Abstract
This article outlines key insights from a research project investigating tolerance of ambiguity (TOA) in project managers, funded by the Project Management Institute. The main objective of this project was to explore how project managers experience and deal with ambiguous situations in their projects. Three separate but interrelated studies were conducted: (1) to identify types of ambiguous situations in projects, (2) to explore how project managers experience and deal with ambiguous situations, and (3) to examine individual, organizational, and situational conditions affecting TOA. A mixed methods approach was used to collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data from project managers using interviews and a longitudinal survey. The key outcomes from this research project include: (1) a catalog of ambiguous situations in projects, (2) greater insights into individual, organizational, and situational conditions affecting TOA, and (3) a training program, which provides tools, recommendations, and actionable strategies to assist project managers in dealing with complexities and ambiguities in their projects.
Table of Contents
Abstract
Project Objectives
Literature Review
Tolerance of Ambiguity
Unpacking TOA Traits and States
Ambiguities in Projects
Methodology
Study 1 Findings
Study 2 Findings
Project Managers’ Perceptions of Ambiguities in Projects
Managing Ambiguities in Projects
Study 3 Findings
Practical Recommendations
Mobilizing Organizational Resources
References
About the Authors
Project Objectives
The following five project objectives were achieved in this research:
1. Identify and catalog types of ambiguous situations in projects.
2. Explore how project managers experience and deal with ambiguous situations.
3. Confirm that accepting ambiguity in projects results in positive outcomes.
4. Determine individual, organizational, and situational conditions affecting TOA.
5. Develop a training program for project managers to enhance their ability to manage ambiguity where appropriate.
Literature Review
The project management literature is increasingly recognizing the role of “soft” competencies in explaining the successes and failures of project managers. For example, project managers’ personality traits (Creasy & Anantatmula, 2013) and their intellectual, managerial, and emotional competences (Müller & Turner, 2010; Stevenson & Starkweather, 2010; Rezvani et al., 2016) have all been linked to project success and been found to contribute more to project success than “technical skills” such as planning or scheduling (Lloyd-Walker & Walker, 2011; Gray & Ulbrich, 2017). More recently, tolerance of ambiguity (TOA) has been recognized as a highly desirable personality trait in project managers (Gray & Ulbrich, 2017).
Tolerance of Ambiguity
TOA is defined as the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable (Budner, 1962). An ambiguous situation is one in which partial or incomplete information exists, affecting effective decision making. This incomplete or lack of information often evokes negative emotions such as stress or anxiety and can have long-term consequences on job satisfaction and burnout. The ability to effectively recognize and manage ambiguous situations is seen as an important competency of successful leaders and useful project managers.
Research on TOA has demonstrated that TOA is not actually a single competency, but instead is best conceptualized as a set of related abilities that are differentially related to successful outcomes (Lauriola et al., 2015; O'Connor et al., 2017). According to O'Connor et al. (2018), TOA is comprised of three dimensions:
Comfort with ambiguity reflects the extent to which individuals remain calm and composed when confronted with ambiguity and uncertainty. High scorers on this dimension retain composure in volatile situations and do not tend to experience stress or anxiety easily.
Desire for challenging work reflects the extent to which individuals seek out novelty and challenge in their duties. High scorers on this dimension are highly creative individuals who tend to experience boredom when required to perform mundane tasks.
Managing uncertainty reflects the extent to which individuals can navigate uncertainty when it occurs. High scorers on this dimension are good at planning, drawing from their networks, and problem-solving.
Our research explored these three dimensions of TOA to examine project managers’ attitudes in relation to ambiguity.
