ANZAM paper Leading People and Managing Things - Dayo Sowunmi II

of 19
Stream 12: Project Organising
Interactive Session
Leading People and Managing Things
Dayo Sowunmi II
The Anode Group, Melbourne, Australia
Email: dayo@anode.com.au

of 19
The author of this paper has observed a worryingly large number of common traits among failed
projects, in contrast with successful projects – the spin is on how they engage with their people and
teams. Several projects still fail because their people are not properly engaged.
This paper asserts that we lead people and manage things. It is dangerous to think we can
manage people. Based on studies by human behaviour experts, together with examples from the
author’s leadership experience, the paper expounds this assertion. The paper offers practical insights
and effective techniques to better understand oneself and team members, so as to develop high-
performing teams towards project success.
Keywords: Human capital dimensions of project, Value generation
HOW WE GOT HERE
Finding some people impossible to deal with at work? Struggling to keep your team motivated,
inspired, healthy and productive? It is widely acknowledged that people within a project are very
instrumental in the project’s outcome (Boehm, 2015; Chapman, 2012; DeMarco & Lister, 1999;
Palmer, 2016). People play a key role in how well or how badly a project is delivered. However,
several projects still fail because their people are not properly engaged.
What is a team? A group is a number of people, whereas a team is a group of people with
complementary skills, collaborating towards a common goal (Kets de Vries, 2011).
At the heart of this paper is the assertion that, we lead people and manage things – paraphrasing
Rear Admiral Grace Hopper (Johnson, 1982). It is dangerous to think we can manage people – we
cannot manage people, we lead people. This paper expounds this assertion through several studies on
human behaviour (Bartlett, 1926; Carnegie, 1936; de Bono, 1998; Kahneman, 2013; Kelly, 1955;
Lewin, Lippit & White, 1939), along with real-life examples from the author’s leadership experience.
People leadership is not an exact science. As Carnegie (1936, p. 33) reminds us, ‘when dealing
with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures
of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.’ As a result, Project
Leaders will benefit by gaining an understanding of human behaviour and psychology.
As Kets de Vries (2011, p. xv) observes and proffers,
Why do so many teams fail to live up to their promise? The answer lies in the
obstinate belief that human beings are rational entities. Many team designers

of 19
forget to take into account the subtle, out-of-awareness behaviour patterns that
are part and parcel of the human condition. Although teams are created as a
forum for achieving specific goals, the personality quirks and emotional life of
the various team members can cause deviations from the specified task. Indeed,
there is often a degree of naivety among an organisation’s leadership, who fail
to realise that a group dynamic can derail a scheduled direction, so that the
team’s real goals can deviate widely from its stated goals. Many people in
positions of leadership fail to appreciate the real complexity of teamwork.
Kets de Vries (2011, p. xv) continues by warning that if a team member’s fears, anxiety and
uncertainty go unaddressed there is a real risk that such individuals ‘will mobilise social defences to
protect themselves.’
To make sentences flow better in this paper, Project Leader and Project Manager are used
interchangeably, rather than repeating both roles each time. Typically, the same person plays both
roles concurrently within a project. The Project Leader focuses on the ‘people side’ and ‘soft skills.’
For example, the Project Leader finds effective ways to inspire and motivate team members, and
encourages team members to look after their physiological health (keeping hydrated, exercising and
getting enough sleep). On the other hand, the Project Manager focuses on the mechanics of delivering
the project, for instance, meeting deadlines, cutting costs and hitting targets.
The guiding principles for successful people leadership and engagement are the same, regardless
of the project delivery approach in use, e.g., waterfall, agile, hybrid etc. So, what do the foremost
project management methodologies say about people leadership and engagement?
PRINCE2® and PMBOK® are the foremost project management methodologies, with their
origins around the waterfall project delivery approach. With the agile delivery approach, the origin
dates back to 2001 (Agile Manifesto, 2001; Cockburn, 2001). In 2015, AXELOS, the publisher of the
PRINCE2 manual, introduced PRINCE2 Agile®, in light of the growing adoption of agile project
delivery. PRINCE2 Agile, as introduced in Axelos (2015), reinforces the concept of valuing
individuals and interactions over processes and tools, which is a key part of the Agile Manifesto.

