As we have seen, the dynamic work environment in the project-oriented organization imposes considerable pressures on employees. In this chapter we consider the problem of employee well-being in this dynamic environment. In our research we confirmed that it is a problem, and unfortunately, project-oriented organizations, by and large, are not very good at dealing with the problem, both because it is often a threat to profitability, and because to deal with the problem effectively requires an effective resource management system. However, there were some welcome examples of organizations taking positive steps to improve employee well-being, to make project management a job for working 9 to 5. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the pressures of projects, it is a career that those who choose it enjoy, although it does tend to be self selecting; those who don't like it as a career opt out within five years. This can lead to issues of diversity, with all project managers in an organization looking the same, which Company C4 was taking positive steps to manage. Finally, if project management is to be made an attractive career to as wide a range of people as possible, organizations must ensure that project assignments match people's career aspirations.

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

The problem of employee well-being was most significant in organizations undertaking small- to medium-sized projects. It is less severe in organizations undertaking large projects or small assignments.

Small Assignments

In organizations undertaking small assignments, long working hours are not a significant problem. As we saw in Chapter 5, particularly with Company C3, assignments are given to people who have sufficient time available to meet the client's desired completion date. If nobody in the organization is available, then either the work is refused or it is given to another office or to contract staff. It is very easy to manage an employee's workload in this context.

Large Projects

In organizations undertaking large projects, it was also easy to plan an employee's workload. As we saw in Chapter 5, in Companies I12 and I13, the assignment of people to projects is planned through the annual budgeting cycle. It is, therefore, easy to ensure that the norm is that people working on projects work a normal workweek (40 hours, 9 to 5). It might be the case that at critical points on projects, longer working hours are required, especially during final commissioning. But such events can be forecast, and action taken to reduce the pressure on employees. For instance, the following is possible:

• Ensure project staff have time with their families just before or just after the forecast period of intense work
• Employ contract staff to supplement for normal staff during the period of intense work

The problem with organizations undertaking large projects was often more that employees needed to spend long periods of time away from home if the project was in a distant location. Company I11 reported one employee who had been working for some time in South Korea, who threatened to resign if he was not brought home in the near future. Company I13 also requires their medical staff to work for long periods in remote locations. One person we interviewed in Company C3 had just finished an assignment on one large project that had lasted five years and had just been assigned to another that could potentially last the same length of time. Although both were within 50 miles of his home, he was feeling isolated from his normal business unit. He saw his career as being in that business unit, and yet he was spending long periods of time away. He was suffering from the “no-home syndrome” described by Anne Keegan and Rodney Turner (2003) and reported in Chapters 2 and 3.

Company C4 reported a slightly different problem. Again they can ensure that the correct number of people are assigned to a project so that people can work normal hours for most of the duration of a project. Again at project commissioning there is a requirement for people to work long hours, but those occasions can be planned and ameliorated as mentioned previously. If the project managers and deputy project managers find it difficult to delegate their work, then they work slightly longer weeks than normal, 50 hours rather than 40. Most of the project team members could work normal workweeks, but the project managers and their deputies found themselves working slightly longer. The main problem they suffered is that many of the project managers are very task-focused, and are excited by the science. They end up working longer hours than needed, not because it is particularly necessary, but because they enjoy the job, and they encourage the people around them to do the same. This was recognized by the organization, and they tried to counter it by ensuring that at least one of the project management team of three on each project (project manager and two deputies) was people-focused and not task-focused. One deputy program manager whom we interviewed told us that the project manager and one of the deputy project managers we had interviewed earlier had both been chosen because they were people-focused. Indeed the project manager the deputy was working for was known to be particularly task-focused, so the deputy had been specifically chosen to counter that.

Small- to Medium-Sized Projects

The most significant problem occurs with small- to medium-sized projects. Projects typically last three to nine months and that causes several issues, which can lead to project demands peaking together:

• With projects lasting three to nine months, it is difficult to pace the work. The clients have tight deadlines, and so the projects require intensive working all the way through.
• Again resource demands will peak at commissioning, but now that is occurring two or three times a year, and at times that are less easy to plan and balance.
• With much shorter timescales on projects, it is not so easy to give the project member two weeks off to be with his or her family, or pursue other nonwork interests, either immediately before or immediately after the peak.
• Projects cannot be planned as part of the annual budgeting cycle because most of them are not known about at the time the budgets are drawn up, so it is less easy to ensure that there are sufficient people for the encountered project workload.
• The resource demands for successive projects might be quite wildly different, and that makes it difficult to plan for the required number of project staff. It is possible to employ temporary workers, but it can take one, two or even three months to find an appropriate person which would impact projects lasting six months. Company I10 specifically mentioned this as a problem.
• People will be working on more than one project at once and so there is a chance that two or more will peak together.
• To win the work, contracting companies deliberately underestimate the required workload, and then employees have to work long hours to complete the project in time. Clients collude with this by assigning the work to the lowest bidder even though they know that the work cannot be done in that time.

We found in some of the companies we interviewed that it was quite common for people to regularly work 60- or even 70-hour weeks.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT 9 TO 5

By and large, the companies we interviewed were not very good at managing these problems, especially contracting companies, and sometimes they did not seem to care. There are several reasons:

(a) Contracting companies need to make a profit, and that requires them to bid a price that will enable them to win the work. Once they have won the work, they need to do it at a cost less than the price.

(b) In some contracting (and consulting) companies, employees are set targets for utilization, which gives them a target to work as much time as possible. If they are falling short of their targets, they may start to adopt inappropriate behaviors, such as not taking holidays, working while ill, or not receiving training.

(c) Managing the problem requires some effort, particularly in the creation of a resource management system. While no resource management system can completely solve all the problems we outlined above, it can certainly help to reduce the stress on employees.

(d) However, some consulting companies do not want to create a resource management system because they want employees to be responsible for their own utilization. People who perform well and network well will have high utilization; people who do not perform well and/or do not network well will have low utilization and will leave the company. A resource management system will help achieve high utilization even for poor-performing employees. Company C4 was better than most at managing employee well-being, so perhaps that is why they were the most open about wanting their employees to be responsible for finding their own assignments by developing and maintaining networks. Company C1 was also quite open about making employees responsible for their own utilization and finding their next assignments for themselves.

There were some examples of companies making an effort to manage employee well-being:

1. Company C1 divided HRM roles among three broadly different groups, one of which is HRM roles in the line. The purpose of having the line manager look after the majority of HRM issues, including employee well-being, is to give that responsibility to a person with a broad view on the employee's project portfolio and responsibilities. While the intention is positive, the outcome is less so. The “people care managers” we interviewed all have very large groups of employees to manage. In some specific cases they are managing 47 employees at any one time. It became clear during these interviews that monitoring the well-being of employees is difficult when there is so little time to devote to each person. Some specific managers tried to ensure employees take time off between projects, either by going on vacation or training, but this was not achieved all the time for all employees. One major issue was the high utilization targets in this company and the stigma of being on the bench.
2. We have already mentioned that Company C4 made an effort to assign a project management team (of three) with at least one people-focused person. They mentioned the need to ensure that project team members spend time with their families. They particularly mentioned the spring holiday, when children are off school for a week, and encouraged project team members with families to spend time with their children. (It was spring when we were doing the interviews.) Because they are undertaking large projects, it is easier to ensure that projects are adequately resourced. The main problem, as we said, is that many team members are excited by the science and so perhaps give more attention to the task than strictly necessary.
3. Company C4 also put a lot of effort into socializing on projects. That makes people feel much more part of a team, and enables concerns to be much more freely aired.
4. In company I11, the managing director of the Paris, France office maintained a close working relationship with all his staff, and was well aware of the concerns they had. As we have mentioned, one staff member wanted to return from South Korea, and another was concerned with the amount of time he was spending in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Again by maintaining a close working relationship with staff, the managing director enabled staff to voice their concerns, which enabled the problems to be managed.
5. Turner and Müller (2006) give the example of the Swedish telecommunications company that also included, as a criterion for selecting project managers, that they could achieve a work-life balance. This company is actively ensuring that project managers are adequately people-focused.