Unpacking TOA Traits and States
An important distinction in the current proposal is the difference between personality traits and personality states. Personality traits can be defined as relatively stable patterns in thoughts, feeling, behaviors, and attitudes (Anglim & O'Connor, 2018). On the contrary, personality states can be defined as more temporary feelings and behaviors. This distinction is a major focus of the Whole Trait Theory (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2014), which forms much of the theoretical foundation for this research. For example, a project manager can be described as being high in trait TOA when they frequently engage in behaviors characterized by being tolerant of ambiguity (e.g., risk taking, meeting new people). Having low levels of TOA does not mean that project managers are not capable of accepting and effectively managing ambiguity. It means that those project managers are less likely to enact TOA. In the current research program, we sought to understand when and how project managers can enact TOA where appropriate, and what individual, organizational, and situational factors influence TOA in project managers.
Ambiguities in Projects
TOA has been identified as one of the most important competencies of successful project managers (Hagen & Park, 2013; Gray & Ulbrich, 2017). The importance of this competency makes sense considering that project managers perform their work in the context of high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty. When people see uncertainty as an opportunity, rather than a threat, research indicates they are more likely to utilize their creativity and make better decisions (Furnham & Marks, 2013). Similarly, Gray and Ulbrich (2017) found that project managers high in TOA have confidence in their abilities to remedy the situation, to better deal with unknowns and changes, and have greater ability to take control and lead others through uncertainty. In the broader management literature, ambiguity acceptance has been identified as an important competence that differentiates effective from ineffective leaders (O'Connor et al., 2017).
Several studies have explored the types of uncertainty and ambiguity experienced by project managers; however, most of these have focused on a narrow range of projects or on specific project contexts, such as in the context of research and development (R&D) projects (Sicotte & Bourgault, 2008) or the context of strategic alliances (Kumar, 2014). The most relevant paper exploring the types of ambiguities and uncertainties in projects was the outcome of a series of discussions held by project management experts in the United Kingdom from 2004–2006 (Atkinson et al., 2006). Building off these discussions, the authors identified three broad categories of project uncertainties, including uncertainties related to cost and duration of project activities, uncertainties related to project parties (i.e., the motivation, relatability, and ability of relevant project stakeholders), and uncertainties related to stages in the project life cycle. Atkinson et al. (2006) attempted to provide a more comprehensive account of uncertainties in projects and listed six or more specific sources of ambiguity for each of the broad categories (see Atkinson et al., 2006 for details). While Atkinson et al.'s (2006) article provides a good starting point for a more thorough understanding of the sources of ambiguity and uncertainty in projects, its nonempirical methods limit the extent to which suggested sources can be considered comprehensive. Furthermore, being conducted more than 15 years ago, the Atkinson et al. (2006) article plausibly misses common forms of ambiguity that have emerged since that time (in terms of ambiguity associated with technology, communication software, etc). The limited existing literature on ambiguity in projects may not provide a complete account of the types, frequency, and outcomes of ambiguity experienced by current project managers.
Our literature review search on ambiguities in projects uncovered that existing research is limited and provides an incomplete account of the types, frequency, and outcomes of ambiguous situations experienced by project managers. There is also limited research that provides specific and actionable strategies to project managers on managing ambiguous situations in their projects.
Methodology
We conducted three separate, but thematically interrelated studies to identify types of ambiguous situations in projects, explore how project managers experience and deal with ambiguous situations, and examine the individual, organizational, and situational conditions affecting TOA. Ethical clearance was obtained to collect qualitative and quantitative data.
