understanding the role of politics in successful project management

Understanding the role of politics in successful projectmanagement

p

Je�rey K. Pinto

School of Business, Penn State ± Erie, Erie, PA 16563, USA

Received 1 November 1998

Abstract

Successful project management is directly linked to the ability of project managers and other key players to understand the

importance of organizational politics and how to make them work for project success. While most of us view politics withdistaste, there is no denying that e�ective managers are often those who are willing and able to employ appropriate politicaltactics to further their project goals. This paper o�ers some thoughts on the role of politics in successful project management,

identifying ways in which project managers can use politics in a positive and e�ective manner. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd andIPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Power; Politics; Project implementation

1. Introduction

One of the most powerful but frequently overlookedin¯uencers of successful project management concernsthe roles played by knowledgeable personnel in usingpower and political behavior to promote successful im-plementation. Most of us tend to regard political ac-tivity with a sort of repugnance, ®nding the conduct ofpolitics to be both personally distasteful and organiza-tionally damaging. There is an interesting paradox atwork here, however. Common experience will demon-strate to both practitioners and neutral observers thatfor all our often-expressed personal disdain for theexercise of politics, we readily acknowledge that thisprocess is often one of the prime moving forces withinany organization, for better or worse.

Political behavior, sometimes de®ned as any processby which individuals and groups seek, acquire, andmaintain power, is pervasive in modern corporations.Examples can include activities as signi®cant as nego-

tiating for a multi-million dollar commitment of

money for a new project to as mundane as determining

who will attain a corner o�ce; as predatory as the

willfull attempt to derail another's career to those as

benign as deciding where the yearly o�ce party will be

held. The key underlying feature of each of these and

countless other examples is that the processes by which

we make decisions and seek power, the issues we deem

`power-laden', and steps we go to to maintain our pos-

ition are often an emotionally-charged sequence having

important personal and corporate rami®cations.

The ®eld of project management is one that is par-

ticularly fraught with political processes for several

unique reasons. First, because project managers in

many companies do not have a stable base of power

(either high status or over-riding authority), they must

learn to cultivate other methods of in¯uence in order

to secure the resources from other departments necess-

ary to attain project success. Second, and closely re-

lated to the ®rst reason, these projects often exist

outside of the traditional line (functional) structure,

relegating project managers to the role of supernumer-

ary. Almost all resources (®nancial, human, informa-

tional, etc.) must be negotiated and bargained. Finally,

International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 85±91

0263-7863/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

PII: S0263-7863(98 )00073 -8

PERGAMONwww.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

pPortions of this article were excerpted from Power and Politics in

Project Management, by Je�rey K. Pinto, 1996, Project Management

Institute: Upper Darby, PA.

many project managers are not given the authority toconduct formal performance evaluations on their pro-ject team subordinates, denying them an importantbase of hierarchical power. Without the authority toreward or punish, they are placed in the position ofhaving to in¯uence subordinate behavior into engagingin appropriate behaviors. Consequently, they mustlearn important `human' skills such as bargaining andin¯uence, con¯ict management, and negotiation.

Senior and successful project managers have longknown the importance of maintaining strong politicalties throughout their organizations as a method forachieving project success. Indeed, it is the rare success-ful project managers who are not conversant in andknowledgeable of the importance of politics for e�ec-tively performing their jobs. That point illustrates animportant underlying aspect of the characteristics ofpolitical behavior: it can either be the project man-ager's ®rm friend or most remorseless foe. In otherwords, whatever decision one comes to regarding theuse of politics in the quest for project success, it can-not be ignored.

This statement does not have to make the readeruncomfortable. No one would argue that project man-agers must become immersed in the brutal, self-servingside of corporate political life. Clearly, there are somany examples of predatory behavior that most of usare leery of being considered `politically adept'.Nevertheless, the key point is that project managementand politics are inextricably linked. Successful projectmanagers are usually those who intuitively understandthat their job consists of more than simply being tech-nically and managerially competent.