of 19
The PRINCE2 project management methodology recognises the need to have the right people on
the project, with the relevant authority, responsibility and skills, to facilitate successful project
delivery (OGC, 2009). However, PRINCE2 does not pay much attention to the ‘people side’ and ‘soft
skills’ aspects of people leadership and engagement. To find such content by the Office of
Government Commerce (OGC), one has to refer to the manual for Program Managers, Managing
Successful Programmes (OGC, 2007). In the manual, the OGC highlights the view that ‘good leaders
engender trust through leading with consistency and transparency’ (p. 13). Further, the manual
continues that ‘Managers sometimes forget the obvious: stakeholders are people with feelings,
perceptions, desires and influence’ (p.48). The OGC is expressing a similar sentiment to the views
captured in the above quotes by Kets de Vries (2011) and Carnegie (1936), reminding us that people
are not creatures of logic. Such an approach is quite different from the more traditional PRINCE2 role
of Project Manager where the focus is more on the mechanics of project delivery, rather than the
human behaviour aspects. As this paper asserts, an understanding of human behaviour is arguably the
most critical element in developing high-performing teams. This assertion is supported in several
findings (Drucker, 2008; Duhigg, 2016; Goleman, 1995, 2004; Jones & Beyerlein, 2006; Shaw,
1997), together with the author’s experience.
OGC (2007) compares and contrasts leadership and management in some detail. One of the
several differences provided is that leadership concentrates on clarifying the ‘what’ and the ‘why.’ In
contrast, management focuses on the ‘how’ and the ‘when.’ Another distinction between leadership
and management is expressed by contrasting effectiveness with efficiency. According to Armstrong
(2014) effectiveness focuses on results rather than work. In contrast, efficiency focuses on
maximising the work throughput, hitting targets, meeting deadlines, cutting costs and so on.
Leadership is synonymous with effectiveness while management is synonymous with efficiency. As
(Sowunmi, 2015, p.44) notes, ‘efficiency is a good quality to have, however it could become a
dangerous limitation if it is the only focus. Effectiveness trumps efficiency.’
Human Resources Management (or preferably, people leadership) is one of the 10 Knowledge
Areas in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) in PMI (2013). As early as

of 19
the 1996 edition of the PMBOK Guide, Section 2.4 of the Guide highlights the importance of the
Project Manager being able to motivate and build the team, and manage conflict and stress. In section
9.3, the Guide includes Team Development as part of the Project Manager’s role. Specifically
emphasising the need for reward and recognition systems (noting the need for sensitivities around
cultural differences, for example where a team reward may be valued above an individual reward or
vice versa). Further, the need to have team-building activities and a preference for co-located teams
are included within the remit of the Project Manager’s role.
Project Stakeholder Management is introduced as the tenth Knowledge Area in the fifth and
current PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2013). This Knowledge Area deals with identifying stakeholders (i.e.,
people, groups and organisations that would be impacted as a result of the project), planning,
managing and controlling stakeholder engagement. Once again, the Project Manager (in their Project
Leader role) plays a pivotal part in people leadership and engagement.
Much has been written on the impacts of leadership styles on team dynamics and productivity.
Figure 1 illustrates findings by Bartlett (1926) indicating that a persuasive leadership style fosters a
friendly, group-focused work environment.
Figure 1 (on page 17)
Figure 2 shows results from Lewin, Lippit & White (1939) highlighting that a democratic
leadership style fosters high productivity, when the leader is present or absent.
HOW WE LEAD FROM HERE
As articulated by Katzenback and Smith (2015, p.xvii) ‘a high degree of personal commitment to
one another differentiates people on high-performance teams from people on other teams.’ Similarly,
Shaw (1997, p. xiii) candidly writes, ‘superior team performance is rarely found without high levels
of trust.’ More recently, such high levels of trust are still seen in high-performing teams. A study
conducted at Google, (Duhigg, 2016), is noteworthy primarily because of the serendipitous manner in
which the company discovered their ‘recipe’ for building high-performing teams.