| Study 1 | • The purpose was to identify and catalog ambiguous situations in projects. |
| • Survey participants included project managers from the United States who were recruited in January 2020 using the Qualtrics Panel. | |
| • Participants were asked to describe an ambiguous situation they encountered in their project in the last 7 days. | |
| • There were 778 ambiguous situations analyzed from a sample of 312 project managers (56.4% females). | |
| • Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to catalog types of ambiguous situations that project managers experience when managing projects. |
| Study 2 | • There were 18 semistructured interviews with project managers conducted to explore how they experience and deal with ambiguous situations. |
| • Interview participants had experiences managing projects in a range of industry sectors, including finance, asset management, education, construction, information technology, and oil and gas. | |
| • The interview data were transcribed and uploaded to NVivo 12 software for coding and analysis. | |
| • A mix of deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the interview data (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Eisenhardt, 1989; Braun & Clarke, 2006). |
| Study 3 | • The purpose was to examine individual, organizational, and situational conditions affecting TOA and its outcomes. |
| • There were 275 project managers recruited from the United States using Qualtrics Panel who were invited to complete five weekly surveys. | |
| • The analysis examined: (1) within-person changes of TOA overtime; (2) relationships between TOA and three outcomes (project managers’ well-being, project managers’ individual performance, and project success); and (3) individual factors within project managers (e.g., mood, emotional control) and organizational factors (e.g., leadership, culture) that impact ambiguity acceptance within project managers. |
Study 1 Findings
Our study identified seven main categories of ambiguous situations and 17 subthemes, outlined in Table 1. Most of the ambiguities that project managers experienced in their projects stemmed from task complexity. These ambiguities accounted for 36.65% of all situations in our data set. This was followed by ambiguities associated with core aspects of project management such as managing project progress, project resources, and project scope, totaling 135 (19.18%) ambiguous situations in our data set. The third most frequent type of ambiguity experienced by project managers was ambiguity associated with managing stakeholders, totaling 129 (18.33%) situations.
Table 1. Types, Examples, and Frequencies of Ambiguities in Projects
Results from a series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed that project managers tend to be effective in managing ambiguous situations stemming from task complexity and ambiguities associated with mistakes and errors. However, they are less confident when dealing with ambiguities associated with managing people. Our study revealed that project managers are less effective when dealing with ambiguities associated with managing stakeholders’ expectations, dealing with unreliable suppliers, or obtaining information from stakeholders or team members. These findings suggest opportunities for training and development for project managers to focus on developing the soft skills needed to effectively manage and communicate with project stakeholders.
Study 2 Findings
Study 2 explored project managers’ experiences of TOA in terms of their comfort with ambiguity, their desire for challenging work, and managing uncertainty (O'Connor et al., 2018).
Project Managers’ Perceptions of Ambiguities in Projects
Analysis of the interview data indicated that the majority of project managers are comfortable when facing ambiguity. The overall sentiments of project managers’ perceptions about their comfort with ambiguity are well captured in the following quote: “Ambiguity is part of project work, and if you are not comfortable with ambiguity then this work is not for you” (PM_11). Project managers reported they felt less comfortable with ambiguous situations when the situation is beyond their level of influence, is outside of their expertise, or when it impacts the project's progress or needs quick resolution. There was some evidence suggesting that project managers’ personal characteristics, such as their past experiences, openness to new experiences, and drive to learn, positively influenced their comfort with ambiguity.
A vast majority of the project managers interviewed admitted they feel excited about the opportunity to solve ambiguous and challenging problems, but they prefer to engage in both types of activities: complex and simple. Project managers stated that doing complex tasks all the time is draining and increases feelings of burnout and exhaustion. Being occasionally exposed to more simple tasks gives them some downtime to recharge and reflect. Project managers admitted that they desire challenging tasks because they provide an opportunity to learn and grow, which makes their work interesting. They enjoy problem-solving and get excited when they can form solutions on the fly (PM_2), even when all of the information is not yet known. Project managers revealed that dealing with challenging tasks brings a great level of satisfaction and reward when they are resolved.
Managing Ambiguities in Projects
All of the participants agreed that actively seeking clarifying information helps them more effectively deal with an ambiguous situation. Participants actively searched for information using various means: analytical tool sets, talking, researching, reading, referring to experiences and lessons learned from fellow project managers, peer networks, and reaching out to others. Two strategies in particular were used by project managers to access relevant information needed to solve ambiguous situations in their projects: network use and transparent communication.
