1

The unresolved struggles between Project Managers and Functional Managers in Matrix

Organizations

Abstract

Having personal that works in projects but belongs to a functional organization is the way that

many companies organized their labor force today. Previous research shows that this implies

management contradictions and ambiguities between functional manager and project manager;

there are unresolved struggles between these two roles in terms of power, accountability,

authority and legitimacy.

With this paper we aim to analyze those struggles based on previous research and to generate

working propositions.

We first provide a review of the different matrix organizations focusing on the relation between

the functional manager and the project manager. We then review the literature concerning

temporary organizations and projects as temporary organizations. We conclude by integrating the

findings of these perspectives and by identifying working propositions and areas for further

research.

Key words: Temporary organization, Matrix organizations, Functional Manager, Project

Manager

Introduction

2

Is a project a part of a company‟s day-to-day business or an extraordinary task? Is it therefore

part of the „company being a going concern‟ or is it a standalone building block of the business,

which requires dedicated management structures and control mechanisms?

The answers to these questions differ whether seen from the perspective of the functional

manager or the project manager, especially in the context of matrix organizations.

These differences in perspective lead to different understandings of objectives and priorities,

which can cause struggles between functional and project managers when it comes to assigning

resources to projects and resource availability (Engwall 2001, 2003; Turner and Müller, 2003).

According to Forman and Selly (2001), the achievements of the organization‟s objectives are

dependent on the effectiveness of the resource utilizations. This statement makes the above

struggles a key concern (source of poor performance) for any organization and raises the

following questions:

What are the main reasons for the struggles?

What are the main factors constituting these struggles?

What are the consequences of these struggles?

This paper addresses these questions from a theoretical perspective through a critical review of

the literature and suggests a conceptual model that helps to identify the categories of the

struggles between project managers and functional managers, and their main characteristics.

3

On the basis of in-depth investigation of the literature, four main categories of struggles were

identified; authority, accountability, legitimacy and power. These four categories of struggles

can be defined in different ways and have different strength depending of the theoretical domain

that they are applied in. In this paper we use the following definitions which apply to the

theoretical domains of organization, management and leadership:

1. Authority is the right to give commands, enforce obedience, take actions or make final

decisions (Popper, 1960).

2. Accountability in leadership roles is the acknowledgment and assumption of

responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration,

governance and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and

encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting

consequences (TutorVista.com, 2010).

3. Legitimacy is a perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable,

proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, belief,

and definitions (Suchman, 1995).

4. Power is defined as the right or means to command or control others. In organizations

there are two major kinds of power:

1. “Position power is the power a person derives from a particular office or rank in a

formal organizational system.

2. Personal power is the influence capacity a leader derives from being seen by

followers as likable and knowledgeable” (Northouse, 2009, p7).

4

The literature on matrix organizations and temporary organizations that we reviewed used these

terms without definitions and let the reader make his own interpretations of these terms.

Confusions occur when citing definitions, especially between authority and power since the

classical definitions of these terms are based on each other (Grimes, 1978).

The distinction that we choose to use is based on Grimes (1978) work that states that authority

and power are both a type of control and influence. The difference lies on that authority of the

role is based on voluntary consensus while the power of the role is base on compliance.

Struggles at work!

The above categories of struggles have different manifestations in different matrix organizations.

The most often cited evidences of those struggles are those regarding resource allocation to

projects and implied priority of projects. Examples include conflicts in which project managers

aim to establish changes, which are resisted by functional managers; or conflicts concerning

resource utilization when both managers try to optimize their individual objectives at the expense

of the other part (Knight, 1976; Müller, 2009; Turner and Müller, 2003; Brown, 2008).

Authority

Continuous resource demands by project managers may be perceived by functional managers as

a threat to their authority and a loss of accountability (Brown and Botha, 2005). This focus is

taken further by Engwall (2001) who emphasizes that functional managers are stuck in between

different project managers asking for resources and with no clear authority over those resources.

Taking the perspective of the project members we see that their reasons for compliance with

functional managers and project managers are different, caused by the perception that project

5

managers authority is less than the functional managers‟ authorities (Dunne, Stahl and Melhart,

1978).

Accountability

Accountability is an issue, for instance, when project managers aim to establish changes, which

are resisted by functional managers (Turner 1999; Turner and Müller, 2003; Brown 2008).

Dunne, Stahl and Melhart (1978) found empirical evidence that project managers have the

responsibility to meet project deliverables, but are not always have the authority to make the

required decisions. This creates conflicts.

Legitimacy

Another struggle often cited in publications is that of legitimacy. Temporary organizations

especially struggle with legitimacy for their management (Martinsuo and Lehtonen, 2007).

Engwall (2003, p791) describes the Project Manager “as a non-legitimate change agent in a

conservative, or sometimes even hostile organizational environment”. By broadening this

perspective, Lundin and Söderholm (1995) identified legitimacy as a key element in the relation

between the temporary organization and its environment, which may cause conflicts between

competing teams or organizational structures. Legitimacy of roles might also be affected in

matrix organizations by people being more loyal to their functional managers than their project

managers since the functional managers conduct their annual appraisal. This decreases the

legitimacy of the project manager (Turner 1999).

Power

6

The fourth struggle that we found is about power. In this paper we refer to Positional power

meaning the power that the project manager and the functional manager have from the position

their role gives them. Larson and Gobeli (1987) found in their studies evidence of power

struggles between project managers and functional managers. The underlying causes for the

struggles are competition for the control of the same resources and different personal objectives.

Power in leadership and management is based on the classic view of management being

planning, organizing, leading, coordinating and controlling (Fayol, 1949). In matrix

organizations most of these activities are performed by the project manager, some by the

functional manager and others are shared between the two. This creates a power struggle

generated by the ambiguity and overlapping of roles. This was treated by Ford and Randolph

(1992) in their literature review about integration of matrix and project management. They

highlighted conflicts about scheduling, personnel resources, administrative procedures and

priorities.

The impact of the control structure

Having dual lines of authority and split responsibilities generates ambiguity in many areas such

as resources, compensations, loyalty and recognition. This ambiguity generates the struggles

(Larson and Gobeli, 1987; Turner, 1999; Ford and Randolph, 1992; Knight, 1976; Engwall,

2001; Pinto and Rouhiainen, 2001). Turner (1999) traces these struggles back to organization

structures stating that the struggles are embedded on the structure since matrix structures are

combinations of functional hierarchical organization, where the head of a function is responsible

for both staff members and deliveries, as well as autonomous project organizations in which the

7

project manager is responsible for the staff and the deliveries. Taken the organization structure

perspective rises the following question:

Are there any difference in the way of controlling projects and functional departments?