of 19
In 2012, Google initiated Project Aristotle to conduct research into why some teams excelled and
others did not. The company assembled some of their best researchers, statisticians, sociologists,
engineers and organisational psychologists to find the secret formula behind their high-performing
teams. Google’s senior leadership believed the conventional wisdom that teams comprising the best
people, having similar interests outside work, would be high-performing. To avoid the views of their
senior leadership influencing the research findings, the Project Aristotle team started by reviewing
decades of academic studies to find out how teams worked. After reviewing and collecting data from
180 teams in the company, Project Aristotle was still unable to find any clear patterns as to why some
teams excelled and others did not. Factors such as gender balance, similar interests, personality types,
skillset, education and background, were not seen to foster high-performance.
After several dead-ends, the researchers within Project Aristotle noticed a recurring theme in the
psychology and sociology research they reviewed. ‘Group norms’ featured prominently in these
research findings. These norms were described as the written or unwritten rules and behaviour codes
that a team’s members share. The author has witnessed several group norms in teams, for example,
• it is frowned upon if someone interrupts when a team member is speaking,
• handwritten thank-you notes, collected in a box, and read aloud at team meetings,
specifically to show gratitude for something done by a member of the team, and
• a different team member bringing a snack to share with teammates each week.
Results from Project Aristotle were quite different than the conventional wisdom outcome that
the senior leadership had anticipated. Two distinct characteristics were seen among Google’s high-
performing teams. First, team members all spoke roughly in the same proportion, resulting in an
overall feeling of equity within the team. In fact, where one person or a small group spoke most of the
time, team performance dropped. Secondly, team members generally had high ‘social sensitivity,’
demonstrated by their ability to easily understand people’s tone of voice and facial expressions. As an
example, members of high-performing teams will tend to be good at recognising when someone is
feeling down, frustrated or genuinely happy. Possessing such ‘soft skills’ would be an asset when

of 19
working within a co-located team or in a close-knit work environment. There are facial expression
tests available online, for free, should the reader want to assess this aspect of their social sensitivity.
Both characteristics, i.e., equity and social sensitivity, underpin much of the concept of
psychological safety, defined in Edmondson (1999, p. 354) as ‘a sense of confidence that the team
will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up.’ Significantly, team psychological
safety ‘involves but goes beyond interpersonal trust; it describes a team climate characterised by
interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.’ (p. 354).
The author has seen an increase in the number of companies now encouraging their staff to ‘bring
their whole selves to work,’ in the spirit of inclusiveness and embracing diversity. A high level of
psychological safety contributes towards high-performance in teams.
In data collected over the past two decades Cross, Rebele & Grant (2016, n.p) found that ‘the
time spent by managers and employees in collaborative activities has ballooned by 50 percent or
more.’ Their findings indicate that several people spend about 80% of their day communicating with
colleagues. For better or worse, it appears we are increasingly spending more time with colleagues.
The Project Leader is well-served to recognise this trend and to engage team members to find out how
the trend impacts them. Further, the Project Leader must be bold enough to take corrective action to
buck, or boost, the trend, whichever action is required in the team’s best interest.
Closely linked to the concept of psychological safety is the willingness to cultivate high-
performance by empowering team members. As McAdams (1996, p. 4) highlights, ‘if organisations
want to maximise the return on their investment, they must have the courage to unleash the creative
energy of employees, enabling them to become contributing stakeholders.’ More than just an end in
itself, the goal of such creative energy is to deliver value and results.
Lencioni (2002, p.224) supports the emphasis on results, writing that ‘the ultimate test of a great
team is results.’ Pink (2011) goes further, referring to a Results-Only Work Environment, ROWE,
where the focus is on results rather than a rigid schedule of working hours. What matters most is the
value the team delivers, not the hours consumed. To clarify, the author is not advocating for long
working hours, on the contrary, as mentioned in this paper, physical and mental wellbeing (e.g., sleep,

of 19
exercise, hydration etc.) are the cornerstone of high-performing teams and individuals. We live in a
time where the concept of a work environment has changed from having partitioned offices, to now
where team members often work remotely and virtually. While it is important to build a healthy group
dynamic, the Project Leader also acknowledges that some team members will do their best work
outside of the normal business day.
In the words of Durant (1926), summing up a thought by Aristotle, the ancient Greek
philosopher, ‘we are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.’ For the
Project Leader building a team of excellence and high-performance, this simple, yet profound,
principle gives an indication of what is involved. How has the reader applied this principle with teams
and in the work environment?
Tuckman (1965) offers a model for group development, explaining the progression through the
four stages of forming-storming-norming-performing. The model is later expanded with a fifth stage,
adjourning, (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). The adjourning stage is particularly relevant in a project
context, seeing as teams typically adjourn (disband) upon project completion. Sowunmi (2015) offers
practical actions the entire team can take to help deal with the sense of loss at project closure.
Applying Aristotle’s principle, the author argues that there is an advantage in having teams that
have long worked together. However, it is common with projects that the team is often working
together for the first time, introducing a significant challenge for the Project Leader. Given this
challenge, how does the Project Leader instil a habit of excellence where team members have not
previously worked together?
In dealing with this challenge within real-life scenarios, the author applies a number of practical
techniques from the onset. Four of these techniques are described here, and serve towards creating a
results-only work environment as the team is being formed.
First, the author discusses the ‘why’ so that all team members understand and appreciate the
rationale for undertaking the project. Team members are encouraged to ask questions and fully
participate in the discussion.

