Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate the impact of autonomy, support, goal clarity, and learning opportunities on the motivation to perform of multiple-project managers. Even though the motivation literature is rather extensive, the motivation of the multiple-project manager is underexplored. As management of multiple projects becomes very common in industry, the understanding of what motivates multiple-project managers is crucial. Such an understanding should guide management to create conditions that support multiple-project management, reduce burnout, and help retain multiple-project managers. In addition, the findings from this study extend the application of motivation concepts to multiple-project management and shed light on future research opportunities.
Keywords: multiple-project managers; motivation; autonomy; superior support; team support; goal clarity; learning opportunities
Introduction
The role that project managers play in project success is widely recognized both in the literature and practice. Research has identified a variety of competencies required for leading successful projects, with the ultimate goal of better targeting and recruitment of individuals with the skill sets necessary to flourish in project settings. The evidence on project-based competencies has been mixed, with several researchers arguing that the traits needed to lead successful projects are diverse and difficult to accurately identify (Jha & Iyer, 2007; Lampel, 2001; Muller & Turner, 2010). There is agreement, however, on one important tenet: project managers must be self-motivated. Whether referred to as motivation or “obsessive passion” (Omorede, Thorgren, & Wincent, 2013), project managers should possess the desire and willingness to undertake their job assignments without prodding or direct supervision. Management must create an organizational culture and environment that encourages project managers to be self-motivated.
In the project management literature, several researchers have identified factors that impact motivation for managers and/or their team members. Seiler, Lent, Pinkowska, and Pinazza (2012), for example, suggest some influential elements: 1) interpersonal interaction, 2) task characteristics, 3) general working conditions, 4) empowerment, 5) personal development, and 6) compensation. Similarly, Dwivedula and Bredillet (2010) suggested that motivation comes from: 1) employee development, 2) work climate, 3) perceived equity, 4) work objectivity (a combination of goal clarity and task identity), and 5) job security.
Although this research has led to some interesting findings and offers support for the complexity of the challenge involved in workplace motivation for project managers and their teams, some unanswered questions remain. In particular, the above-referenced studies define specific elements as “motivational” that have not historically been viewed as motivators. Factors such as job security, compensation, and general working conditions have traditionally been classified as “hygiene” factors (“de-motivators”) in Herzberg’s two-factor model (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959). In addition, these motivational factors have not been specifically applied to project managers who simultaneously lead more than one project at a time (multiple-project managers).
There are many challenges faced by multiple-project managers that traditional single-project managers do not experience, including leading multiple teams for projects with markedly different objectives, parameters, or constraints; facing resource insufficiency and unsustainability issues for projects that are small in size and are of a tactical nature; and being forced to switch contexts from project to project repeatedly throughout the day (Fricke & Shenhar, 2000; Patanakul,2013). These challenges can decrease the level of motivation of project managers or, alternatively, cause workplace burnout—emotional fatigue, cynicism, and loss of efficacy (Maslach, 1993).
The objective of this study is to identify the sources of multiple-project managers’ motivation to perform. This study differs from other research on motivation in project management in several ways. First, it focuses on the motivation of multiple-project managers, as leading multiple projects is becoming more common in several project-based industries. While other, previous studies (e.g., Dwivedula & Bredillet, 2010; Seiler et al., 2012) have addressed project managers and motivation to perform, they did not specifically focus on the multiple-project managers sub-set. Second, this study focuses on the motivation to perform and measures this construct based on the perception that such motivation is an alternative state to the symptoms of workplace burnout (Brummelhuis, Hoeven, Bakker, and Peper, 2011). That is, the motivation to perform is measured based on whether or not the multiple-project managers are interested and enthusiastic about their job and are looking forward to continue performing their tasks. In previous studies (e.g., Dwivedula and Bredillet, 2010; Seiler et al., 2012), researchers did not measure the level of motivation itself. Their intention was to identify factors influencing motivation using data reduction techniques. Third, this study focuses on identifying the factors predicting motivation using regression analysis. Even though we explored several factors suggested in the study of Seiler et al. (2012) as our conceptual foundation, we deliberately focused on their set of motivator factors; that is, for this study we eschewed use of constructs that have been viewed historically as hygiene factors. In particular, we attempted to understand the impact of such factors as work-related support from superiors; team member support; decision autonomy; clarity of goals; and opportunities for learning. Arguably, these factors can be considered as intrinsic sources of motivation for project managers.