Data from interviews demonstrated that successful project managers knew how to access and engage their networks to find relevant information that helps them deal with complexities in their projects. This involved finding the right people with knowledge, listening, observing, shadowing more experienced project managers, and talking to people to find out more about the situation and ways to solve it.
Project managers use their empathy and social awareness to build networks and create a trusting environment in which stakeholders and team members are encouraged to open up and share information needed to solve complex situations in projects. Project managers talked about the importance of creating a trusting environment that encourages transparency and makes people feel comfortable to express their opinions, admit shortcomings, or confess that there are things they do not know.
Furthermore, our data demonstrated that project managers who were able to engage in higher-order thinking were more effective in dealing with ambiguities in projects. In particular, project managers used roadmaps, diagrams, and drawings to build a visual plan and better understand the situation. These visual representations of the situation helped them divide complexities of the situation into more manageable pieces that they could use to visualize, rethink, and anticipate. These visuals assisted in sensemaking and bringing clarity to an otherwise complex and messy situation.
Analysis from the interviews revealed that not only an individual's skills and abilities were required to manage ambiguities, but also the organizational environment project managers were in. Three aspects of the organizational environment—supportive leaders, learning culture, and time and space to evaluate ambiguous situations—were most important for project managers to tackle ambiguity.
Study 3 Findings
The purpose of study 3 was to test a model of drivers and outcomes of situational TOA (i.e., the extent to which project managers accept and tolerate ambiguity in specific situations). The model is illustrated in Figure 1.
To test this model, we recruited 275 project managers from the United States and requested they complete five surveys each relating to a distinct ambiguous situation. In each survey, we looked at whether factors specific to each situation (i.e., state problem-focused coping, state creativity, situational leader support) impacted TOA in each situation. We also looked at whether situational TOA then impacted a range of project outcomes (positive affect, individual project manager performance, and project progress). Definitions of these factors are included in Table 2.
Our analysis provided good support for our proposed model. All three proposed drivers (see Figure 1) were found to increase the likelihood that project managers would accept ambiguity in specific ambiguous situations. Furthermore, we found that when project managers were accepting of ambiguity in specific situations, they were more likely to experience positive affect, perform their job well, and make positive progress on the core project they were involved in. Our results are particularly important for practice because, as we outline below, they suggest that TOA is something that project managers have control over, and that there are relatively simple things they can do to be more accepting of ambiguity.
Figure 1. Drivers and outcomes of situational TOA in project managers.
Table 2. Definitions of TOA Drivers and Outcomes
Practical Recommendations
Our studies identified three capabilities that can assist project managers in dealing with ambiguous situations: (1) mastering knowledge and information-seeking capability, (2) mastering emotional capability, and (3) mastering problem-focused coping.
Mastering knowledge and information-seeking capability involves accessing relevant knowledge and information at the right time to better understand and deal with the challenging situation. We identified two specific practices that project managers can use to strengthen their abilities in this domain: Tapping into their networks and encouraging transparent communication.
Tapping into networks involves developing and utilizing the knowledge and expertise of others in order to deal with challenging situations. We recommend that project managers engage in a range of activities such as connecting with diverse experts or relevant stakeholders to seek more information about the situation and using their networks as a sounding board to bounce ideas off and assist with brainstorming solutions to potential problems.
Encouraging transparent communication involves engaging in honest and transparent communication, which will help obtain clarifying information and reveal issues that may arise during projects. We recommend that project managers encourage, whenever possible, face-to-face interactions with their key stakeholders, provide honest and constructive feedback to team members and relevant stakeholders, and show interest by listening to the other person without interrupting. We provide more specific and actionable recommendations in the training manual for managing complexities and ambiguities we designed for project managers.
Our findings revealed that project managers deal more effectively with task-related ambiguities compared to people-related ambiguities. Ambiguities related to “people issues” were most challenging for project managers, and many admitted that they tend to struggle when dealing with issues related with managing stakeholders and internal human resources.