Ouchi's (1979) work looked at correlation between different organizational structures and the

mechanism of control. He identified two major control mechanisms: Output control and

Behavior control.

Output control is based on controlling the performance and deliveries and is related to

organizations, which aim for legitimate objective control and where supervisors cannot

supervise their employees directly, for example in functional departments where the

resources are assigned to projects. Or project managers in mega projects not having the

possibility of supervising the behavior of all the members of the projects.

Behavior control on the contrary is based on a holistic approach that focuses on the way

that tasks are performed and is only appropriate to the supervisor for a working resource,

when the supervisor has a good understanding of the means-end relationship of the

behavior. An example of this is a project manager who understands the tasks and the

behavior needed to accomplish the task. These differences in control mechanism might

affect project managers and functional managers in different ways and contribute to the

struggles between the roles.

The above indicates the need for a deeper understanding of the factors and combinations of

factors that constitute the struggles between functional manager and project manager. This leads

us to address the following research questions:

8

1. What is the nature and strengths of the factors constituting the struggles

between functional managers and project managers in matrix

organizations?

2. How do project control mechanisms affect those four categories of

struggles?

3. Is there any correlation between the struggles?

Hence, the aim of the present paper is to suggest a framework to identify and assess the nature

and strength of factors in matrix organizations that make up the struggles described above.

Our unit of analysis is the type of struggles that functional manager and project manager have.

The results of this paper will contribute to a better understanding of the nature of these struggles

in matrix organizations. It will provide a framework of factors that make up the strength of

struggle, and identify further areas for research concerning this subject.

The paper continues with a review of the relevant matrix organization structures. Then it reviews

literature of projects as temporary organizations and subsequently outlines the differences

between functional organizations and project organizations when it comes to control needs. The

paper concludes by integrating the findings of these two perspectives into a framework and

defining propositions for further research.

Literature review

Matrix organizations

9

Matrix structure is one of the three classical organizational forms: Functional Organizations,

Matrix Organizations and Pure Project Organizations. In functional organizations the staff

belongs to a line function and performs all their work within that function, with no or very

limited interaction with other functions. The resources are grouped in functional areas such as

finance, marketing, design, engineering, production or in skill areas such as chemistry,

electronics, aerodynamics etc. The opposite of this organizational type is the Pure Project

Organization where all the work is performed in temporary structures or projects that are

separate from the parent organization and where the staff does not always belongs to a function.

The project manager has full authority over the project and resources. Strengths of this

organization type are that project members have one manager and are fully dedicated to the

project. In between these two organization types is the Matrix Organization which is a

combination of hierarchical structures and lateral communications, work co-operations and

authorities. In the matrix functions are the columns and projects are the rows (Turner, 1999;

Morgan, 1997).

The main reason for adopting the matrix as an organizational structure is the need for handling

high task complexity. The matrix deals with the kinds of communication and decision needs that

arise in complex interdisciplinary projects (Knight, 1976). “The term matrix organization was

coined to capture a visual impression of organizations that systematically attempt to combine the

kind of functional or departmental structure of organization found in a bureaucracy with a project

team structure” (Morgan 1997, p52). Galbraith (1971) and Curran (2002) describe the position of

the functions and projects in the matrix. They state that the matrix model creates a horizontal

interaction between the vertical functions which connects people across different functions.

10

Strengths of the matrix organizations are flexible resource utilization and better focus on tasks.

Among weaknesses we find unclear responsibilities and authorities. This implies conflicts and

ambiguity for all parties involved; for project managers and functional managers because they

share /divide power for project members and stakeholders (Morgan, 1997; Larson and Gobeli,

1987; Andersen, 2000; Galbraith, 1971; Knight, 1976).

The pros and cons of matrix organization are presented in Table 1.

-----------------------

Insert Table 1 here

-----------------------

Types of matrix organizations

The classical categorization of matrix organizations is based on the relation between project and

function. There are mainly three different forms: Functional Matrix, Project Matrix and

Balanced Matrix, (Larson and Gobeli, 1987; Morgan, 1997).

Functional Matrix

Functional Matrix is also called Coordinating Matrix or Functional Project Organization and

applies to organizations where the functional manager is responsible for assigning tasks and the

project coordinator coordinates tasks between functions. The project in some cases may not have

a project manager and the work is performed through the different organizational functions. This

type of organization focuses on an optimal use of resources. Common problems are poor quality

and poor communication (Turner, 1999; Pinto and Rouhiainen, 2001).

11

Another structure of the functional matrixes is the Lightweight Project Organization, where there

is a project manager with an overall responsibility for the project, but with limited power and

authority. The functional manager controls the resources and is the one who is in command. In

this kind of organizations we find a power conflict between the project manager and the

functional manager. The nature of this conflict is based on the roles and the different goals since

the project manager is more of a coordinator with no authority to make decisions. The project

manager is responsible for the outcome while the functional manager makes the decisions,

focuses on an optimal use of resources but not on the outcome (Pinto and Rouhiainen, 2001).

Analyzing the above definitions we see that in the functional matrix the weight is on the

functional side and as a consequence the functional manager has higher authority, power and

legitimacy than the project manager. The project manager is mostly accountable for the progress

of the project and for the deliveries.

Project Matrix

On the other extreme we have the Project Matrix, which has its focus and weight on the project

dimension. These types of matrix organizations are also called Pure Project Matrix, Secondment

Matrix or Autonomous Team Organization. Contrary to the functional matrix, project managers

are here the ones making decisions about the realization and decide on the involved staff, while

the functional managers are supporting them in the background. This support is mostly

performed by providing projects with personnel upon request. The project manager has

responsibility for resources, assigns and distributes work, and has the authority, status and

responsibility for project success. These organizations focus on problem solving, which (among

12

others) allows for customer-orientation, but they tend to overlook efficiency and costs and may

become too expensive. This potentially generates a goal conflict between functional manager and

project manager since the functional manager is typically responsible for the efficiency of the

organization (and sometimes even for the costs) while the project manager typically concentrates

on the deliveries through which he or she might fails take into account the wider organizational

picture (Larsson and Gobeli, 1987; Turner, 1999; Pinto and Rouhiainen, 2001).