The results of this study should contribute to the literature by extending the applications of motivation theory to multiple-project management. In addition, the research results should provide meaningful implications for practitioners, as the understanding of which organizational enablers are the sources of motivation of multiple-project managers should help management create organizational conditions that support multiple-project management.
Background
This section provides a theoretical background on motivation research and the unique characteristics of managing multiple projects.
Motivation
There is a rich and extensive body of literature related to workplace motivation. Simply put, motivation is the process that accounts for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence in working to attain a goal (Mitchell, 1997). By all accounts, motivation is considered to be an inferred process that moves an individual toward a goal. It represents the forces that initiate and direct the behavior of employees (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2012). In other words, motivation pertains to the psychological forces that determine the direction of an individual’s behavior in an organization, their level of effort, and persistence in the face of obstacles (Jones & George, 2013). Motivation is understood to come from intrinsic and extrinsic sources. If the source of motivation is intrinsic, employees are motivated by doing the work itself. In essence, motivation stems from performing the behavior. If employees are motivated by the consequence of the behavior and not by the behavior itself, the motivation comes from extrinsic sources. For a project manager, an intrinsic source of motivation is derived from actual project-based work. The motivation coming from the success of projects is considered to be an extrinsic source.
A number of competing and complementary models of motivation have been proposed over the years as heuristics, models for teaching and learning, and to address the challenge of motivation in the workplace. Among the well-known content-based models applied in teaching and research are Maslow’s Need Hierarchy, Alderfer’s Existence, Relatedness, and Growth Theory, Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory, and McClelland’s Learned Needs Theory (see Gibson et al., 2012, for example). These theories seek to identify the factors that can positively affect motivation; hence, the term “content”. In addition, they suggest various sources of motivation, including a sense of belongingness, esteem, self-actualization, and growth. Alternatively, process-based models view motivation as a dynamic process influenced by factors across time. Among the more widely used process models are: Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964), Equity Theory (Adams, 1965), and Locke’s Goal-setting Theory (Locke, 1968). Within the field of project management, a great deal of work has examined the nature of motivation for project managers and their team members. Specifically, studies have identified motivational techniques used by project managers (Schmid & Adams, 2008); the effect of the workplace on motivation or demotivation (Smithers & Walker, 2000); the use of incentives in motivation (Bresnen & Marshall, 2000); and work conditions on motivation (Gallstedt, 2003). Motivation has also been studied as an antecedent variable in predicting teamwork and task performance (Tabassi, Ramli, & Bakar, 2012).
In the project management domain, researchers have identified numerous factors that impact motivation. Seiler et al. (2012) suggest several influential elements: 1) interpersonal interaction, 2) task, 3) general working conditions, 4) empowerment, 5) personal development, and 6) compensation. They contend that “interpersonal interaction” can be subdivided into, for example, the interaction with team and the interaction with supervisor. The subdimension of task includes clarity of task, goal, and results; and the congruence of the task with occupational aptitude and disposition. General working condition can be subdivided into resources, working environment, job security, and processes. Another study, using a sample of primarily Indian project team members, found five factors that affected motivation to perform, including: 1) employee development, 2) work climate, 3) perceived equity, 4) work objectivity (a combination of goal clarity and task identity), and 5) job security (Dwivedula & Bredillet, 2010).
Although this research has led to some intriguing findings and points to the complexity of workplace motivation within a project setting, it leaves some unanswered questions and seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence. Several studies define specific factors as “motivational” elements that have not historically been viewed as being motivators. Dwivedula and Bredillet’s (2010) work isolated “job security” as a motivator, though they acknowledged that historically, it is more properly linked to the existence needs of Alderfer (1972); and therefore, not truly a motivator. Within Seiler et al.’s (2012) six-factor model of motivation, the factors of “general working conditions” and “compensation” have traditionally been classified as “hygiene” factors (not motivators) in Herzberg’s two-factor model (Herzberg et al., 1959). Finally, Mansfield and Odeh (1991) point to money and social relationships as being motivators for workplace performance, despite significant evidence suggesting that they are, in fact, hygiene factors.