In my research and consulting experience, mostcompanies spend thousands of hours to plan and im-plement a multimillion or even multibillion dollarinvestment, developing intricate plans and schedules,forming a cohesive team, and maintaining realistic spe-ci®cation and time targets, all to have the projectderailed by political processes. This is a pity, particu-larly in that the end result is often foreseeable early inthe development of the project: usually as the result ofa project manager's refusal to acknowledge and culti-vate political ties, both internal to the organizationand externally with the clients.

At some point, almost every project manager hasfaced the di�culties involved in managing a project inthe face of corporate politics [1]. Recalcitrant func-tional managers, unclear lines of authority, tentativeresource commitments, lukewarm upper managementsupport, and hard lessons in negotiation are all charac-teristics of many project manager's daily lives. Setwithin this all-too-familiar framework, it is a wonderthat most projects ever get completed.

It is ironic that while project management theoryhas sought for years to ®nd new and better methods

for improving the discipline, power and political beha-vior, one of the most pervasive and frequently perni-cious elements impacting on project implementationhas rarely been addressed. Even in cases where it hasbeen examined, the discussion is often so cursory ortheory-driven that it o�ers little in the way of usefuladvice for practicing project managers. Whatever ourcurrent level of understanding of power and politics inorganizations, we must all come to the realization thatits presence is ubiquitous and impact is signi®cant.With this acceptance as a starting point, we can beginto address power and politics as a necessary part ofproject management and learn to use it to our advan-tage through increasing the likelihood of successfullymanaging projects.

2. Authority, status and In¯uence

When one examines the sorts of options that projectmanagers are able to use in furthering their goals, it isuseful to consider their alternatives in terms of threemodes of power: Authority, Status and In¯uence. ThisAuthority, Status, and In¯uence model has been pro-posed by Robert Graham [2], as a way to make clearthe methods by which project managers can achievetheir desired ends. The model is valuable because it il-lustrates clearly one of the key problems that mostproject managers have in attempting to develop andimplement their projects in corporations.

Much has been written on the sorts of power thatindividuals have. One framework suggests that each ofus have available two distinct types of power: powerthat derives from our personality (personal power) andpower that comes from the position or title we hold [3].Let us de®ne authority as this latter type of power:one that accrues from the position we occupy in theorganization (positional power). In other words, thepositional power base derives solely from the positionthat managers occupy in the corporate hierarchy.Unfortunately, the nature of positional, or formalpower, is extremely problematic within project man-agement situations due to the temporary and`detached' nature of most projects vis aÂ vis the rest ofthe formal organizational structure [4]. Project teamssit `outside' the normal vertical hierarchy, usuallyemploying personnel who are on loan from their func-tional departments. As a result, project managers havea much more tenuous degree of positional powerwithin the organization. Other than the nominal con-trol they have over their own team, they may not havea corporate-wide base of positional power throughwhich they can get resources, issue directives, orenforce their will. As a result, authority, as a powerbase, is not one that project managers can rely on withany degree of certainty in most organizations.

J.K. Pinto / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 85±9186

Likewise, the second mode of power, Status, is oftenproblematic for most project managers. Status impliesthat the project manager, due to the nature, import-ance, or visibility of his or her project, can exert powerand control over others in the corporate hierarchy asneeded. Unfortunately, while some projects and projectmanagers do, indeed, possess an enormous degree ofstatus due to the importance of their projects (e.g., theproject manager for the Boeing 757 program or theproject manager for the recently completed `Chunnel'),the vast majority of project mangers toil in relativeobscurity, working to bring their projects to fruitionwhile receiving little public recognition for their work.Although it would be nice to think that most projectmanagers can rely on status as a form of power andcontrol over resources to enhance their projects' likeli-hood of success, the reality is that very few projects orproject managers can depend upon their status as apersuasive form of power.