of 19
Second is to portray to the team a very clear image of the project’s desired outcome, value and
benefits. On one occasion several years ago the author was managing a software delivery project, and
was fortunate to have the leading software developers from the organisation on the team. For
compliance reasons there was a hard date to meet. As a result, the author knew they somehow had to
persuade the team to focus on delivering an acceptable solution, which may not necessarily be the
most superior solution, i.e., utility rather than complexity. As de Bono (1988, p.262) remarks, ‘errors
are not acceptable but the search for ultimate perfection may add more complexity than it is worth.’
The author came up with this analogy: we are building a simple, yet elegant, car rather than a luxury
car – a Holden Barina rather than a Rolls Royce. To the author’s surprise and delight, the next day,
there was a printed photo of a red Holden Barina (convertible) taped to the wall of the project team
room. A team member had used their initiative and put up the photo as a constant reminder to the
team – to remain focused on what we are building. The team readily embraced the concept of building
a simple, practical solution, probably because the photo idea came from a team member – rather than
the author trying to lord it over them.
Third is to begin establishing the team’s ‘ways of working’ including ideas for ‘group norms’
suggested by team members, to better understand what is important for the team as individuals and
collectively as a team. Topics discussed during the ‘ways of working’ sessions often include the
following: how often the team will meet, purpose and types of meetings, team celebrations,
expectation of minimum and maximum work hours per day/week, reinforcing the need to maintain
healthy physical and mental wellbeing (keeping hydrated, exercising and getting enough sleep), and
making sufficient time for personal and family commitments.
Fourth, and often the most powerful, is working collaboratively with the team in those formative
stages to collectively create personas and profiles of real or imagined customers. By creating customer
personas the team members are building empathy for the customer. The goal is for team members to
see things from the customer’s perspective, thus increasing the likelihood of delivering value-add
solutions that would be more readily accepted by the customer. For example, with a project set out to
launch a food-delivery service, part of one persona could be: Cynthia Cyclist, a 30 year old Business

of 19
Analyst who cycles to work daily. Cynthia works 40-50 hours a week and goes to the gym two nights
per week. Cynthia likes to eat healthy food but is often too busy to cook when she gets home. To make
Cynthia more real to the team, the team finds a photo of what they believe Cynthia looks like, and
affixes the photo on the wall if the team is co-located. Where the team is geographically dispersed, the
photo is made visible in the team’s shared online environment (e.g., using applications like JIRA,
Slack, Asana, Basecamp or similar collaboration tools). This exercise is repeated a few times to create
a handful of personas.
Playing psychologist?
Project Leaders face some challenges in the quest to maintain team members’ motivation levels
and inspire team members as they deliver projects. As a result, the Project Leader is often a quasi-
psychologist with their team members. The main similarity between Project Leader and Psychologist
lies in the attempt to better understand what is going on in someone else’s head (Sowunmi, 2015).
This section suggests a practical technique, grounded in human psychology, for the Project
Leader to better understand team members. Seeing as people leadership is not an exact science, the
Project Leader will benefit from gaining an understanding of human behaviour and psychology.
How well the team works together largely depends on how the Project Leader appreciates the
often subtle psychological differences between team members. In the author’s experience team
members respond best when they feel they are being heard and understood, rather than being
‘managed’ like just another resource in a project schedule. This pitfall is more evident where
‘business’ people from a company’s operations area are seconded onto the project, as they may be
unfamiliar with the nuances of project execution and, frankly, would rather be doing their regular job
instead.
How does the Project Leader find out what is going on inside their team members’ heads? By
just asking? Where the Project Leader is fortunate enough that a team member says exactly what they
are thinking, the former needs to be careful not to fall into the common ‘observer bias’ trap, where
one’s frame of reference distorts the interpretation of what someone else is saying.