Mastering emotional capability can help project managers recognize and modify emotions in themselves and others and can help them more effectively deal with ambiguities they experience in projects. We identified two specific aspects that can help project managers in strengthening their emotional capability to deal with challenges in projects, especially those related to managing people.
Practicing emotional regulation can help project managers remain calm and composed when faced with a challenging situation, even if the situation triggers negative feelings such as stress or anger. Identifying these emotions and understanding their sources can help project managers better respond to challenging situations.
Practicing empathy is an integral aspect of emotional intelligence (EI). Understanding others through practicing empathy can assist project managers in being more sensitive toward others and better communicating by identifying their emotional cues through active listening and greater awareness of their surroundings.
Our training manual for managing complexities and ambiguities provides a list of specific practices that can help project managers better cope with stressful situations in their projects and more effectively communicate with others.
Mastering problem-focused coping involves using a range of techniques to process, simplify, and visualize complex information.
A useful tool that helps visually unpack a complex situation is a mind-mapping technique. A mind map provides a visual diagram that captures, organizes, and links components of the situation, which helps understand root causes of problems, factors affecting ambiguous situations, and options for solving such situations. There are easy-to-use and free-to-access mind mapping tools available online (e.g., https://www.mindmup.com/).
Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007) is another useful tool that helps manage ambiguity by categorizing and reflecting upon complex situations. It categorizes complexities according to four “domains”: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic contexts. Simple contexts are easily discernible and apparent to everyone involved. Complicated contexts tend to have several root causes and a number of possible solutions, which may not be apparent to everyone. Complex contexts are those for which the most effective solution is difficult to identify and may require project managers to make decisions based on incomplete data or information. Chaotic contexts are situations that resemble dealing with crises or emergencies. Using the Cynefin framework can help project managers to assess, categorize, and respond to ambiguous situations more systematically and effectively. Our training manual explains how these techniques can be used to evaluate and manage ambiguous situations in projects.
Mobilizing Organizational Resources
Our analysis identified three organizational resources that can help project managers embrace and more effectively deal with challenging and ambiguous situations in their projects: (1) leadership support, (2) learning culture, and (3) time and space to explore ambiguous situations.
Findings from the interviews and survey consistently demonstrated that leadership support is an important resource for project managers that helps them build tolerance for ambiguity (TOA). Support from leaders instills psychological safety and the confidence to act upon ambiguity in project managers. Learning culture provides an environment in which project managers feel safe to share knowledge, take risks, and experiment. Such an environment has been found to support experimenting, sharing knowledge, and risk taking, in which project managers can be more effective when dealing with ambiguities. Our research also revealed that time and space are required to properly explore ambiguous situations, find out relevant information to reduce ambiguity, and evaluate the most appropriate ways to deal with the ambiguity. Project environments are fast-paced, and decisions have to be made quickly. In such environments, there is not much time for project managers to evaluate complex and ambiguous situations, which in turn affects their effectiveness in dealing with ambiguity. Our research demonstrated that such time investment can be beneficial and may help avoid problems in the long term. Our training manual offers recommendations for organizational leaders by guiding them on how to provide support and psychological safety to project managers, and how to adjust organizational culture to support learning and help them build greater tolerance of ambiguity.
PROJECT OUTCOMES
O'Connor, P., Jimmieson, N., Bergin, A., Wiewiora, A., & McColl, L. (in press). Leader tolerance of ambiguity: Implications for follower performance outcomes in high and low ambiguous work situations [manuscript submitted for publication in December 2020]. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
O'Connor, P., & Wiewiora, A. (2019, November 29–30). Dealing with unknowns: What can help PMs embrace ambiguity? [Conference session]. Australian Conference on Personality and Individual Differences (ACPID) 2019, Brisbane, Australia.
Wiewiora, A., & O'Connor, P. (in press). Not all project ambiguity is equal: A typology of project ambiguity and implications for its management. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. International Journal of Project Management.