This, then, leads us to the ®nal form of persuasivecontrol that project managers may possess: in¯uence.In¯uence, as a technique, is usually highly individua-lized. That is, some individuals are better able to usein¯uence to achieve their desired ends than are others.One of the best examples of in¯uence is the power anindividual possesses because they have a dynamic per-sonality or personal charisma that attracts others. Forexample, well-known athletes are popular choices forendorsing new products because of the personal char-isma and `referent' appeal that they hold with the pub-lic. Other examples of in¯uence include informationalor expert power. To illustrate, if only one member ofthe project team has the programming or computerskills that are vital to the successful completion of theproject, that person, regardless of their title or man-agerial level within the organization, has a solid baseof in¯uence in relation to other members of the projectteam.

The key point to bear in mind about in¯uence isthat it is often an informal mechanism for control [5].Project managers who use in¯uence well in furtheringthe goals of their project usually work behind thescenes, negotiating, cutting deals, or collecting ando�ering IOUs. In¯uence, as a power tactic, is mostreadily used when managers have no formal positionalauthority to rely on. Hence, they are forced to use lessformal means to achieve their desired ends. In¯uenceis most widely seen as a power tactic in situations inwhich there is no obvious di�erence in authority levelsamong organizational members.

What is the implication of the Authority, Status,and In¯uence model? Graham notes that the nature ofproject management work, the manner in which pro-ject managers and their teams are selected, and the re-lationship of projects to the formal organizationalhierarchy force project managers to rely to far greater

degrees on their ability to cultivate and e�ectively usein¯uence as a negotiating and power tactic than eitherof the other two forms of power. Formal, broad-basedauthority rarely exists for project managers to use infurthering their project's ends. Likewise, while someprojects and/or project managers have the status togain the resources they need, it is much more likelythat the typical project manager can learn to developthe skills to use in¯uence as a power tactic. The key isrealizing that in¯uence is a form of corporate politicalbehavior that can be utilized for the bene®t of the pro-ject and ultimately, the organization. In order to betterunderstand the relationship between the use of infor-mal in¯uence tactics and political behavior, we need toexplore in some detail exactly what organizationalpolitics implies.

3. The implications of project politics

An understanding of the political side of organiz-ations and the often intensely political nature of pro-ject implementation gives rise to the concomitant needto develop appropriate attitudes and strategies thathelp project managers operate e�ectively within thesystem. What are some of the steps that project man-agers can take to become politically astute, if thisapproach is so necessary to e�ective project implemen-tation?

3.1. Understand and acknowledge the political nature ofmost organizations

Research on politics and organizational life demon-strate an interesting paradox at work: the vast ma-jority of managers hate engaging in political activities,believing that they waste time and detract from themore important aspects of their jobs. On the otherhand, these same managers acknowledge that, whilethey do not like politics, `politicking' is an importantrequirement for business and personal success [6]. Theunderlying point is important: we have to acknowledgepolitics as a fact of organizational and project life.Denying the political nature of organizations does notmake that phenomenon any less potent. This impli-cation argues that before managers are able to learn toutilize politics in a manner that is supportive of projectimplementation, they must ®rst acknowledge: 1) itsexistence, and 2) its impact on project success. Oncewe have created a collective basis of understandingregarding the political nature of organizations, it ispossible to begin to develop some action steps that willaid in project implementation.

It is also necessary to understand that all organiz-ations have a political component. Whether the projectorganization is manufacturing or service-oriented or

J.K. Pinto / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 85±91 87

construction, project managers must acknowledge thepolitical realm as one to be addressed in furtheringproject goals. The focus of such behavior may shift.For example, it may be the case that within a manu-facturing organization intent on new product introduc-tion, much of a project manager's political activitymay be geared toward other line managers within theorganization. On the other hand, in a construction set-ting, the project manager may have to work with sta-keholders both internal to the ®rm and external, in theform of sub-contractors and clients. The bottom linestill suggests that regardless of the type of organiz-ation, project managers must understand how best touse politics to further their project's goals.