of 19
The challenge here is two-fold. First is to be aware that the trap exists, and second is to avoid
falling into the trap. Further, Kahneman (2013, p.54) notes that in addition to words influencing our
behaviour, ‘simple, common gestures can also unconsciously influence our thoughts and feelings.’
Observer bias has received considerable attention in the field of psychology (Choi & Nisbett, 1998;
Eisen, 1979; Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Storms, 1973). This is no surprise, seeing as psychologists
routinely engage in dialogue with clients, and endeavour to maintain an unbiased view of their clients’
behaviour, comments and demeanour.
Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955) offers the repertory grid technique that can be applied
to overcome observer bias. According to personal construct theory, each person tries to understand the
world, and anticipate future events, by developing internal mental models called constructs. Each
person’s constructs will often change and stabilise as they gain experience and evidence through life.
As the Project Leader interacts with team members, it is important for the former to identify
where their mental models may differ from those of the latter. Realising such differences helps the
Project Leader better understand team members and their attendant idiosyncrasies.
What your team members are really thinking
The repertory grid technique was designed and used in the attempt to gain an unbiased insight
into an individual’s personality. The author is not suggesting the technique be used directly on project
team members, however, understanding how the technique works will assist the Project Leader better
understand what team members are really thinking, i.e., the latter’s personal constructs.
The original application of the repertory grid involved the following steps.
1. Interviewer asks interviewee to identify a number of people in their life, usually about 10,
known as elements (e.g., partner, sister, least-liked person, favourite colleague, etc.)
2. Interviewer randomly selects three elements, known as a triad
3. Interviewer asks interviewee to identify a way in which two of the elements are similar to
each other, and thereby different from the third element.
This is known as a construct. For instance, using a triad of the following three elements:

of 19
• partner
• favourite colleague
• least-liked person
The interviewee may identify the construct ‘fun – stays at home’ to distinguish their partner and
favourite colleague from the person they like the least. In other words, the interviewee has grouped
the two people identified as their partner and favourite colleague as ‘fun’ while the third person in the
triad (identified as the least-liked person) is classified as ‘stays at home.’
1. Interviewer asks interviewee to rank all the remaining people identified earlier as elements,
along the construct using a scale usually of 1 to 5, where 1 is positive and 5 is negative. As a
result, the interviewee ranks all 10 elements on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represents ‘fun’
and 5 represents ‘stays at home.’
2. Interviewer randomly selects another three elements and the process is repeated until
interviewee has identified as many constructs as possible.
Figure 3 illustrates the technique showing two constructs only, ‘fun - stays at home’ and ‘friendly
- arrogant.’ Each construct shows a contrast comprising two opposing poles, rather than a direct
opposite.
In this example the opposing pole to ‘fun’ is ‘stays at home’, rather than what one may have
expected, such as boring or dull. Similarly, the opposing pole to ‘friendly’ is ‘arrogant.’ This
illustrates a key premise of personal construct theory that opposing poles are in contrast rather than
direct opposites. In other words, the interviewee here is subtly indicating that they consider people
who stay home to be the ‘opposite’ of fun, and people who are arrogant are the ‘opposite’ of friendly.
By focusing on the constructs a team member uses when contrasting things during conversation,
the Project Leader is able to obtain an unbiased view. Such an unbiased view provides insights about
the former, for example, what is going on in their head, what they consider important, how they like

of 19
to work, how they like to be rewarded, whether or not they like public recognition for their
achievements, and so on.
In this example a possible implication is that the interviewee likes people who go out and
probably likes going out too. Therefore when organising a one-on-one meeting, the Project Leader
may hold the meeting at a location outside the office building, in keeping with this team member’s
construct. The author is not suggesting that meetings would never be held in the office. Some team
members may prefer the familiarity and comfort of the office. The key is to be aware of team
members’ subtle differences in personality and cater for everyone, as much as realistically possible.
The repertory grid technique may not be a perfect fit for all situations. That comes as no surprise,
as people leadership is not an exact science. However, the technique offers value in minimising
observer bias and in understanding team members better. Several texts provide more details on the
repertory grid technique, including Fransella, Bell & Bannister (2004) and Gaines & Shaw (1993).
CONCLUSION
This paper focused on the ‘people side’ and ‘soft skills’ required in project leadership. The paper
presented how to better understand oneself and team members, so as to develop high-performing
teams towards project success.
The author hopes that the studies, real-life examples and practical techniques presented in this
paper will serve to dramatically reduce the occurrence of failed projects, by reaffirming the assertion
that we lead people and manage things - we cannot manage people. Indeed it is dangerous to think we
can manage people.

