a contract situation when it is in jeopardy. Good collaboration can sometimes make a contract unnecessary. Either way, collaboration is the winning element.” A. Cockburn. 2002. Agile Software Development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 218.

    Google Scholar 

  35. J.R. Katzenbach and D.K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. Cockburn. 2002. Agile Software Development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 101.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J.R. Katzenbach and D.K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 111.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Successful project managers pay great attention to the size of their project team. They create the smallest team possible that includes all the necessary skills. Katzenbach and Smith maintain that large numbers of people have trouble interacting constructively as a group and experience difficulties “agreeing on actionable specifics.” They conclude that groups larger than 20 or 25 have difficulties becoming real teams. J.R. Katzenbach and D.K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 45–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J.R. Katzenbach and D.K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 211.

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. Kouzes and B. Posner. 1993. Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 107.

    Google Scholar 

  41. R. Solomon and F. Flores. 2001. Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships and Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  42. R. Solomon and F. Flores. 2001. Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships and Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  43. K. Kelly. 1999. New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Radical Strategies for a Connected World. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 133.

    Google Scholar 

  44. O.E. Williamson. 1979. Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations. The Journal of Law and Economics 22, 2: 233–61;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. L.T. Hosmer. 1995. Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review 20, 2 (April): 379–403.

    Google Scholar 

  46. J. H. Dyer and W. Chu. 2003. The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the United States, Japan and Korea. Organization Science 14, 1 (January-February): 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. O. E. Williamson. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press;

    Google Scholar 

  48. O. E. Williamson. 1991. Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly 36, 2 (June): 269–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. R. Solomon and F. Flores. 2001. Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships and Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  50. R. Solomon and F. Flores. 2001. Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships and Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 45–6.

    Google Scholar 

  51. J. H. Dyer and W. Chu. 2003. The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the United States, Japan and Korea. Organization Science 14, 1 (January-February): 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. This is how Charles Handy defines trust: “By trust, organizations really mean confidence, a confidence in someone’s competence and in his or her commitment to a goal.” C. Handy. 1995. Trust and the Virtual Organization: How Do You Manage People Whom You Do Not See? Harvard Business Review 73, 3 (May/June): 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  53. J. Kouzes and B. Posner. 1993. Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 25.

    Google Scholar 

  54. R. Solomon and F. Flores. 2001. Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships and Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 14, 43.

    Google Scholar 

  55. J. H. Dyer and W. Chu. 2003. The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the United States, Japan and Korea. Organization Science 14, 1 (January-February): 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. P. M. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, and B. Smith. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  57. J. A. Highsmith III. 2000. Adaptive Software Development—A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems. New York, NY: Dorset House Publishing, 206.

    Google Scholar 

  58. C. Lane. 1998. Introduction: Theories and Issues in the Study of Trust. In Trust within and between Organizations: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications, eds. Christel Lane and Reinhard Bachmann, 1–30. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. J. H. Dyer and W. Chu. 2003. The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the United States, Japan and Korea. Organization Science 14, 1 (January–February): 57–68;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. B. Uzzi. 1997. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 2 (June): 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. G. R. Jones and J. A. George. 1998. The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23, 3: 531–46.

    Google Scholar 

  62. G. R. Jones and J. A. George. 1998. The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23, 3: 531–46. See also R.B. Shaw. 1997. Trust in Balance: Building Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity, and Concern. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 13–5.

    Google Scholar 

  63. In his book Group Genius, Keith Sawyer makes a strong tie between collaboration and innovation. Sawyer advises us to forget about the myth of the solitary genius. Innovation, he explains, emerges from a series of sparks—not from a single flash of insight. Therefore, collaboration increases the capability of the organization to generate more ideas and better ideas and enhances the culture of innovation. K. Sawyer. 2007. Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  64. T. K. Das and B. S. Teng. 1998. Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances. Academy of Management Review 23, 3: 491–512.

    Google Scholar 

  65. B. K. Muirhead and W. L. Simon. 1999. High Velocity Leadership: The Mars Pathfinder Approach to Faster, Better, Cheaper. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 154.