3.2. Learn to cultivate `appropriate' political tactics

This principle reinforces the argument that althoughpolitics exists, the manner in which organizationalactors use politics determines whether or not the politi-cal arena is a healthy or unhealthy one. There areappropriate and inappropriate methods for using poli-tics. This distinction is illustrated in a simple way inTable 1, showing three alternative attitudes regardingpolitical behavior. Some individuals seem to eagerlyadopt political attitudes, particularly of a predatorynature. For them, politics becomes a game of careeradvancement regardless of the cost to their colleaguesor others unlucky enough to get in the way. Followingthe term developed by Lynch and Kordis [7], I havelabeled these individuals `sharks'. Their loyalty is tothemselves and political behavior is merely the expedi-ent means in pursuit of personal success.

The opposite extreme is characterized as being`naive' in its belief that politics is an unsavory practicethat is best avoided at all costs. Naive individuals viewpolitics as unappealing at the outset and make a ®rmresolution never to engage in any behavior that re-sembles political activity. Their goal is, in e�ect, toremain above the fray, not allowing politics in anyform to in¯uence their conduct. As project managers,they will under all circumstances refrain from engaging

in any activities that could smack of political behavioror the use of in¯uence tactics.

Since the purpose of all political behavior is todevelop and keep power, I believe that both the politi-cally naive and shark personalities are equally mis-guided and equally damaging to the likelihood ofproject implementation success. A project managerwho, either through naivete' or stubbornness, refusesto exploit the political arena is destined to be notnearly as e�ective in introducing the project as is aproject team leader who knows how to use politicse�ectively. On the other hand, project managers whoare so politicized as to appear predatory and aggres-sive to their colleagues are doomed to create an atmos-phere of such distrust and personal animus that thereis also little chance for successful project adoption.

Pursuing the middle ground of political sensibility isthe key to project implementation success. The processof developing and applying appropriate political tacticsmeans using politics as it can most e�ectively be used:as a basis for negotiation and bargaining. Politicallysensible managers understand that initiating any sortof organizational disruption or change due to develop-ing a new project is bound to reshu�e the distributionof power within the organization. That e�ect is likelyto make many departments and managers very ner-vous as they begin to wonder how the future power re-lationships will be rearranged. `Politically sensible'implies being politically sensitive to the concerns (realor imagined) of powerful stakeholder groups.Legitimate or not, their concerns about the new pro-ject are real and must be addressed. Appropriate pol-itical tactics and behavior include making allianceswith powerful members of other stakeholder depart-ments, networking, negotiating mutually acceptablesolutions to seemingly insoluble problems, and recog-nizing that most organizational activities are predi-cated on the give-and-take of negotiation andcompromise. It is through these uses of political beha-vior that managers of project implementation e�ortsput themselves in the position to most e�ectively in¯u-ence the successful introduction of their projects.

Table 1

Characteristics of political behavior

Characteristics Naive Sensible Sharks

Underlying Attitude ±

``Politics is....'' Unpleasant Necessary An opportunity

Intent Avoid at all costs Used to further project's goals Self-serving and predatory

Techniques Tell it like it is Network, expand connections, use

system to give and receive favors

Manipulation, use of fraud and deceit when

necessary

Favorite tactics None, the truth will win out Negotiation, bargaining Bullying, misuse of information, cultivate

and use ``friends'' and other contacts.


3.3. Understand and accept `WIIFM'

One of the hardest lessons for newcomers to organ-izations to internalize is the primacy of departmentalloyalties and self-interest over organization-wide con-cerns. There are many times when novice managerswill feel frustrated at the foot-dragging of otherdepartments and individuals to accept new ideas orsystems that are `good for them'. It is vital that thesemanagers understand that the beauty of a new projectis truly in the eyes of the beholder. One may be absol-utely convinced that a project will be bene®cial to theorganization, however, convincing members of otherdepartments of this truth is a di�erent matteraltogether.

We must understand that other departments, includ-ing project stakeholders, are not likely to o�er theirhelp and support of the project unless they perceivethat it is in their interests to do so. Simply assumingthat these departments understand the value of a pro-ject is simplistic and usually wrong. One of my col-leagues, Bob Graham, likes to refer to the principle of`WIIFM' when describing the reactions of stakeholdergroups to new innovations. `WIIFM' is an acronymwhich means `What's In It For Me?' This is the ques-tion most often asked by individuals and departmentswhen presented with requests for their aid. They areasking why they should support the process of imple-menting a new project. The worst response projectmanagers can make is to assume that the stakeholderswill automatically appreciate and value the project asmuch as they themselves do. Graham's point is thattime and care must be taken to use politics e�ectively,to cultivate a relationship with power holders, andmake the deals that need to be made to bring the sys-tem on-line. This is the essence of political sensibility:being level-headed enough to have few illusions aboutthe di�culties one is likely to encounter in attemptingto develop and implement a new project.

3.4. Try to level the playing ®eld

Functional line managers often view the initiation ofa new project with suspicion because of its potential toupset the power balance and reduce the amount ofauthority a line manager has with his or her sta�. Toa point, these concerns are understandable. A projectteam does, in fact, create an arti®cial hierarchy thatcould compete with the traditional line managers forresources, support, status, talented personnel andother scarce commodities. However, it is also clearthat organizational realities which mandate the needfor project managers and teams also need to set theseindividuals up with some degree of authority or statusto do their job most e�ectively.

I have previously suggested that authority and statustypically do not accrue to project managers in most or-ganizations. One approach to giving project managersa measure of status vis aÂ vis the formal functional hier-archy is to give them the ability to conduct perform-ance appraisals on their project team subordinates. Onthe surface, this suggestion seems to be simple com-mon sense and yet, it is often resisted in organizations.Line managers want to maintain their control oversubordinates through keeping sole right to this evalu-ation process and hence, may resist allowing projectmanagers this measure of equal footing. Nevertheless,it is a powerful tool because it sends the clear messagethroughout the company that projects are valuableand project contributions among team members willbe remembered and rewarded [8].

3.5. Learn the ®ne art of in¯uencing

How does a project manager succeed in establishingthe sort of sustained in¯uence throughout the organiz-ation that is useful in the pursuit of project-relatedgoals? A recent article [9] highlights ®ve methods man-agers can use for enhancing their level of in¯uencewith superiors, clients, team members and other stake-holders (see Table 2). They suggest that one powerfulmethod for creating a base of in¯uence is to ®rst estab-lish a reputation as an expert in the project that isbeing undertaken. This ®nding was born out inresearch on project manager in¯uence styles [5]. A pro-ject manager who is widely perceived as lacking anysort of technical skill or competency cannot commandthe same ability to use in¯uence as a power mechanismto secure the support of other important stakeholdersor be perceived as a true `leader' of the project team.One important caveat to bear in mind about thispoint, however, is that the label of `expert' is typicallya perceptual one. That is, it may or may not be basedin actual fact. Many of us are aware of project man-agers who cultivate the reputation as technical experts.Unfortunately, in many of these cases, when facedwith a true technical problem, the `expertise' that theyhave taken such pains to promote is shown to be woe-

Table 2

Five keys to establishing sustained in¯uence

. Develop a reputation as an expert

. Prioritize social relationships on the basis of work needs rather

than on the basis of habit or social preference

. Develop a network of other experts or resource persons who can

be called upon for assistance

. Choose the correct combination of in¯uence tactics for the

objective and the target to be in¯uenced

. In¯uence with sensitivity, ¯exibility, and solid communication

Source: Keys and Case [9].


fully inadequate, perhaps even obsolete. A reputationas an expert is very useful for gaining in¯uence: trulybeing an expert helps immeasurably with a projectmanager's credibility.

A second technique for establishing greater in¯uenceis to make a distinction between the types of relation-ships that we encounter on the job. Speci®cally, man-agers need to make conscious decisions to prioritizetheir relationships in terms of establishing close tiesand contacts with those around the company who canhelp them accomplish their goals, rather than on thebasis of social preference [9]. Certainly, there are per-sonality types and interest groups toward whom eachof us are more prone to gravitate. However, from theperspective of seeking to broaden their in¯uence abil-ity, project managers need to break the ties of habitand expand their in¯uence ability, project managersneed to break the ties of habit and expand their socialnetworks, particularly with regard toward those whocan be of future material aid to the project.