However, all the examples we are able to give of companies actively managing employee well-being are companies either undertaking large projects or companies undertaking internal projects. For companies undertaking large projects, the work environment is less dynamic, less frenetic, and there is greater scope for balancing the work load. For companies undertaking internal projects, there is less of an immediate focus on making a profit. Yes, they need to undertake work in a cost-effective way, but many companies recognize that keeping their employees healthy contributes to cost effectiveness.

The equation changes when clients employ contractors or consultants. Because of the principal-agency relationship (Müller and Turner, 2005), clients feel the need to employ the cheapest contractor, and so they contribute to the frenetic work environment. Perhaps clients need to take some responsibility for the well-being of the employees of their contractors and consultants.

THE ENJOYMENT OF PROJECT WORK

Given these problems, why do people continue to work in a project environment? The answer is they seem to enjoy it. Company I15 reported that people working in the project-oriented parts of the business have longer periods of employment with the company than people working in the routine parts. Project personnel may work for the company for 20 years, whereas the average term of employment of a call center worker is six months. This is partly because the routine work attracts transient labor, but also because the temporary nature of project work gives greater variety and more interest. In addition, project managers we interviewed in Companies C1 and C4 said how much they enjoy project work. One person we interviewed from Company C1 had suffered burnout a few years earlier, but this person had returned to work and was finding satisfying work in a project support role. He also revealed that the company had made efforts to find him a role in which he could function more effectively and where the danger of burnout was minimized.

Working as a project manager does seem to be self-selecting. Dolfi and Andrews (2007) report that people who have worked as project managers for five or more years are more optimistic than people who have been project managers for fewer than five years. They suggest the reason is that people who do not like the work environment move on to other careers. In Company C4, one of the deputy project managers we interviewed stated explicitly that people who do not like the work environment tend not to stay more than two years. So project management attracts people who thrive in that work environment. Lee-Kelley and Leong (2003) report that project managers become more self-confident with experience, changing their perceptions of the task, and perhaps increasing their self-awareness and improving their self-management and self-regulation.

Thus, as we have seen, it is difficult for project managers and project team members to achieve a work-life balance, but those who enjoy the lifestyle stay the course and continue to thrive in it. However, it is easy for companies to abuse that position and subject project managers to excessive working hours. Both employers and clients have roles to try to ensure that project managers strike an appropriate balance in their lives.

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

The fact that project management as a career is self-selecting is a threat to diversity. A person of a certain profile stays the course, and not only do all the project managers in an organization begin to look the same, but, worse, they also think the same and take the same approach to solving problems. This can have the obvious consequence that mistakes can be made, as all the people around the table at a project review meeting are thinking inside the same box. Greater diversity is required to get different perspectives on a problem to find the best solution and avoid disastrous errors.

One of the people we interviewed from Company C4 was a diversity manager. This person puts in a substantial amount of effort to achieve a diverse profile of employees at the company's different sites. Diversity management goes beyond avoiding discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. Equal opportunity remains important, but diversity needs to go further. We all know that people tend to recruit in their own image, and one of the deputy project managers we interviewed at Company C4 said that the company had several sites, each with its own distinct culture. He said that at Site G, where we conducted most of our interviews, the management style is very inclusive, with low power-distance (Hofstede, 1991), whereas at Site M the management style is hierarchical with high power-distance. On the other hand, Site J is in a university with many academics working as contractors, so the style is very informal, but intellectual. He said that there is a tendency for each site to recruit people who suit the profile of the site, but when employees outside the profile are recruited, they often will leave within two years because they find that they do not fit in. This can reinforce the indigenous culture of the site and result in everybody looking and thinking the same. Thus we see the need for diversity management, but recognize that it will not be easy. It is not as obvious as equal opportunities.