    Google Scholar 

  66. R. Solomon and E Flores. 2001. Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships and Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 26–7.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Various popular sports games are often used as metaphors for the different working styles of project teams. For example, for relatively low-uncertainty situations and when relatively large teams are employed, a common metaphor is that of a football game. Here, a strong central leadership places the players in fixed positions, with the emphasis on “scheduling and control.” For high-uncertainty situations and when relatively small teams are employed, the game plan metaphor often used is that of basketball. Here, the team structure and working style are geared to promoting creative and spontaneous interaction and high adaptability within a small team tied by a fairly loose definition of roles. However, in todays dynamic environment of many projects, the rules of the game, and even the game plan itself, often change during the game, making the sustaining of teamwork even more critical. See, for example, R. W. Keidel. 1984. Game Plans: Sports Strategies for Business. New York, NY: Berkley Books.

    Google Scholar 

  68. A. J. Nurick and H. J. Thamhain. 2006. Team Development in Multinational Environments, Chapter 19. In Global Project Management Handbook, eds. D. I. Cleland and R. Gareis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  69. C. Conley. 2007. Peak: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo from Maslow. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  70. J. Collins. 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Dont. New York, NY: Harper Business, 50.

    Google Scholar 

  71. J. R. Katzenbach and D. K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Not recognizing individual members of the team is a grave mistake. Randolph and Posner state it very succinctly: “There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.” However, when discussing teamwork, Augustine stresses very clearly that “this is most assuredly not to say there is no place for individualists, only that it is necessary for members of the team to suppress individual desires for the overall good of the team.” P. C. Earley and C. B. Gibson. 1998. Taking Stock in Our Progress on Individualism-Collectivism: 100 Years of Solidarity and Community. Journal of Management 24, 3: 265–304;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. W. A. Randolph and B. Z. Posner. 1987. Getting the Job Done!; Managing Project Teams and Task forces for Success. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 64;

    Google Scholar 

  74. N. R. Augustine. 1986. Augustine’s Laws. New York, NY: Viking-Penguin, 363–4;

    Google Scholar 

  75. W. Royce. 1998. Software Project Management: A Unified Framework. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 45

    Google Scholar 

  76. N. R. Augustine. 1986. Augustine s Laws. New York, NY: Viking-Penguin, 363–4.

    Google Scholar 

  77. T. E. Deal and A. A. Kennedy. 1999. The New Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 244.

    Google Scholar 

  78. D. Goleman, R. Boyatzis, and A. McKee. 2002. Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  79. J. R. Katzenbach and D. K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 164–5.

    Google Scholar 

  80. K. Beck. 1999. Extreme Programming (XP) Explained: Embrace Change. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 34–5.

    Google Scholar 

  81. L. Bolman and T. Deal. 1992. What Makes a Team Work? Organizational Dynamics (Autumn): 34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  82. L. Bolman and T. Deal. 1992. What Makes a Team Work? Organizational Dynamics (Autumn): 34–44;

    Google Scholar 

  83. T. E. Deal and A. A. Kennedy. 1999. The New Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 247;

    Google Scholar 

  84. J. James. 1996. Thinking in the Future Tense: Leadership Skills for a New Age. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 175.

    Google Scholar 

  85. T. Kidder. The Soul of a New Machine. 1981. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company: 272–3.

    Google Scholar 

  86. W. Bennis and P. W. Biederman. 1997. Organizing Genius: The Secret of Creative Collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 215.

    Google Scholar 

  87. R. P. White, P. Hodgson, and S. Crainer. 1996. The Future of Leadership: Riding the Corporate Rapids into the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: Pitman Publishing, 163–7.

    Google Scholar 

  88. E. de Bono. 1984. Tactics: The Art and Science of Success. Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company, 54.

    Google Scholar 

  89. W. Bennis and P. W. Biederman. 1997. Organizing Genius: The Secret of Creative Collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 203.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Real teams always find ways for each individual to contribute and thereby gain distinction.” J. R. Katzenbach and D.K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  91. See an elaborate analysis of these people-oriented steps in L. Bolman and T. Deal. 1992. What Makes a Team Work? Organizational Dynamics (Autumn): 34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  92. J. R. Katzenbach and D. K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 107.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2009 Alexander Laufer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Laufer, A. (2009). The Red Principle: Collaborate through Interdependence and Trust. In: Breaking the Code of Project Management. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230619517_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics