Coping with lack of authority

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to identify and explore alternative coping strategies that may compensate for the limitations of weak governance structure in a product development project.Design/methodology/approachThe findings are based on a single case study, including interviews and documents, of a product development project that consists of two interlinked projects in a large multinational company.FindingsTwo distinct procedures are identified to cope and manage effectively when there are weak project governance structures. The first procedure is a horizontal process of operational consensus-seeking where conflicts between projects are negotiated and resolved through communication between independent actors such as two project managers who are at the same hierarchical level within the same organization. The second process is a vertical process of strategic escalation where issues that have failed to be resolved are shifted upwards to a new hierarchical level where a new round of operational consensus-seeking is attempted.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper complements the existing understanding of project governance with a project-as-practice perspective. Based on the findings the authors suggest that project governance needs to be nuanced in its understanding since a too-structured approach may in fact increase tensions in an organization.Practical implicationsPractical insights include how organizations may work with its project governance structures in order to avoid tensions. The authors suggest that, in particular, politically sensitive situations may be avoided by weak rather than strong governance structures.Social implicationsThe authors find that weak governance structures may be efficient for the organization, but harmful to personnel, who become too focused on the task at hand.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge very little research has been attributed to project governance from a practice approach. Moreover, most attention has been given to strong structures, thereby not examining the positive implications of weak structures.