Of all the organizations we interviewed, Company C4 was the only one with whom we discussed diversity management. The diversity manager we spoke to said that in the United States diversity management receives greater attention in the private sector than the public sector. We felt that in Europe, diversity management probably receives greater attention in the public sector than private sector. In fact other people we spoke to in the United States felt the same was true in the United States, but we do not have any data to confirm or deny this. The experience was anecdotal.

MATCHING PROJECTS TO CAREER DEVELOPMENT

Project managers enjoy their careers, which are self-selecting. But in order for them to be attractive, project assignments must be linked to career development needs. It is important to ensure that project managers achieve the development opportunities they require, and that they are satisfied in their development. Many of the organizations we interviewed had career structures for project managers with defined grades and defined competencies at each level. Elsewhere (Keegan and Turner, 2003; Huemann et al., 2004b), we report that many organizations in the engineering industry have defined career structures for project managers, and spend 15 years developing a project manager to manage projects of $100 million USD or greater. We report that they use what we dubbed the spiral staircase career, where potential project managers gain experience in technical, client interfacing, and line management roles, as well as project management roles. We also identified that companies in the information system industry use what we dubbed a Batter-sea Power Station career, with managers following the spiral staircase up to about level three and then following just one path from that point forward, climbing the chimney stack up the function for the remainder of their careers. Microsoft dubs the different career paths “swim lanes” and allows people to change lanes in the early stages of their careers. Thus, organizations offer project managers structured careers. But it is important to ensure project managers are offered appropriate development, and that it suits their needs.

Many organizations identify development needs in the annual appraisal. Company I6, for instance, has a highly structured appraisal system linked to the annual budgeting cycle. Staff members are appraised twice per year and set development targets. Individuals are given their own development budgets to spend as they wish (in consultation with their managers), and they are judged at the end of the year on whether they have achieved their development targets. Also in Company I10, each individual is set an individual development target, and his or her annual bonus is influenced by how well he or she achieves that objective. But the organization also has duties to identify appropriate projects for the individual to work on and to ensure that he or she achieves those opportunities. Company C1 has started to focus attention on employee development opportunities after a period of retrenchment in which budgets for development were very thin. The HRM director expressed concern that this had damaged the company's ability to attract and retain talented personnel and leaders at the corporate center and had begun to recognize and address this problem. In interviews with project managers and project personnel, there was clear evidence that mentoring programs, which had been heavily invested in about seven years previously, had been allowed to lapse. On the other hand, most interviewees told us that they had opportunities for development on an annual basis. One development barrier identified was a lack of excellence in senior project and program management, which has now been targeted for action with the appointment of a director for program and project management and appointments of highly experienced senior project managers and directors. Company C4 has project management as a function within the organization, so project managers are appraised by line managers in project management and development requirements are identified in the project management line. The company takes great care to provide project managers with the opportunities they require. The deputy program manager we interviewed last described how one of the deputy project managers we had interviewed earlier in the day had been carefully groomed, particularly since he is more people-focused than task-focused and so will help achieve that balance on the project team he is assigned to.

Company I12 takes a somewhat different approach with a Program Management Council and development cells. The Program Management Council maintains an overview of the project and program management requirements for the organization. The development cells then work to ensure that people are developed to meet the requirements. Promising project managers are identified and then offered development opportunities to meet their own and the organization's requirements. In particular, the development cells try to stop line managers from selfishly holding on to good project managers by keeping them in inferior positions where they are performing well, both to the detriment of the individual and the company. The company also runs a consortium masters program for project managers in conjunction with the University of Manchester and Pennsylvania State University, Erie, PA. (There are three other companies in the consortium that also sponsor staff members to the master's program.) Promising project managers are encouraged to attend the program, and the company pays for their study and tries to allow them to find time to undertake the program. Using this approach, the company shows commitment to its project managers and their career development, while providing a ready supply to meet their needs.