In the extreme case of project matrix organization, a Full Authority Project Organization, the

project manager has full authority and project members are 100 percent allocated to the project.

The organization is outside the parent organization and considered a true temporary organization

(Andersen, 2000). In their empirical study, Morrison, Brown and Smit (2006) found out that in

this type of organizations the projects are large or semi-permanent and this gives the project

manager legitimacy in the organization. This legitimacy means that the project managers‟ inputs

and requests are being considered and can influence the parent organization and that their role is

recognized as a key role. Functional managers on the other side, see their roles limited by little

authority and are considered by the organization a supportive role.

An analysis of these definitions shows that in project matrix organizations the weight is on the

project side and the project manager has authority, power and legitimacy. On the other hand the

functional manager might face struggles in these areas due to the limited involvement and

possibilities to decide on the projects. The findings of Larson and Gobeli‟s (1987) study show

that the struggles between the roles are differently moderated in this type of matrix organization.

13

Balanced Matrix

In a Balanced Matrix the power is divided between the project manager and functional manager.

Project managers decide and plan what has to be done and functional managers are responsible

for how the work will be done. These organizations are a mix of functional hierarchies and pure

project-oriented structures. This positions the balanced matrix organizations in-between the

functional matrix and the project matrix. In these organizations the project managers and

functional managers share responsibilities, the project manager is responsible for time and cost

and functional manager for scope and quality (Larsson and Gobeli, 1987; Turner,1999; Pinto and

Rouhiainen, 2001).

Balanced Matrix Organizations are generally implemented in order to share resources between

functional work and project work and to create better balance between function and projects.

However, this may be difficult because dual authorities result in authority problems between

Project Manager and Functional Manager (Morrison, Brown and Smit, 2006; 2008). As a result

of unclear authorities, project managers might have less legitimacy and less authority than the

functional managers to influence the parent organization. The reason for this phenomenon could

be that the project managers tend to be isolated from the traditional function area of expertise. By

not being involved they face difficulties in gaining credibility and possibilities to be heard at

senior levels in the organization (Ford and Randolph, 1992).

Heavyweight Project Organizations are often organized around products or services which

require focus on customer needs and expectations (Pinto and Rouhiainen, 2001). In this type of

organizations the project managers share responsibilities and authorities with the functional

14

manager, the areas of accountability are specific for each of the roles but sometimes overlap each

other, thus generating power conflicts.

Andersen (2000) called this type of organization Split Authority Project Organization. His

emphasis is on the splitting of authority and work, since project members are recruited from

different functions and they need to perform both project work and functional work. Project

managers share authority with functional managers.

Research has shown that power struggles occur especially in the Balanced Matrix Organization

because its nature does not clearly define power and authority by role (Larson and Gobeli, 1987).

Project managers are considered responsible for deliveries but do not have the authority to

acquire resources (Brown, 2008).

Accountability issues may arise as well in balanced matrix organizations through the ambiguity

of situations in which the functional managers have the responsibility for assigning personnel to

a project and are responsible for the result of their functional area, while project managers set the

schedule and manage the project (Larsson and Gobeli, 1987). According to the conceptual study

of Goold and Campbell (2002), matrix organizations might collapse because of this lack of

clarity about responsibilities and accountabilities between the project managers and the

functional managers.

Summary of Matrix organizations review

15

The literature review showed a lack of common definitions and classifications of matrix and

project organizations. The differences are not only the names but also the definitions and

responsibilities of the project manager and functional manager. For example, for Larson and

Gobeli (1987) the project manager in a balanced matrix is responsible for the scope, while for

Turner (1999) the scope in a balanced matrix is the responsibility of the functional manager. This

example illustrates the need for harmonization, unification, or at least a context dependency of

definitions. It also shows that the term “balanced matrix” cannot be used without further

definition, because it has different meaning for different writers.

This paper adopts the definition of Knight (1976), where a Balanced Matrix Organization is seen

as an organization with a vertical functional structure and a horizontal project structure. In this

organization the functional managers are responsible for the line organization; they have

responsibility for resources, competence development, promotion, employee evaluation, and

recruiting new staff. They are also responsible for providing projects with staff when requested

and balancing these requests with available resources. When a project is finalized the functional

manager is responsible for transferring the knowledge that has been acquired by the project

members to the line organization (Turner, 1999). The functional manager could do the first

preliminary definition of the scope and the goal of the project. The identification of the scope is

based on the strategy, aligning the function with the strategy is one of the main responsibilities of

the functional manager (Larsson and Gobeli, 1987). The definition of the scope and the project

goal could also come from other stakeholders. In this case the functional manager is not the

initiator of the project but is still the owner of the project initiation in relation to the project

manager. The final scope and goals need to be handled and stated by the project manager.

16

Meaning that the project manager needs to do an analysis of the requested outcome and an

adjustment of the initial goals and requested deliveries.

Among the above descriptions, seems to be a consensus that a balanced matrix distributes power,

authority and responsibility in a shared manner or allows for an overlap between the project

manager and functional manager authorities. It is in this type of organization where we find most

struggles.

Table 2 summarizes the above review of matrix typologies and its classifications, focusing on the

project manager and functional manager. It also shows that the role of the project manager and

functional manager differs depending on the type of matrix organization. Power, responsibilities

and accountabilities of these two roles are thus dependent on the organizational structure.

-----------------------

Insert Table 2 here

-----------------------

Having reviewed the different types of matrix organizations we have seen that there are

differences in the categories of struggles between project managers and functional manager in

each one of these organization types. We were unable to find theoretical evidence for legitimacy

struggles being present in functional matrix and in balanced matrix structures.

Table 3 maps some of the factors that constitute the category of struggles for each type of matrix

organization.

------------------------

Insert Table 3 here

17

-----------------------

The critical literature review indicates:

If the functional manager has stronger power and authority his/her role may have stronger

legitimacy in the organization.

On the contrary, if the project manager has more power and authority over the resources,

the plans and the outcomes, his/her role may have the stronger legitimacy.

Different degrees of responsibility sharing will also influence the legitimacy of the roles,

i.e. if the project manager is responsible for the outcome but cannot influence the

selection of resources or the end date of the project. Especially when this is the

responsibility of the functional manager it may lead to equal levels of legitimacy, but it

can also minimize the legitimacy of the project manager.