Managers of Multiple Projects
Primarily due to organizations’ resource limitations, it is becoming very common for project managers in many organizations to be tasked with leading more than one project at a time. This situation frequently occurs in IT organizations when one project manager is simultaneously assigned software development, process improvement, and software upgrade projects. These projects are not necessary mutually dependent in terms of objectives and goals but are assigned to the same project manager in an attempt to improve management efficiency and possibly, knowledge transfer (Ireland, 1997). These project managers are referred to as multiple-project managers, and such a management condition has been called the management of a group of multiple projects (MGMP) (Patanakul, 2013).
There are a number of fundamental differences in management tasks between traditional single-project managers and multiple-project managers. The responsibility of single-project managers is to lead one project toward its overall goal. This is typically also true even in the case of managing a single large program that is broken down to smaller supporting projects. On the other hand, multiple-project managers are tasked to lead multiple projects with different goals. The challenges inherent in leading multiple project teams include being forced to switch contexts multiple times per day, attending to different projects at various stages in their life cycles, dealing with different stakeholder considerations, and supporting multiple organizational goals (Fricke & Shenhar, 2000; Patanakul, 2013). In these circumstances, multiple-project managers have to coordinate among the interdependencies between projects so that each project can achieve its goal. Research has tended to suggest that the projects led by multiple-project managers are smaller than the ones run by single-project managers; nevertheless, being responsible for a number of diverse types of projects, focusing on different project goals, and leading multiple project teams (multiple combinations of team members) can create a high degree of management complexity (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2008).
To address the aforementioned challenges, researchers have suggested that multiple-project managers should possess a set of competencies that are distinct from, and may not be necessary for, single-project managers (Patanakul and Milosevic, 2008). One of those competencies is interdependency management. Multiple-project managers should manage project interdependencies, in terms of, for example, resources and technology, to provide benefit to all their projects. With different project goals, it is difficult to effectively manage project interdependencies. Further, multiple-project managers should be proficient in multitasking so that they can effectively switch contexts from project to project with minimal loss in productivity. In addition, they have to be able to simultaneously lead multiple teams; that is, they have to possess a flexible leadership style that can adapt to different teams and be capable of practicing leadership in a discontinuous manner—engage, lead one team, disengage, lead another team, and so forth. The dynamics and intensity of multiple project management are significant and can play a role in affecting the motivation of these project managers. It is, therefore, important to understand what factors contribute to the motivation to perform of multiple-project managers.
Sources of Motivation to Perform
In this section, we present our research hypotheses regarding the sources of motivation of multiple-project managers to perform. The sources of motivation that are the focus of this study are: 1) superior support, 2) project team support, 3) autonomy, 4) goal clarity, and 5) learning opportunities. Even though these sources of motivation seem obvious, the discussion below focuses on the work-related aspects of them and explains why they specifically impact the motivation of multiple-project managers.
Superior Support
In the literature, researchers have identified that having a positive relationship with a superior can help motivate project managers. Workplace examples include having a superior with an open and supportive mindset, receiving open and fair feedback, and obtaining the right balance between direction and freedom (Seiler et al., 2012). In a multiple-project setting, having support and attention from superiors is also important to multiple-project managers because of the numerous challenges they face. One challenge is the number of projects a project manager leads at any one time. By leading too many projects simultaneously, multiple-project managers can be ineffective (Kuprenas, Jung, Fakhouri, & Jreij, 2000). In order to alleviate this challenge, multiple-project managers rely on their supervisor to make appropriate project assignment decisions (Patanakul, Milosevic, & Anderson, 2007). Another challenge stems from resource acquisition and management. It is typical that multiple-project managers do not own resources but have interrelationships with multiple functional units from which they draw resources (Galbraith, 1994). Studies have shown that having sufficient resources is rare for most multiple-project managers due to the smaller project size and tactical nature of projects (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009). Smaller projects are always on the back burner for resources. Many times, multiple-project managers have to deal with resource sharing and live with the risk of unsustainable resources (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009). Multiple-project managers may not be able to solve resource conflicts on their own; thus, they need support from their superiors. Based on the literature and the inherent nature of multiple projects, having the support and attention of superiors should motivate project managers to perform. We suggest:
Hypothesis 1: The more work-related attention and support from superiors that multiple-project managers receive, the higher their motivation to perform.