of 19
References
Agile Manifesto (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development, www.agilemanifesto.org
Armstrong, M. (2014). How to be an Even Better Manager. London, UK, Kogan Page.
Axelos (2015). PRINCE2 Agile. Norwich, UK, The Stationery Office.
Bartlett, F.C. (1926). The social psychology of leadership, Journal of the National Institute of
Industrial Psychology. 3, 188-193.
Boehm, C. (2015). Successful Projects Require The Right People. PM Times. Retrieved June, 28,
2016, from https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/successful-projects-require-the-right-
people.html
Chapman, D. (2012). 5 Essential Elements Of A Successful Project. PM Times. Retrieved June, 28,
2016, from https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/5-essential-elements-of-a-successful-
project.html
Choi, I. & Nisbett, R. (1998). Situational Salience and Cultural Differences in the Correspondence
Bias and Actor-Observer Bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 24 (9), 949-960.
Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile Software Development. Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley.
Cross, R., Rebele, R. & Grant, A. (2016). Collaborative Overload. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved April 20, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2016/01/collaborative-overload
de Bono, E. (1998). Simplicity. Middlesex, UK, Penguin Group.
DeMarco, T. & Lister, T. (1999). Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams (Second Edition). New
York, NY, Dorset House Publishing Company.
Drucker, P.F. (2008). Managing Oneself. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Publishing
Corporation.
Duhigg, C. (2016). What Google Learned From Its Quest To Build The Perfect Team. The New York
Times Magazine. Retrieved April, 20, 2016, from

of 19
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-
the-perfect-team.html?_r=0
Durant, W. (1926). The Story of Philosophy: the Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers.
New York, Simon & Schuster.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behaviour in Work Teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 350-383.
Eisen, S.V. (1979). Actor–observer differences in information inference and causal attribution.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (2), 261-272.
Fransella, F., Bell, R. & Bannister, D. (2004). A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. Chichester,
UK, Wiley.
Gaines, B.R. & Shaw, M. L. G. (1993). Knowledge acquisition tools based on personal construct
psychology. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 8 (1), 49-85.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY,
Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2004). What Makes a Leader? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved September, 24,
2014, from https://hbr.org/2004/01/what-makes-a-leader/ar/1
Johnson, S. (1982). Grace Hopper – A Living Legend. All Hands – Magazine of the U.S. Navy, 788,
2-6.
Jones, E. & Nisbett, R. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of
behaviour. New York, NY, General Learning Press.
Jones, S.D. & Beyerlein, M.M. (2006). Developing High-Performance Work Teams. Alexandria, VA,
Association for Talent Development.
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY, Farrah, Straus and Giroux.
Katzenback, J.R. & Smith, D.K. (2015). The Wisdom of Teams. Boston, MA, Harvard Business
Review Press.

of 19
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York, NY, Norton.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2011). The Hedgehog Effect: The Secrets of Building High Performance
Teams. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally
created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology. 10, 271-301.
McAdams, J.L. (1997). The Reward Plan Advantage. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
OGC (2007). Managing Successful Programmes. Norwich, UK, The Stationery Office.
OGC (2009). Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2. Norwich, UK, The Stationery Office.
Palmer, E. (2016). Five Factors That Lead to Successful Projects. Retrieved June, 28, 2016, from
http://project-management.com/five-factors-that-lead-to-successful-projects/
Pink, D.H. (2011). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. New York, NY, Riverhead
Books.
PMI (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) Fifth Edition.
Newtown Square, PA, Project Management Institute, Inc.
Shaw, R.B. (1997). Trust in the Balance. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Sowunmi, D. (2015). Leadership Is Mental: How to Excel as a Project Leader. Seattle, WA,
CreateSpace.
Storms, M. (1973). Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actors' and observers' points of
view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 27 (2), 165-175.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin. 63 (6),
384-399.
Tuckman, B.W. & Jensen, M.A. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group
Organization Management. 2, 419-427.

of 19
Figure 1: Bartlett (1926) - Leadership Styles and Group Dynamic

of 19
Figure 2: Lewin, Lippit & White (1939) - Leadership Styles and Productivity

of 19
Figure 3: The Repertory Grid

ANZAM paper Leading People and Managing Things - Dayo Sowunmi II

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (18)

Semelhante a ANZAM paper Leading People and Managing Things - Dayo Sowunmi II

Semelhante a ANZAM paper Leading People and Managing Things - Dayo Sowunmi II (20)

Mais de Dayo Sowunmi II, GAICD

Mais de Dayo Sowunmi II, GAICD (7)

Último

Último (20)

ANZAM paper Leading People and Managing Things - Dayo Sowunmi II