This leads to the first two propositions:

Proposition 1a: The legitimacy struggles in matrix organizations depend on the distribution of

power, authority and accountability between the project manager and the functional manager.

Proposition 1b: Legitimacy struggles are dependent on the type of matrix structure.

Projects as Temporary Organizations

In this section we will review projects as temporary organizations, in order to provide a broader

spectrum of project organizations. Looking at projects as temporary organizations we can

classify them in two types. In the first type people in the organization alternate between different

projects and do not have a manager outside these projects. This is typical for movie and theatre

productions. These organizations focus on the skills of the team members; they are expected to

18

perform complex tasks with little coordination (Goodman and Goodman, 1976; Bechky, 2006).

The second type of projects as temporary organization comes from the matrix organizational

form, where project members belong to functional departments in form of resource pools, from

where they are lend out to the different projects.

We are going to review both types of temporary organizations, but prioritize the second type

because the purpose of the present study is to focus on the struggles between project manager

and functional manager and these are more often associated with the second type of temporary

organizations.

A large amount of existing literature is based on standards such as “The Guide to the Project

Management Body of Knowledge” (PMBOK) from the Project Management Institute (PMI®)1

and has a tendency to focus on the project itself. It pays little attention to the organization and

environment that surrounds the project. Engwall (2003) introduced a contingency-based

ontology by looking at the surroundings and proposing a conceptualization of projects as

contextually embedded open systems; open in both time and space. He stated the importance of

seeing temporary organizations as parts of the whole organization and not as isolated entities.

This perspective identifies projects as being context dependent on, for example, the surrounding

organization, previous projects, other ongoing projects and future projects. It shows the

importance of analyzing the struggles between the roles by taking these perspectives into

consideration.

1 “PMI is a registered trademark and service mark of the Project Management Institute, Inc

19

Table 4 shows a comparison of the different factors that characterize permanent organizations

and temporary organizations. The differences in the factors that characterize temporary

organizations and permanent organization may be the underlying the reasons for the struggles

between the roles (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Project managers of temporary organizations

and functional managers of permanent organizations may have different foci, different control

mechanism, different relational patterns and work in different organizational structures. The

strength of the struggles could vary depending on the dominance of these factors.

-----------------------

Insert Table 4 here

-----------------------

Aspects of projects as temporary organizations

Several aspects that need to be taken into account when looking at projects as temporary

organizations. These are temporariness, context and control mechanisms (Lundin and

Söderholm, 1995; Engwall, 2003; Packendorff, 2003). In this section we will review those

aspects and see whether they have an impact on the category of the struggles between project

managers and functional managers.

Temporariness

According to Lundin and Söderholm (1995), temporariness is the primary element to be

considered because it represents the main difference between functional and temporary

organizations. Time is fundamental to understanding temporary organizations, since they are

limited by time. In permanent organizations time is seen as eternal, in temporary organizations

20

time is seen as something that comes to an end. The view of projects as temporary organization

which coexists within permanent organizations has an impact on both organizations.

Considering temporariness as a crucial aspect there are differences on its impact on projects

depending on their categorization. Janowicz, Bakker and Kenis (2009) categorized temporariness

in:

1. Temporariness as Short Duration

2. Temporariness as Limited Duration

3. Temporariness as Awareness of Impeding Termination.

Defining Temporariness as Short Duration focuses on the limitation of the time available to

conduct tasks as well as the time group members are part of the organization.

Temporariness as Limited Duration refers to the duration of the temporary organization based on

a specific predetermined date, or events or conditions that need to be completed. Temporariness

as Awareness of Impeding Termination is a subcategory of the limited duration approach that

adds members´ awareness of limited duration and their behavior in order to cope with this fact

(Janowicz, Bakker and Kenis, 2009).

Even though these theories argue that time is the key element of the temporary organization there

are different perspectives and implications depending on the different approaches. It implies that

time is not only the start and end point of temporary organizations, meaning that when

discussing time and its effect on temporary organizations, it is not only the awareness about

insufficient time and deadlines what we need to take into consideration.

21

Looking further we see also that time affects the goals of project managers and functional

managers. Project managers have a shorter time perspective because of the temporary nature of

the project, while functional managers have a longer term overall business perspective, which is

based on business result and continuity instead of time (Jugdev and Müller, 2005). This

contradiction in the perspective of goals, which is based on time aspects, could generate conflicts

between project managers and functional managers. Examples of this conflict are mentioned by

Pinto and Slevin (1987) as a result of their empirical research having project managers who are

focused on client acceptance and expectation while the functional manager focused on strategic

time aspects. In addition to this project managers deal with possible risks stemming from the

project members awareness of the temporariness of the project. This may lead them to focus on

finding the next assignment, which may impact the effectiveness of the current project and thus

the project manager‟s authority (Gadis, 1959). The latter is in contradiction to the findings by

Bakker and Janowicz (2009), that the members of a temporary organization focus more on the

present than on the past and future. They argued that the members of a temporary organization

have a strong present orientation and that this has a positive influence on performance. At the

same time team members are mentally decoupled from the rest of the organization. This implies

that the functional manager has limited authority and possibilities to influence the project

members.

The above indicates that depending on the two above approaches, the authority of the project

manager and the functional manager may differ. If the project members focus on the present the

project manager may have higher authority, if the project members focus on the future and the

next assignment the functional manager may have more authority.

22

How does temporariness affect legitimacy? The findings of Janowics, Kenis and Vermeulen

(2009) showed that external legitimacy, meaning the legitimacy of the project outside the project

organization, is affected negatively by temporariness. This is generated by the fact that

temporary organizations function in isolation from the structures of their context. As a

consequence of this temporary isolation temporary organizations tend to create their own norms

that diverge from those of the permanent parent organization. This may affect the external

legitimacy; affect the capacity of receiving support and the project manager possibilities of being

heard within the organization. This leads to a weakness in the ability to perform the tasks.

Especially if newly developed norms in a project challenge the established norms of the parent

organization (Engwall, 2003; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995).

Is there a relation between temporariness and the distribution of power between project

managers and functional managers? The answer to this question may depend on the definition of

temporariness. In short duration temporariness power should benefit the functional managers

since they have the long term perspective in their roles, meaning that the project members will be

more loyal to their long term manager or supervisor (Turner, 1999).