Project Team Support
Previous work has identified team-based factors as significant motivators. Having committed, capable, and supportive teams is extremely important so that multiple-project managers can effectively lead multiple projects. Having a positive interpersonal interaction with team members was indicated as a vital motivator for project managers. This includes working with a cohesive and supportive team that is committed to the project, has a drive to achieve project deliverables and final outcomes, and is capable to handle difficult situations (Ferratt & Short, 1986; Seiler et al., 2012; Tampoe & Thurloway, 1993). The primary reason is that when simultaneously leading projects, multiple-project managers have limited time to spend with each team. They still have to put together a committed and mutually accountable team; however, which can be very challenging, especially for multidisciplinary and distributed teams. Once the teams are created, multiple-project managers’ responsibility is to lead them. Because they need to lead multiple teams concurrently, their time for each team is limited and used intermittently. The typical cycle is leading one team, discontinuing, and then leading another team, and so forth. This discontinuous leadership can create an “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” syndrome as team members also work on multiple projects that may or may not be led by the same project manager. From the literature and the challenges faced by multiple-project managers, having a high degree of project team support should motivate multiple-project manager to perform. Thus, we suggest:
Hypothesis 2: The more support from the project team that multiple-project managers receive, the higher will be their motivation to perform.
Autonomy
Autonomy typically refers to the degree to which a job provides employees with the freedom and discretion needed to schedule their work and determine how it is to be conducted (Jones & George, 2013). It can also refer to the right to make a decision (Gibson et al., 2012). Studies have shown that higher levels of autonomy on the job can, in some cases, help increase motivation to actually perform the job. In the project management literature, autonomy is considered as an important source of motivation (Mak & Sockel, 2001). In order to address the pressures and problems arising from project activities, the ability of project managers to influence, make decisions, and exercise leadership are important. In leading multiple, simultaneous projects, multiple-project managers must be empowered and possess authority to make decisions on the spot and to be responsive the needs of their project teams. Based on the literature and conditions necessary for effectively leading multiple teams, having autonomy should be a source of motivation to perform of multiple-project managers. We propose:
Hypothesis 3: The greater the autonomy that multiple-project managers possess, the higher will be their motivation to perform.
Goal Clarity
In project management literature, having clarity of tasks, goals, and expected outcomes are all shown to significantly impact project success (Pinto & Covin, 1989). With regard to motivation, researchers have found that clear project goals as well as clear understanding of what needs to be accomplished is a source of motivation of project managers (Gallstedt, 2003). To effectively manage a group of multiple projects, project managers must know what those projects are, including their specific goals. A central issue in managing multiple projects is context switching, defined as the issues multiple-project managers face from switching between projects when performing project planning, budgeting, monitoring, and controlling. Switching contexts often poses significant challenges because of the unique characteristics, tasks, and goals of each project (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009). Multiple-project managers can lose significant amounts of time for refocusing when switching context. Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans (2001) call this lost time “switchover-time cost.” The complexity of switching contexts can increase significantly if the project tasks, goals, or expected outcomes are unclear. With multiple switching instances each day, tremendous productivity is lost (Wallis & Steptoe, 2006). The loss in productivity can lead to a loss in motivation of project managers to perform. Based on the information above, we conclude that the clarity of tasks, goals, and expected outcomes should be a source of multiple-project managers’ motivation to perform. Thus:
Hypothesis 4: The greater the clarity of goals perceived by multiple project managers, the higher will be their motivation to perform
Learning Opportunities
The opportunity to learn and develop new skills is found to be a source of motivation for project managers. Studies have shown that, at the organizational level, the management of a group of multiple projects can help facilitate organizational learning as knowledge gained from one project can be concurrently disseminated to the other projects. At the project manager level, management may intentionally assign projects to multiple-project managers to help them improve their knowledge and skills that can eventually help achieve their career goals (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009). Specifically, in managing multiple projects, the unique characteristics of each project can provide a project manager with an opportunity to learn and to develop new skills. This includes the development of new technical knowledge and skills to address the needs of a particular project, and the development of leadership skills from leading multiple teams. An opportunity to learn new knowledge and skills that can eventually help accomplish their career goal should be a source of motivation of multiple-project managers, and thus:
Hypothesis 5: The more opportunities for learning on the job that multiple-project managers have, the higher will be their motivation to perform.