The third tactic for enhancing in¯uence is to net-work. As part of creating a wider social set composedof organizational members with the power or status toaid in the project's development, canny project man-agers will also establish ties to acknowledged expertsor those with the ability to provide scarce resourcesthe project may need during times of crisis. It is alwayshelpful to have a few experts or resource-providershandy during times of muni®cence. We never knowwhen we may need to call upon them, especially whenresources are lean.

A fourth technique for expanding in¯uence process:it only works when it is done well. In other words, forin¯uence to succeed, project managers seeking to usein¯uence on others must carefully select the tactic theyintend to employ. For example, many people who con-sider themselves adept at in¯uencing others preferface-to-face settings rather than using the telephone orleaving messages to request support. They know intui-tively that it is far harder than through an impersonalmedium. If the tactics that have been selected are notappropriate to the individual and the situation, in¯u-ence will not work.

Finally, and closely related to the fourth point, suc-cessful in¯uencers are socially sensitive, articulate, andvery ¯exible in their tactics. For example, in attempt-ing to in¯uence another manager through a face-to-face meeting, a clever in¯uencer seems to know intui-tively how best to balance the alternative methods forattaining the other manager's cooperation and help.The adept in¯uencer can often read the body languageand reactions of the `target' manager and may instinc-tively shift the approach in order to ®nd the argumentor in¯uence style that appears to have the best chanceof succeeding. Whether the approach selected employspure persuasion, ¯attery and cajolery, or use of guilt

appeals, successful in¯uencers are often those peoplewho can articulate their arguments well, read the non-verbal signals given o� by the other person, and tailortheir arguments and in¯uence style appropriately totake best advantage of the situation.

3.6. Develop your negotiating skills

An important aspect of almost every project man-ager's job involves negotiation. They are forced tonegotiate on a daily basis with a variety of organiz-ational members and external groups. Nevertheless,with the exception of some seasoned project managerswho have developed their skills the hard way, throughtrial and error, most project managers are inherentlyuncomfortable with the process. Further, because they®nd it distasteful, they have never sought to activelyimprove their negotiation skills or learn new tech-niques and approaches.

Negotiation is an often distasteful side-e�ect of theproject management process. All project managers, inorder to improve their in¯uence abilities, must honetheir negotiation skills. As part of this task, we need tolearn to recognize the tricks and ploys of our op-ponents who sit across the table from us. Once welearn to anticipate and recognize their techniques, itbecomes easier for us to develop appropriate re-sponses; that is, those with the greatest likelihood ofsucceeding. The key is to use a form of principlednegotiation [10] in which you search for fairness, Win-Win outcomes, and mutually acceptable solutions. Anegotiation is not an opportunity to take advantage ofthe other party. It is a chance to gain the best termspossible for your side while seeking to address theother party's interests as well. As such, all negotiationsshould be treated as long-term deals, whether or notthis is the case. When we recast a negotiation as a bar-gaining session between long-time colleagues, itchanges the dynamic from one of manipulation andcoercion to one of mutual problem-solving.

3.7. Recognize that con¯ict is a natural side-e�ect ofproject management

Many managers react to con¯ict with panic. Theyview any squabbling among team members as the ®rststep toward team disintegration and ultimate projectfailure. This response is natural and understandable;after all, it is their responsibility if the project fails. Asa result, the most common reactions to intra-team con-¯icts are to do everything possible to suppress or mini-mize the con¯ict, hoping that if it is ignored it will goaway [11]. Unfortunately, it almost never does.Con¯ict, left to fester beneath the surface, is simply aticking time bomb and will almost always go o� at theworst possible time later in the development process. If


willful ignorance does not work with con¯ict, whatdoes?