Temporariness as limited time may be favorable for the project manager since there is a specific

event or date that marks the end of the organization. Focusing on the event could give the power

of leading and using the event as a power mechanism (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Bechky,

2006).

23

Having the perspective of temporariness as impeding termination could give more power to one

of the roles depending on the situation and the mechanism that the team members use to cope

with the fact that the project is only temporary. If the project members‟ strategy to cope with the

insecurity that the temporariness causes led them to situations of isolation from the line

organization, then the likelihood of power reduction on the side of the functional manager is

reduced. Similarly, if the project members do not strive to move towards termination of the

project, the power of the project manager in his or her role to lead the project towards its goals

may be reduced.

Temporariness in general could also lead to a power balance between project managers and

functional managers since, according the findings of Bakker and Janowicz (2009), the member‟s

awareness about the unexciting or low probability of future collaboration make them concentrate

on the present with little or no focus on the future. Thus leading to higher creativity and

innovation. The reason for this phenomenon is that the members are acting in a “protective

bubble”, guarded from the shadow of the future and the burden of the past” (Bakker and

Janowicz, 2009 p128). This underlying factor could give project managers a committed and

motivated team and could give the functional manager fast paced zone which works in a short

time towards the long time goals.

The above review shows that temporariness has potentially an impact on the struggles in

authority, legitimacy and power between project managers and functional managers. Thus

having an impact on the temporary organization. It also shows that the time impact could have

both positive and negative consequences for both project and the functional organization.

24

Context

As mentioned in the previous section; Engwall (2003) addresses the Context aspect of a project,

stating that it is highly dependent on the surrounding organization, on previous projects, other

ongoing projects and future projects. In his research he found that the degree to which project

management approaches challenge norms and structures of the parent organization affect the

results of the projects. The more project management challenges established structures and

norms of the organization, the smaller the chance to succeed.

Does context affect the four categories of struggles?

Before answering this question, it is necessary to clarify that there are different contexts

perspectives: Considering the context of projects requires to look at organizational aspects and

perceive the parent and temporary organization as distinct entities. This perspective allows to

look at the relationship between the two organizations from an Principal – Agent Theory

perspective. Jenssen and Meckling (1976), describe Principal – Agent Theory as a relationship

between two institutions (people or organizations) where one institution, which is called the

principal, delegates works to another institution, which is called the agent. Their relationship is

subject to two agency problems, which occur when both try to maximize their own utility in their

relationship. These are goal conflict and the difficulty and cost that the principal faces in order

to control the agent. This conflict of interest has it nature in the differences of goals. The

principal may wish that the agent run the organization (e.g. a project) in a way that increases the

value for the principal. On the other hand, the agent may wish to manage the organization (e.g.

25

the project) in ways that maximize the agent‟s personal goals, which may not be in the best

interests of the principal (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Eisenhardt, 1989).

Agency problems in relation to project management were, among others, discussed by Müller

(2009), Andersen (2009), Eisenhardt (1989), Turner and Müller (2003). These authors

considered the parent organization as the principal and the project organization as the agent, or

assumed that the sponsor or project owner is the principal and the project manager is the agent.

There is a risk for conflict of interest if these two are not completely aligned in their goals,

information and directions. Elimination of this risk will rarely be possible because the project

manager as the agent focuses on project performance and the project owner as the principal

focuses on the parent organization with a broader set of objectives. The agency problem stems

from the separation of ownership and management. The project manager as an agent manages

the project, but the project is owned by the principal – If the principal is the functional manager

we might find power struggles between the project manager and the functional manager.

The underlying assumptions of Principal – Agent Theory are challenged by Stewardship Theory,

which questions the assumption that a principal – agent relationship will always be characterized

by a conflict. This theory states that, on the contrary to the agency assumption, the agent will act

in the interest of the principal and focus on generating benefit for the principal and not for his/her

own interest (Davis, Schoorman and Donaldson, 1997; Donaldson and Davis, 1991; Lee and

O‟Neill, 2003).

26

Müller (2010) relates the two theories to the type of industries, where agency theory is applied in

for-profit organizations but might not be appropriate for non-profit sectors. In non-profit sectors

Stewardship theory is applied, due to collaborative approaches between the principal and the

steward. Stewardship Theory assumes a different relationship between project managers and

their context and thus a different relationship towards the functional mangers, because of

synchronization of objectives and a mutually supportive relationship.

Considering the functional lines of the organization as context, Brown (2008) found empirical

evidence of the lack of legitimacy of project managers as a consequence of the challenging

changes that projects generate on the functional lines. Furthermore she found that there was a

correlation in this area that depended on the extent in which the project was challenging the

permanent organization. This is also supported by Engwall (2001) and his empirical study of two

projects that were among the biggest capital investment projects carried out in Scandinavia

during the late 1980s. His finding does not only support the legitimacy disadvantage of the

project manager in relation to the functional manager, he also relates authority and accountability

struggles to it.

Summarizing the above in relation to projects as temporary organizations and their context,

principal – agent theory is based on the assumption that there is a conflict of interests and

therefore a need for control. This might affect the authority of project managers because they are

controlled by functional managers. While stewardship theory is based on a harmonization of

interests between the project and it context and therefore collaboration and trust are developed.

27

Furthermore, prior research indicates that that the contexts of projects impact on the four

categories of struggles.

Control Mechanism

Control Mechanism in temporary organizations differs from those of permanent organizations in

a way that the focus is on relations instead of controlling by lines of authority (Bechky, 2006).

Temporary organizations tend to develop their own mechanisms of control, which are based on

interpersonal processes (Packendorff, 2003). This can be observed not only in firms, but also in

theater groups and film teams. Temporary organizations need to deal with tasks and

environmental uncertainty; this is managed by interpersonal processes instead of formal

structures. These interpersonal processes are the base of the control mechanisms, indicating

behavior control as stated by Ouchi (1979). A temporary organization does not necessarily

become an unstructured work organization. On the contrary it tends to develop alternative and

normative rules (Bechky, 2006).

Control mechanisms can be based on project performance, project deliverables and project

behavior, or through controlling the gap between project preferences and parent organization.

The last mentioned control mechanism is a holistic approach which is based on achieving

common values and beliefs within the parent organization and project organization (Andersen,

2009).

