![Behavioral Demonstration of the Competencies in Work Samples from Critical Incident Interviews by Outstanding (n=13) versus Average Project Managers (n=15) [For each competency, the first line of numbers are mean strength. The second line are complexity or breadth.]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Boyatzis/publication/331287106/figure/tbl1/AS:980238402060289@1610718455882/Behavioral-Demonstration-of-the-Competencies-in-Work-Samples-from-Critical-Incident_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Richard E. Boyatzis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard E. Boyatzis on Jan 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Emotional and Social Intelligence Competencies
of Effective Project Managers
1
Boyatzis, R.E., Fambrough, M., Leonard, D. & Rhee, K. (2009). Emotional and
Social Intelligence Competencies of Effective Project Managers. To appear in
David Clelland and Bopaya Bidanda (eds.), Project Management Circa 2025,
273-288.
1
Richard Boyatzis is Professor in the Departments of Organizational behavior, Psychology and Cognitive Science at Case Western Reserve
University; Mary Fambrough is Professor in the California School of Professional Psychology; David Leonard is faculty in Duke Executive
Education; and Kenneth Rhee is Associate professor at Northern Kentucky University.
2
At some point in their lives and organizations, everyone works in teams or small groups. In many work
settings, these teams are formed around specific tasks and objectives defined as a project. The manager of these
teams is the project manager. In this sense, project management is one of the elemental forms of management in our
society, and will continue to be for a least the next 25-50 years.
While so much depends on the talent of these managers, relatively little formal research has been published
on the competencies that distinguish effective project managers. Much of the competency research has been done by
consultants and not been published. Most of the research has focused on tasks and role requirements or general style.
The concept of competency-based human resources has gone from a new technique to a common practice
in the 36 years since David McClelland (1973) first proposed them as a critical differentiator of performance.
Although some companies began using competencies in identifying outstanding performers and training in the
1970s, the practice spread in the 1980s and 1990s. Initial projects were driven by the desire to make better selection
or promotion decisions, or to drive the design of training and development programs. Today, the use of some form
of competency-based human resource management is typical in most large companies (Boyatzis, 2008).
A project manager is often in a “player-coach” role. That is, he or she has to mix the talent of the individual
contributors working on the team while continuing to be an individual contributor. The competencies distinguishing
outstanding individual contributors (e.g., scientists, trainers, salespersons, etc.) are somewhat different from those
distinguishing outstanding managers and leaders. Except for sales managers or sports team coaches, the clash and
conflicts of these two sets of competencies are more apparent in the role of project manager than any other.
This distinction is evident when looking at one of the underlying motives that drives effectiveness of sales
or engineering, called Need for Achievement (McClelland, 1985). This unconscious motive helps people be
effective individual contributors, but gets in the way when they reach middle-level or executive management when
another motive, the Need for Power, becomes key to effectiveness performance (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). In
the project manager role, a person must be doing both roles, and so must engage somewhat competing drives. This
was further illustrated by Spreier, Fontaine, & Malloy, R. L. (2006) when they described how Need for
Achievement can create a focus on the task or objectives and exclude awareness of the people who need to be led
and motivated to do the complete work of the organizational unit. For project managers, the person must focus on
tasks, objectives and deliverables, but he or she must also manage and inspire others to work toward their shared
objectives.
3
The important role the project manager plays in successful projects has been known for a long time. Avots
(1969) cited “the wrong man is chosen as project manager” and “management techniques are misused” as two of
several reasons why project management fail. Along the same line, Wilemon and Cicero (1970) found that project
managers’ “abilities in managing the varied interrelationships in the project environment are thus critical to him in
terms of his effectiveness as a manager” (p. 282). More recently, Gillard and Price (2005) summarized five clusters
consisting of ten management competencies largely based upon Boyatzis' work on competencies (1982): goal and
action management, leadership, human resources management, directing subordinates, and focus on others.