Project managers need to better understand thedynamics of the con¯ict process. In fact, we need torecognize con¯ict as progress [12]. The natural resultsof individuals from di�erent functional backgroundsworking together are professional tension and person-ality friction. In suggesting that project managersadopt a more sanguine attitude about con¯ict, I amnot arguing that all con¯ict should be ignored. Norwould I suggest that all con¯ict must be either immedi-ately suppressed or addressed. Instead, project man-agers need to use their discretion in determining howbest to handle these problems. There is no one bestmethod for dealing with con¯ict. Each situation mustbe dealt with as a unique and separate event.

4. Conclusions

Politics and project management are two processeswhich, while very di�erent, are also inextricably linked.No one can go far in project management withoutunderstanding just how far politics will take them intheir organization. It is in confronting their frequentfailures at getting their projects successfully im-plemented through traditional power means that mostmanagers are forced through expedience to adoptmethods for in¯uence and politics. These are not `bad'terms, in spite of the fact that the majority of man-agers in our organizations, 1) do not enjoy employingpolitical means to their ends, and 2) do not understandthe political processes very well. Too many of us havelearned about politics the hard way, through being vic-timized by someone who was cannier, more experi-enced or more ruthless than we were. Given that our®rst experiences with politics were often unpleasant, itis hardly surprising that many of us swore o� politicalbehavior.

For better of worse, project managers do not havethe luxury of turning their backs on organizationalpolitics. Too much of what they do depends upontheir ability to e�ectively manage not only the techni-cal realms of their job, but also the behavioral side aswell. Politics constitutes one organizational processthat is ubiquitous; that is, it operates across organiz-ations and functional boundaries. Political behavior isnot inherently evil or vicious; rather, it is only in how

it is employed that has earned it so much animosity.Successful project managers are keenly aware that poli-tics, used judiciously, can have an extraordinarily posi-tive impact on the implementation of their projects.

References

[1] Beeman DR, Sharkey TW. The use and abuse of corporate poli-

tics. Business Horizons 1987;36(2):26±30.

[2] Graham RJ. Personal communication, 1989.

[3] French JRP, Raven B. The bases of social power. In:

Cartwright D, editor. Studies in Social Power. Institute for

Studies Social Research: Ann Arbor, MI, 1959: p. 150±167.

[4] Goodman RM. Ambiguous authority de®nition in project man-

agement. Academy of Management Journal 1967;10:395±407.

[5] Thamhain HJ, Gemmill G. In¯uence styles of project managers:

some project performance correlates. Academy of Management

Journal 1974;17:216±24.

[6] Gandz J, Murray VV. Experience of workplace politics.

Academy of Management Journal 1980;23:237±51.

[7] Lynch D, Kordis PL. Strategy of the dolphin: scoring a win in

a chaotic world. New York: Morrow, 1988.

[8] Payne HJ. Introducing formal project management into a tra-

ditionally structured organization. International Journal of

Project Management 1993;11:239±43.

[9] Keys B, Case T. How to become an in¯uential manager.

Academy of Management Executive, 1990;IV(4):38±51.

[10] Fisher R, Ury W. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without

giving in. New York: Houghton Mi�in, 1981.

[11] Pinto JK, Kharbanda OP. Project management and con¯ict res-

olution. Project Management Journal 1995;26(4):45±54.

[12] Pinto JK, Kharbanda OP. Successful Project Managers:

Leading Your Team to Success. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold, 1995.

Je�rey K. Pinto is the Samuel A. and

Elizabeth B. Breene Fellow and

Associate Professor of Management

at Penn State ± Erie. He is the past

Editor of the Project Management

Journal and is current Editor of the

Project Management Institute's

Reprint Series. He has authored or

edited nine books and over 90

research articles, many on project

management and the implementation

of innovations in organizations. His

most recent book is the Project

Management Institute Project

Management Handbook published by Jossey-Bass (1998). In addition,

he has consulted widely with numerous Fortune 500 and inter-

national companies, on a variety of topics, including leadership, pro-

ject management, and information system development and

implementation.


understanding the role of politics in successful project management

Documents