The above addresses differences in the way of controlling projects and the way of controlling

permanent organizations. These differences might affect project managers and functional

28

managers in different ways and contribute to the struggles between their roles. Controlling a

project in the same way as controlling a plan affects the autonomy of the project and this lead to

an authority disadvantage for the project manager (Packendorff, 2003). On the other hand if the

parent organization does not have any other way of influencing and or participating in the work

of the temporary organization than controlling the performance or the deliveries, the functional

manager authority might be weaker or even imbalanced in relation to the project manager

(Turner and Müller, 2003; Müller and Turner, 2005). This may also have an impact on

legitimacy, because if the project is not accepted as organization, the project manager‟s

legitimacy will be lower than that of the functional manager (Brown, 2008). As a consequence,

this could also influence team commitment and loyalty (Turner, 1999).

Does the control mechanism affect the power struggles between project managers and functional

managers? Based on the above we argue that control mechanisms for the project also influence

the power struggle and distribution of power between the managers‟ roles. By creating

alternative norms and rules and by the project‟s isolation the project manager might have a

strong power within the project. Then the functional manager may be limited to controlling the

outcome with no possibility to influence the performance of the work. Contrarily the functional

manager could control the outcome of the project and also controls the project manager itself and

has the majority of the power.

Applying the holistic control mechanism mentioned by Andersen (2000), meaning controlling

what the project manager is doing and not only that he/she is delivering could lead to a different

scenario. The risk for conflict is minimized by taking actions that minimize the divergence of

29

goals between project managers and functional managers. Thus a holistic control mechanism

may contribute to a better balance minimizing the power struggle.

The above review shows that control mechanisms of projects as temporary organizations impact

on the four categories of struggles. Prior research found evidence of both advantages and

disadvantage for the project manager and the functional manager.

Summarizing the review on projects as temporary organizations

The review of literature on projects as temporary organizations indicates that the four categories

of struggles are affected by temporariness, project context and project control mechanisms (see

Table 5).

Furthermore, a gap in previous research was identified in terms of the impact that the

combination of temporariness, context and control mechanisms has on the four categories of

struggles. Further research in this area is suggested.

Huemann (2010), Turner, Keegan and Huemann (2008), Söderlund and Bredin (2005), stated

that HRM practices related to project as temporary organizations is an unexplored area. There is

also a need for clarification of the project manager‟s responsibility in HRM practices and of

moving some HR responsibilities to the project manager. This is needed because the project

manager is affected by HR decisions but is not participating in them. The functional manager, on

the other hand, is having problems in following the competence development of his/her personal

while they are allocated to the projects (Söderlund & Bredin, 2005). HRM practices are a

30

challenge in temporary organizations because they require a new way of managing and a role

demand that differs from the role in traditional organization structures (Turner et al., 2008).

Looking at companies that perform most of their activities in projects we see that “Project

managers carry out HRM tasks for project team members, even if he or she has no personnel

authority” (Huemann 2010,p 367). These facts might contribute to the tension between the two

roles but further research is needed to determinate if the distribution of HRM practices between

the Project Manager and the Functional Manager has an impact on the four struggles that we are

studying.

Table 5 presents a selection of the previous research on the aspects of temporary organizations

and the different categories of struggles.

-----------------------

Insert Table 5 here

-----------------------

Analyzing the table allows us to purpose the following propositions:

Proposition 2a: The legitimacy of the project manager is affected negatively by temporariness,

project context and project control mechanisms.

Proposition 2b: Mutually supportive relations between project managers and functional

managers lead to reduction of authority, power and accountability struggles

Proposition 3c: The unclear distribution of HRM responsibilities is a source of tension between

project managers and functional managers.

Conclusions and areas for further research

31

Having reviewed the literature on matrix and temporary organizations, combining these two

domains of studies and focusing on Project Manager and Functional Manager, we have found

that struggles about Power, Authority, Accountability and Legitimacy are mentioned. These

struggles have been discussed from the early literature on matrix organizations until the latest

contributions. There seems to be consensus that these are frequently present in matrix settings.

This does not mean that these are the only struggles that need to be considered. Further research

is needed in order to determine if they are important struggles and to decide how to measure

them.

Our conclusion is that the nature and factors that underlie the struggles between project managers

and functional manager are grounded in the organizational structures and control structures. The

different matrix organizations distribute power, authority, accountability and legitimacy between

project managers and functional managers in different ways. The strength of the struggles may

vary with the organizational structure and control structure. Applying agency theory and seeing

projects as agencies, lead us to the conclusion that the nature of the struggles lies in the roles

where the project manager (the agent) knows more about project issues, content and projects

members than the functional manager (the principal). The principal may not understand why the

agents makes the choices they do. Both the agent and principal may try to maximize their own

utility and in situations where the objectives are not aligned struggles will arise (Turner and

Müller, 2003; Müller and Turner, 2005; Jensen and Meckling, 1976).

We also see indications of relationships between the parameters that define temporary

organizations (i.e. temporariness, control mechanisms and context), and the four struggles (i.e.

32

accountably, authority, power and legitimacy). This paper has identified the need for more

empirical research in this area.

33

References

Andersen, E. (2009) “Two perspectives of project management”, EURAM. 2009. 9 th. 11th -

14th May, Liverpool.

Andersen, E. (2000). “Managing organization-structure and responsibilities”, in Turner, J. R., &

Simister, S. J. (eds.) Gower Handbook of Project Management (Vol. 3rd, pp. 277-292).

Hampshire, UK: Gower Publishing Ltd.

Bakker, R.M., & Janowicz,M. (2009). “Time Matters: the impact of „temporariness‟ on the

functioning and performance of organizations” in Temporary Organizations “Prevalence, Logic

and Effectiveness” Kenis,P. ,Janowicz,M.and Cambre, B. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing

Limited.

Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips, “Role-Based Coordination in Temporary

Organizations”. Organization Science, 17(1), 3-21.

Brown, C. J. (2008). “A comprehensive organisational model for the effective management of

project management”. South African Journal of Business Management, 39(3), 1-10.

Brown, C. J., & Botha, M. C. (2005). “Lessons learnt on implementing project management in a

functionally-only structured South African municipality”. South African Journal of Business

Management, 36(4), 1-7.

Curran, C. J. (2002). “The Myth of Equality in Flatline Organizations”. OD Practitioner, 34(4),

40-46.

Davis, J. H., F Schoorman. D. & Donaldson L (1997). “Toward a stewardship theory of

management”. Academy of Management Review 22(1): 20-47.