Wiewiora, A., & O'Connor, P. (2019, December 3–6). Embracing ambiguity in PMs. [Conference session]. Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Cairns, Australia.
Wiewiora, A., & O'Connor, P. (2021). Training manual for managing complexities and ambiguities in projects. Queensland University of Technology.
References
Anglim, J., & O'Connor, P. (2018). Measurement and research using the Big Five, HEXACO, and Narrow Traits: A primer for researchers and practitioners. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(1) 16–25.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2006), 687–698.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Eisenhardt. K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2014). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56(10), 82–92.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4, 717–728.
Gray, K., & Ulbrich, F. (2017). Ambiguity acceptance and translation skills in the project management literature. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(2), 423–450.
Hagen, M., & Park, S. (2013). Ambiguity acceptance as a function of project management: A new critical success factor. Project Management Journal, 44(2), 52–66.
Kumar, R. (2014). Managing ambiguity in strategic alliances. California Management Review, 56(4), 82–102.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 437–448.
O'Connor, P., Becker, K., & Fewster, K. (2017). Embracing ambiguity in the workplace. Queensland University of Technology.
O'Connor, P., Becker, K., & Fewster, K. (2018, July 1–5). Tolerance of ambiguity at work predicts leadership, job performance, and creativity. In Creating Uncertainty Conference 2018, Ascona, Switzerland.
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N. M., Jordan, P. J., & Zolin, R. (2016). Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1112–1122.
Sicotte, H., & Bourgault, M. (2008). Dimensions of uncertainty and their moderating effect on new product development project performance. R&D Management, 38(5), 468–479.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68.
Stevenson, D. H., & Starkweather, J. (2010). PM critical competency index: IT execs prefer soft skills. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 663–671.
About the Authors
Anna Wiewiora is an associate professor at the QUT Business School. Her research focuses on building learning and innovation capabilities within project-based environments, and she investigates this topic at the individual, project, and organizational levels. Her research on building learning capabilities in project organizations attracts attention from academia and industry and has been used by professional project management bodies to upskill project managers and project workers.
She has led a number of externally funded projects, including two PMI-funded projects (2015–2017 and 2019–2021). She recently completed a large, externally funded program aimed to design management tools to support diffusion and overcome behavioral barriers to innovation in mining, which contributes to solving significant problems of slow adoption of technological innovations in the mining sector.
Her work has been published in more than 50 peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and industry reports.
Public Profiles
https://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/a.wiewiora
https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wiewiora-084a543a/
https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=zKhQUxUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
Peter O'Connor is a professor at the QUT Business School, teaching and conducting research in the domains of organizational behavior, personality traits, and leader effectiveness. He has 74 academic outputs and has been awarded more than US$1.4 million in research grants. He is a frequent contributor to The Conversation and his research has been covered in several international media outlets, including Scientific American, The Washington Post, and The International Business Times. He is currently the QUT School of Management research director, the treasurer for the Australian Congress on Personality and Individual Differences, and leads the School of Management People and Performance Research Group (PPRG). In addition to academic research, he regularly consults with industry partners on various topics, including emotional intelligence, tolerance of ambiguity, and leadership development.
Public Profiles
http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/oconnop2/
https://research.qut.edu.au/people-and-performance-research-group/our-team/peter-oconnor/
www.linkedin.com/in/peter-o-connor-1313b737l
https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-oconnor-293624/articles
Powering The Project EconomyTM
Project Management Institute | Global Headquarters | 14 Campus Blvd Newtown Square, PA 19073-3299 USA | Tel: +1 610 356 4600
©2021 Project Management Institute. All rights reserved. “PMI,” the PMI logo and the slogan “Powering the Project Economy” are marks of Project Management Institute, Inc. For a comprehensive list of PMI trademarks, contact the PMI Legal Department. All other trademarks, service marks, trade names, trade dress, product names and logos appearing herein are the property of their respective owners. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.