Research Method
Procedure and Participants
All procedures were conducted at the individual level of study. We contacted key organizational members at four North American corporations who were part of their organization’s “project management groups.” These individuals were asked to serve as liaisons within their organizations to encourage employee participation with the survey. The organizations included two construction (engineering, procurement, construction management) firms, one large IT-based firm, and one large manufacturer of medical devices. For confidentiality purposes, we were prevented from more directly identifying the specific sub-groups within the organizations. According to the liaison reports, all groups had primary responsibility for planning and executing major project initiatives, including construction projects, new product development projects, information technology solutions and implementation projects.
Our liaisons sent out email solicitations to members of the project management groups within the firms and directed them to a Survey Monkey website for completion of a research survey. Employees were told that completing the survey was totally voluntary; however, their feedback would be very helpful in assessing the project management practices in their organization. Implied consent was solicited and no inducements were offered. All data collection was in strict adherence to university human subject research policies and procedures and the reported data were aggregated and reported in summary form. A total of 353 people responded to the survey, indicating a response rate of approximately 42% across all four organizations (estimated based on the size of the electronic mailing lists).
For the study, we utilized a two-part questionnaire. Part one included questions related to priori constructs and the measurement of project manager’s motivation. Part two included demographic questions such as length of time in project manager position (months), time with current company (months), average number of projects working simultaneously, average team size, type of project the respondent works on, and so forth. Among the returned questionnaires, 98 were from project managers and were included in this study. After eliminating 17 questionnaires from single-project managers, 14 questionnaires with missing data, and 3 questionnaires that were determined as outliers (from testing of normality), 64 questionnaires were usable.
In terms of the demographics of the sample, the respondents reported an average of 41.2 months of experience as a multiple-project manager. As for the breakdown by project types, 37% of respondents are involved in IT projects, while 14%, 13%, and 11% of the respondents are involved in R&D, construction, and manufacturing projects respectively. Thirty-four percent of the sample reported leading two projects at a time and 24% reported leading three projects. For the overall sample, the average number of projects led simultaneously was 3.66. More than 50% of respondents reported leading projects with typical budgets of more than US $1 million, duration more than 12 months, and a team of more than 10 members.
Constructs and Measurement
The objective of this research was to empirically identify the key sources of motivation for multiple-project managers. Our study employed modified scales from three measures: Maslach’s (1993) Burnout Inventory General Survey (MBI-GS); Karasek’s (1985) Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ), and De Jonge’s (1995) Job Autonomy Scale. These scales were used to measure five constructs: 1) Supervisor, or Executive Support; 2) Project Team Support, 3) Job Autonomy, 4) Goal Clarity, and 5) Opportunities for Learning. Motivation to Perform, the dependent variable, was measured using a modified scale from the MBI-GS questionnaire (Pinto, Dawood, and Pinto, 2013). Multiple items were used to measure each construct.
Supervisor Support assessed the perception of the respondent in terms of the quality of the support they felt they received from senior management or supervisors while managing their projects. Sample items for this scale included “My supervisor is concerned about the welfare of those under him/her,” “My supervisor pays attention to what you are saying,” and “My supervisor is helpful in getting the job done.”
Project Team Support measured the respondent’s belief about the degree and quality of the support they believed they were receiving from members of their project teams in performing their managerial tasks. This scale was measured using three items. Sample items included “People I work with are competent in doing their jobs,” and “People I work with are helpful in getting the job done.”