Donaldson, L., & J. H. Davis (1991). Stewardship “Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance

and Shareholder Returns”. Australian Journal of Management 16(1): 49.

Dunne Jr, E. J., Stahl, M. J., & Melhart Jr, L. J. (1978). “Influence source of project and

functional managers in matrix organizations”. Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 135-140.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Agency theory: An assessment and review”. Academy of

Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.

Engwall, M. (2001). “Moving Out of Plato's Cave: Toward a Multi-Project Perspective on

Project Organizing”. Fenix WP 2001:8.

Engwall, M. (2003). “No project is an island: linking projects to history and context.” Research

Policy, 32(5), 789-808.

Fayol, H. (1949). “General and Industrial Management”. London: Pitman. (Translated by C.

Storra from the original Administration Industrielle et Générale 1916)

Ford, R. C., & Randolph, W. A. (1992). “Cross-Functional Structures: A Review and Integration

of Matrix Organization and Project Management”. Journal of Management, 18(2), 267.

Forman, E., & Selly M A. 2001. “Decision by Objectives: How to Convince Others That You

Are Right”. World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 402.

Gaddis, P. O. (1959). “The project manager”. Harvard Business Review, 37(3), 89-97.

34

Galbraith, J. R. (1971). “Matrix organization designs”. Business Horizons, 14(1), 29.

Galbraith, J. R., & R. K. Kazanjian (1986). “Organizing to implement strategies of diversity and

globalization: The role of matrix designs”. Human Resource Management 25(1), 37-54.

Goodman, R. A. (1971). “Organization and the effective use of human resources”. British

Journal of Industrial Relations, 9(1), 55-68.

Goodman, R. A., & Goodman, L. P. (1976). “Some Management Issues in Temporary Systems:

A Study of Professional Development and Manpower--The Theater Case”. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 21(3), 494-501.

Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (2002). “Do You Have a Well-Designed Organization?”, Harvard

Business Review, 80(3), 117-124.

Grimes, A.J. (1978) “Authority, Power, Influence and Social Control: A Theoretical Synthesis”,

Academy of Management 3(4), 724-735.

Huemann, M. (2010) “Considering Human Resource Management when developing a project-

oriented company: Case study of a telecommunication company”, International Journal of

Project Management, 28(4) 361-369.

Janowicz,M., Bakker, R.M., & Kenis,P. (2009) “Research on temporary organizations: the state

of the art and distinct approaches toward “Temporariness” in Temporary Organizations

“Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness”, Kenis,P.,Janowicz,M.,Cambre,B. Cheltenham: Edward

Elgar Publishing Limited.

Janowicz, M., Kenis, P., ,R,M., & Vermeulen,P.(2009). “The atemporality of temporary

organizations: implications for goal attainment and legitimacy in Temporary Organizations

“Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness”, Kenis,P.,Janowicz,M.,Cambre,B. Cheltenham: Edward

Elgar Publishing Limited.

Jensen, M. C., & W. H. Meckling (1976). ”Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency

Costs and Ownership Structure”. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.

Jugdev, K., & Müller R. (2005). ”A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project

success”. Project Management Journal 36(4), 19-31.

Katz, R. (1982). “The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance”,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, 81-104.

Katz, R., & Allen, T.J. (1985). ”Project performance and the locus of influence in the R & D

matrix”. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 67-87.

Knight, K. (1976). “Matrix organization: a review”. Journal of Management Studies, 13(2), 111-

130.

Larson, E. W., & Gobeli, D. H. (1987). “Matrix Management: Contradictions and Insights.”

California Management Review, 29(4), 126-138.

Lee, P. M., & O‟Neill, H. M. (2003) “Ownership structures and R&D investments of U.S. and

Japanese firms: agency and stewardship perspectives.”, Academy of Management Journal, 46,

212-225.

Lundin, R. A., & A. Söderholm (1995). “A Theory of the Temporary Organization.”,

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437-455.

35

Martinsuo, M., & Lehtonen, P. (2007). “Institutional Transformation through Temporary

Organizing. Comparison of two Approaches.”, 23rd EGOS European Group for Organization

Studies Colloquium, 5-7 July 2007, Vienna, Austria.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. London: SAGE Publications.

Morrison, J. M., Brown, C. J., & Smit, E. V. D. M. (2006). “A supportive organisational culture

for project management in matrix organisations: A theoretical perspective”. South African

Journal of Business Management, 37(4), 39-54.

Morrison, J. M., C. J. Brown, et al. (2008). "The impact of organizational culture on project

management in matrix organizations". South African Journal of Business Management 39 (4),

27-36.

Müller, R. (2009). Project Governance, Farnharn: Gower Publishing Limited.

Müller, R. (forthcoming). Project Governance, in Morris, P., Pinto, J. & Söderlund, J. (eds.),

Oxford Handbook of Project Management, Oxford University Press, UK.

Müller, R., & J. R. Turner (2005). “The impact of principal, agent relationship and contract type

on communication between project owner and manager”. International Journal of Project

Management 23(5), 398-403.

Northouse, P.G., (2009). Leadership Theory and Practice (fifth edition). Sage Publications Inc.,

California USA.

Ouchi, W. G. (1979). “A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control

Mechanisms”. Management Science 25(9), 833-848.

Packendorff, J. (2003). Projektorganisation och Projektorganisering: Projekt som plan och

temporär organisation. 2:a upplagan. Umeå: Handelshögskolan i Umeå, Inst för

Företagsekonomi.

Pinto, J. K., & Rouhiainen, P. (2001). Buildning Customer-Based Project Organizations. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Pinto, J.K., & Slevin, D.P. (1987), “Critical factors in successful project implementation”, IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, 22-8.

Popper K. (1960) “On the Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance” in Popper selections, D Miller

(Ed) Princeton University Press 1985.

Project Management Institute (PMI®). (2004), A Guide to the Project Management Body of

Knowledge (PMBOKR Guide), 3rd ed., Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Söderlund, J., & Bredin, K. (2005), Perspektiv på HRM., Malmö: Liber Ekonomi.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches”,

Academy of management review 20(3), 571-610.

Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of Project-based Management: Improving the Process for

Achieving Strategic Objectives, 2nd ed., London: McGraw Hill.

Turner, J.R., Huemann, M., Keegan, A.E., 2008, Human Resource Management in the Project-

oriented Organization, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

36

Turner, R., & Müller R. (2007). “Choosing Appropriate Project Managers: Matching Their

Leadership Style to the Type of Project”. PM Network 21(3), 83-83.