Autonomy refers to the perceptions of respondents as to how much decision-making authority/autonomy they possess in performing their jobs. This scale, modified from De Jonge (1995), was measured using three items. Sample items include: “My job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own” and “I feel secure about how much authority I have.”
Goal Clarity assessed the respondent’s perception of the existence of clear and defined performance goals for their work. This construct was measured using four items, including “Clear planned goals and objectives exist for my job,” “I know what my responsibilities are,” and “I know exactly what is expected of me.”
Learning Opportunity refers to the respondent’s perception that their job offers the opportunities for learning new things, acquiring new skills, and providing a range of activities (increasing the variety of work). This scale was measured using five items, including “My job requires that I learn new things,” “My job requires me to be creative,” and “I get to do a variety of different things on my job.”
Our dependent variable, Motivation to Perform, was measured using three items drawn from Maslach’s (1993) MBI-GS, including: “I feel tired when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job” (reverse coded) and “I have become less interested in my work since I started this job” (reverse coded).
Finally, in order to meaningfully investigate the effect of the independent variables on Motivation to Perform, four contextual variables were controlled in this study: the average number of projects, durations of projects, average number of team members, and time as a project manager. The number of projects represents the workload of multiple-project managers, which was found to have some impact on performance (Kuprenas et al., 2000). The durations of projects and the average number of team members represent the size of projects. Time as a project manager relates to the project manager’s experience.
All scale items were measured on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1= Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. Multiple regression analyses were performed to empirically test the hypotheses.
Scale Reliability, Validity, and Development of a New Construct
An exploratory factor analysis (principal components analysis with Varimax orthogonal rotation) was conducted. The results of the exploratory factor analysis partially confirmed the structure of the constructs. That is, originally, we proposed five constructs. Overall, a total of 19 items were used to measure these constructs and the resulting factor analysis identified four factors with Eigenvalues greater than one. Total variance explained for the factor analysis was 72.72%. While the constructs representing Supervisor Support, Goal Clarity, and Learning loaded as predicted, seven items representing Project Team Support and Autonomy loaded together as one factor.
Based on the result from exploratory factor analysis, we developed a new construct by combining the items measuring Project Team Support and Autonomy. This new construct was referred to as Teamwork Condition. In sum, the results from the exploratory factors analysis suggested four constructs representing sources of motivation: 1) Supervisor Support, 2) Teamwork Condition, 3) Goal Clarity, and 4) Learning Opportunity. These four constructs were used in this study. Further, the scale reliability of each construct was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha. The test results indicated that the alphas for Superior Support (.96), Teamwork Condition (.82), Goal Clarity (.90), and Learning Opportunity (.86) are all well above the suggested cut-off level of .70 stipulated by Nunnally (1978).
Analysis, Results, and Discussion
Descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix of the variables in this study are reported in Table 1. The results indicate Teamwork Condition has the highest correlation with Motivation to Perform (r = .31, p < .05). The results from the multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 2. Model 1 represents the baseline, hierarchical regression analysis that was used to investigate the effect of four control variables on the dependent variable. All of the independent variables were added into the analysis in Model 2. The results from multiple regression analysis indicate that Model 2 is significant at p < .05 level with the adjusted R2 of .24. The multicolinearity statistics indicate values of the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) between 1.24 and 2.14 which are well below the conservative value of 5.0 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & W. Black, 1998). The results also suggest that none of the control variables are significant predictors of Motivation to Perform.
| Independent variables |
Variable | Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 | Superior Support | 3.81 | 1.01 | |||||
| 2 | Teamwork Condition | 3.80 | .55 | .45** | ||||
| 3 | Goal Clarity | 3.77 | .71 | .40** | .60** | |||
| 4 | Learning Opportunity | 4.17 | .53 | .23* | .27* | .16 | ||
| Dependent variables |
5 | Motivation to Perform | 3.22 | 1.27 | .21 | .31* | .07 | -.02 |
N=63
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients
| Motivation to Perform | ||
| Model 1 β | Model 2 β | |
| Control variables | ||
| No. of projects | -.07 | .03 |
| Project duration | .14 | .09 |
| Average team size | .25 | .22 |
| Time as multiple-project manager | -.06 | -.05 |
| Independent variables | ||
| Superior Support | .25+ | |
| Teamwork Condition | .48** | |
| Goal Clarity | -.15 | |
| Learning Opportunity | -.19 | |
| R | .29 | .59 |
| R2 | .08 | .35 |
| Adjusted R2 | .01 | .24 |
| R2 Change | .08 | .27 |
| F Change | 1.17 | 4.80** |
|
N = 169, β = Standardized coefficient + p<.10, * p<.05; **p<.01, ***p<.001 |
||
Table 2: Results from multiple regression analyses
Results from regression analysis suggest Teamwork Condition as the only significant predictor of Motivation to Perform (β = .48, p < .05), supporting our Hypothesis 2. We conclude that the combination of team support and autonomy (characterizing the elements of this construct) support the contention that the degree to which multiple-project managers receive support from their project team members and the level of autonomy that multiple-project managers possess in performing their jobs are important sources of motivation to perform for these individuals. In other words, multiple-project managers will be interested and enthusiastic about their jobs and look forward to continue working if: 1) the manager believes their various project teams are competent in doing their jobs, friendly, and committed to get the job done; and 2) multiple-project managers have authority to make decisions and share their opinions.
We further expect Teamwork Condition to be a source of motivation, as it addresses many challenges faced by multiple-project managers. Among those challenges are: 1) the management of multiple teams, and 2) the limited time that multiple-project managers can spend with each team. It is typical that these project managers have to practice discontinuous leadership—engaging to lead one team, discontinuing, reengaging, leading another team, and so on. During the time that multiple-project managers spend with each team, they have to be both efficient in their use of time and effective in responding to the team’s needs and problems. To be truly effective, managers of multiple projects must have the decision authority that allows them to make quick decisions and selections from among alternative choices. Additionally, having support from their multiple teams—in terms of competence, commitment, and friendliness – as well as having autonomy, therefore, motivate multiple-project managers to perform their jobs. This result supports the extent literature on the motivation of single-project managers that team support and autonomy are sources of motivation (Seiler et al., 2012).
The results also suggest that Supervisor Support, Goal Clarity, and Learning are not the significant sources of motivation to perform. Because Supervisor Support is only a marginally significant predictor (β = .25, p < .066), there is limited support for our hypothesized contention that multiple-project managers will be motivated to perform if they perceive that their supervisor is concerned about their welfare, pays attention to their opinion, is helpful in getting the job done, and is successful in getting people to work together. These results are surprising. However, they may highlight the difference between single-project management and multiple-project management—that is, some of the factors that are perceived to be motivational factors of single-project managers may not contribute to the motivation of multiple-project managers to perform. Further investigation is needed.
It is also rather surprising that Goal Clarity is not a significant predictor of motivation to perform, as past research on project team members has found this a significant predictor of motivation (Dwivedula & Bredillet, 2010). As we refer to motivation to perform as the interest and enthusiasm that multiple-project managers exhibit on the job as well as their willingness to continue working, perhaps clarity of goals provide a basis for performing a job but it does not lead to the enthusiasm in performing the job. Again this finding may highlight the difference between single-project management and multiple-project management. In addition, having clear goals may be a challenge for the multiple-project managers who participated in this study since the largest single category of projects in our sample were IT projects (37%). While it is necessary not to generalize, research has showed that a lack of clear goals can be a common problem for IS/IT projects (Fitzgerald, 1996; Turner & Cochrane, 1993). This flexibility is often by design, as IT solutions must remain flexible in dynamic settings. “While useful as a guide, excessive detail in the early stages of a project may be problematic and misleading in a dynamic environment” (Collyer, Warren, Hemsley, & Stevens, 2010, p. 109).
Interestingly, the results did not show Learning Opportunity to be a significant predictor of motivation for multiple project managers. One explanation is perhaps that our research participants are still at the beginning of their career as multiple-project managers (68% of them have less than four years’ experience). Even though the project managers may have opportunities to learn, the focus may be on learning project management processes and procedures, which may not lead to their motivation to perform. Studies have shown that it is typical that multiple-project managers need at least two years to learn the organization’s processes and procedure to become effective (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2008). In addition, since multiple-project managers in this study are at the beginning of their career, they may not be assigned to lead projects that will help them significantly learn new knowledge and develop their special abilities. Further investigation is needed.