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization.”

International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1.

TutorVista.com 2010, http://www.tutorvista.com/ 2010/10/8.

37

Table 1. Matrix organizations pros and cons

Matrix organization Citation

Pros Efficient use of resources Goodman 1971

Galbraith 1971

Knight 1976

Larson and Gobeli 1987

Ford and Randolph 1992

Turner 1999

Andersen 2000

Morrison, Brown and Smit 2006

Flexibility Galbraith 1971

Knight 1976

Larson and Gobeli 1987

Improved motivation and commitment Knight 1976

Larson and Gobeli 1987

Ford and Randolph 1992

Improved communication lateral and

vertical

Knight 1976

Larson and Gobeli 1987

Ford and Randolph 1992

Cons Power struggles between the project Knight 1976

manager and functional manager Larson and Gobeli 1987

Ford and Randolph 1992

Engwall 2001

Brown and Botha 2005

Morrison, Brown and Smit

2006;2008

Brown 2008

Competition concerning resources‟ Knight 1976

Galbraith and Kazanjian 1986

Larson and Gobeli 1987

Engwall 2001

Brown and Botha 2005

Morrison, Brown and Smit 2006

Brown 2008

Ambiguity and role conflict due to

duality

Knight 1976

Galbraith and Kazanjian 1986

Larson and Gobeli 1987

Ford and Randolf 1992

Andersen 2000

Engwall 2001

Morrison, Brown and Smit

2006;2008

Brown 2008

Monitoring and control Knight 1976

Larson and Gobeli 1987

Higher administrative cost Knight 1976

Galbraith and Kazanjian 1986

Ford and Randolph 1992

Turner and Müller 2007

38

Table 2. Summary of matrix organization typologies, PM and FM perspective

Matrix organizations typologies: a selection

(Functional Manager (FM), Project Manager (PM))

Larsson and

Gobeli

1987

Functional

Matrix

PM: Coordinator

FM: Responsible

for staff and

deliveries

Project Matrix

PM: Responsible

for staff and

realization

FM: Supporting

Balanced Matrix

Shared responsibilities

PM: Design and plan

Responsible for the

What

FM: Responsible for

the work, for the How

Turner

1999 Coordinating

Matrix

PM: Coordinator

FM: Responsible

for staff and

assigning work

Secondment

Matrix

PM: Responsible

for staff and for

assigning work

FM: Providing

personnel

Balanced Matrix

Share responsibilities

PM: Responsible for

time and cost

FM: Responsible for

scope and quality

Andersen

2000 Split Authority Project Organization

Shared authority between PM and FM

Pinto and

Rouhiainen

2001

Lightweight Project Organization

PM: Coordinator

FM: Responsible for the staff and

assigning work.

Heavyweight Project

Organization

Shared Responsibilities

between PM and FM

39

Table 3 Category of struggles and type of matrix organization

Functional Matrix Project Matrix Balance Matrix

Authority PM faces struggles in

this area (Pinto and

Rouhiainen, 2001).

The FM retain the

ultimate decision

making authority (Ford

and Randolf, 1992).

FM faces struggles due to

the fact that the PM has

the authority to control

both resources and project

direction (Ford and

Randolf, 1992).

In general un-clarity about

authority is largely absent

(Morrison, Brown and

Smit, 2006).

Both PM and FM faces

authority struggles due

the split boundary of

authority (Larsson and

Gobeli, 1987; Brown

2008).

Accountability PM is accountable for

the result but faces

accountability struggles

due to ambiguity and

lack of authority

(Turner, 1999).

FM faces struggles in this

area because the cost and

long term accountability

that is part of the role are

threatened by a problem

solving and customer

focus applied by PM who

have more authority

(Morrison, Brown and

Smit, 2006).

There are struggles in

this area there are

generated by shared or

split accountability

regarding resources,

technical issues, salaries

and personnel

management (Kats and

Allen, 1985).

Power PM and FM faces

conflict dues to

ambiguity of goals

(Pinto and Rouhiainen,

2001).

Both PM and FM faces

moderate power struggles

(Larson and Gobeli,1987).

Power struggles

between PM and FM as

a result of the ambiguity

regarding

accountabilities and

responsibilities (Ford

and Randolf, 1992).

Legitimacy To date no theoretical

evidence.

FM faces struggles in this

area due to limited

authority (Morrison,

Brown and Smit, 2006).

To date no theoretical

evidence.

40

Table 4. Comparison between permanent and temporary organizations

Factors Permanent Organization Temporary Organization

Focus on Long-term Survival

Turner (1999)

Time

Lundin and Söderholm (1995)

Relation to

Organizational hierarchy

Engwall (2003)

Context

Engwall (2003)

Controlled by Formal Structures

Bechky (2006)

Interpersonal Processes and

alternative Control

Mechanisms.

Pakendorff (2003)

41

Table 5. Selection of temporary organizations and struggles

Temporariness Context Project control

Mechanisms

Authority Benefit the authority

of PM if the project

members focus on the

present and benefit the

FM if the focus is on

the future (Bakker and

Janowicz, 2009).

Applying he steward‟s

theory‟s approach gives

mutually supportive

relation between PM and

FM and thus a reduction

of the authority struggle

(Müller 2010).

Applying the Agency

theory is a disadvantage

for the PM

(Müller, 2009; Andersen,

2009; Eisenhardt, 1989;

Turner and Müller, 2003).

Create disadvantage

for the PM

(Packendorff, 2003).

Accountability and

Power

Benefit the FM

(Turner 1999),

Balanced between PM

and FM (Bakker and

Janowicz, 2009)

Benefit the PM

(Lundin and

Söderholm, 1995;

Bechky, 2006).

Applying the Agency

theory gives disadvantage

for the PM or FM

depending on the context

(Müller, 2009; Andersen,

2009; Eisenhardt, 1989;

Turner and Müller, 2003).

A holistic approach

will balance the

power between the

roles (Andersen,

2009).

Legitimacy Affects the legitimacy

of the PM negatively

(Janowics, Kenis and

Vermeulen, 2009;

Lundin and

Söderholm, 1995;

Katz, 1982).

Affects the legitimacy of

the PM negatively

specially if the project

challenges the permanent

organization

(Brown, 2008; Engwall,

2001).

Lower for the PM

(Turner, 1999).