Conclusion, Contribution and Managerial Implications
The study of key actors in the project development process (principally project managers and members of their teams) has proceeded with increasing frequency over the past several years, as more and more academics and practitioners focus on the skills sets needed to manage and execute projects effectively. In recent years, an additional, important actor has been added to the set of those with critical stakeholder impact on project success; namely, the managers of multiple projects. These individuals have been found in larger numbers over the past decade, as research suggests that because organizations continue to implement projects at increasingly numbers while holding resource levels constant (or even reducing them), it is important that project managers be able and willing to manage multiple projects simultaneously (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2008). The practical implications of this sea-change in resource assignment and project management oversight has led to the need to consider these multiple project managers in project organizations: how do their activities, concerns, and motivations parallel and differ from traditional project managers?
This study was conducted to identify the key sources of motivation to perform of multiple-project managers. As motivation is the desire, the interest, or the drive to accomplish things, we perceive motivation to perform as the interest and enthusiasm of multiple-project managers on their job and their willingness to continue working. The findings suggest that the motivation of multiple-project managers comes from a teamwork condition that consists of support from project teams and autonomy of project managers in making decision. Support from superior, clarity of goals, and learning opportunities were not found to be significant motivational factors. These findings extend the application of motivation concepts specifically to the management of a group of multiple projects.
This study has some limitations that provide opportunities for future research. First, the sample size is modest. That is, although our overall study sampled a large and representative pool of the relevant populations of the organizations we investigated, the actual number of managers of multiple projects (eliminating outliers) was a total of 64 out of the 98 project managers who responded to the survey. Although the number was small in absolute terms, from a methodological point of view, our study offered some statistical stability. As this study is in its early stage, more data can be collected to expand the sample size. Second, the majority of our respondents are at the beginning of their career as multiple-project managers. The generalizability of our finding may limit to this group of project managers. This finding is very much in keeping with previous work by Patanakul and Milosevic (2009), who observed that the “multiple-project manager” phenomenon is a relatively new one, brought about by environmental and economic pressures on project-based organizations.
Even though we controlled for the level of project manager experience (length of time in months as a multiple-project manager) and found that it was not a significant predictor of motivation, future study can be conducted to investigate the interaction of project manager experience and motivational factors, such as Superior Support and Learning, and their impact on motivation. Third, the majority of projects led by project managers in this study were IT projects. We noted previously that the results may not be applicable to other types of projects. However, it is also important to understand the sources of motivation in IS/IT environments, since it is typical that the IS/IT project managers lead multiple projects. This limitation presents a future opportunity to investigate the sources of motivation of project managers leading projects of different types. Fourth, we investigated four motivational factors and focused on the work-related aspect of them. Future research can be conducted to investigate other motivational factors. The interaction between organizational conditions (e.g., organizational culture) and motivational factors and their impact on motivation should also be investigated. Also, as it was found in this study that team support and autonomy loaded together as one factor, which we termed Teamwork Conditions, the opportunities exist to further investigate whether or not this factor is unique to the management of multiple projects.
In addition to what has been mentioned above, future research can investigate whether or not the sources of motivation of single-project managers and multiple-project managers differ. Research can also be conducted to investigate whether or not the strength of the motivators varies depending on the number of projects led by a project manager—that is, whether or not the number of project acts as a moderator between the sources of motivation and the project managers’ level of motivation to perform. Similar research can be conducted at the team-member level to see how number of projects they are required to support can influence their motivation.
Besides research on the motivation of multiple-project managers, another intriguing line of future research is to investigate gender effects on multiple-project manager success. Research in numerous organizational disciplines has long pointed to the finding that female managers are more adept at multitasking, a key requirement for successful multiple-project management (Rubenstein et al., 2001; Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002; Stoet, O‘Connor, Conner, & Laws, 2013). To date, little work has addressed the gender differences among multi-project managers and their success at managing in a multiple project setting. Future research should consider opportunities to test for these effects, as it may provide additional evidence of the efficacy of female multiple project managers.