Interestingly, more often than not, the majority of literature on project management remains silent on the
importance of leadership style and competencies of project managers on success of projects (Turner and Muller,
2005). However, several recent studies on project management (Anderson and Tucker, 1994; Berger, 1996;
Goodman, 1993; Jiang, Klein, and Chen, 2001) began to cite the importance of the human factor, such as project
leadership and teamwork in the management of successful projects. Furthermore, Weber and Torti (2004) described
the multiple roles played by the project manager including coach, entrepreneur, politician, friend, and marketer and
the importance of skills pertaining to those roles in project manager’s success. The increase in the use of projects in
organizations these days raises the importance of the selection and development of effective project managers, and
the current study tries to redress the deficiency.
What is a Competency?
A competency is defined as a capability or ability. It is a set of related but different sets of behavior
organized around an underlying construct, which we call the “intent.” The behaviors are alternate manifestations of
the intent, as appropriate in various situations or times. For example, listening to someone and asking him or her
questions involve several behaviors. A person can demonstrate these behaviors for multiple reasons or to various
intended ends. A person can ask questions and listen to someone to ingratiate him or herself or to appear interested,
thereby gaining standing in the other person’s view. Or a person can ask questions and listen to someone because he
or she is interested in understanding this other person, his or her priorities, or thoughts in a situation. The latter we
would call a demonstration of empathy. The underlying intent is to understand the person. Meanwhile, the former
underlying reason for the questions is to gain standing or impact in the person’s view, elements of what we may call
4
demonstration of influence. Similarly, the underlying intent of a more subtle competency like Emotional Self-
Awareness is self-insight and self-understanding.
This construction of competencies as requiring both action (i.e., a set of alternate behaviors) and intent
called for measurement methods that allowed for assessment of both the presence of the behavior and inference of
the intent. The earliest competency studies were conducted in 1970 through 1974. They used tests to assess
competencies. A major breakthrough occurred in 1974 with the development of the Behavioral Event Interview
(Boyatzis, 1982). This was a modification of the critical incident interview (Flanagan, 1954). It was adapted using
the inquiry sequence from the Thematic Apperception Test and the focus on specific events in one’s life from the
biodata method (Dailey, 1971). The Behavioral Event Interview, or Critical Incident Interview, allowed for
inductive discovery of relevant competencies in a setting or job role. This appeared particularly relevant in the 1970s
and 1980s when many jobs and organizations were being studied for the first time. It also appears useful when first
conducting competency studies in a country or culture.
Later, as more and more studies were completed, patterns could be observed of competencies that
repeatedly appeared to distinguish outstanding performers. This allowed for the development of generic competency
models. These generic models provide the basis for developing “informant (i.e., others’) assessment” of a person’s
competencies demonstrated through 360-degree assessments, assessment centers, or simulations. The latter two
sources of information about a person’s behavioral patterns required coding by reliable coders (Boyatzis, 1998).
The anchor for understanding which behavior and intent are relevant in a situation emerges from predicting
effectiveness in that situation. The construction of the specific competency is a matter of relating different behaviors
that are considered alternate manifestations of the same underlying construct. But they are organized primarily, or,
more accurately, initially, by the similarity of the consequence of the use of these behaviors in social or work
settings.
A theory of performance is the basis for the concept of competency. The theory used in this approach is a
basic contingency theory adapted from Boyatzis (1982), as shown in Figure 1. Maximum performance is believed to
occur when the person’s capability or talent is consistent with the needs of the job demands and the organizational
environment (Boyatzis, 1982). The person’s talent is described by his or her values, vision, and personal philosophy;
knowledge; competencies; life and career stage; interests; and style. Job demands can be described by the role
responsibilities and tasks needed to be performed. Aspects of the organizational environment that are predicted to
5
have important impact on the demonstration of competencies and/or the design of the jobs and roles include culture
and climate; structure and systems; maturity of the industry and strategic positioning within it; and aspects of the
economic, political, social, environmental, and religious milieu surrounding the organization.
------------------------------
insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------
Research published over the last 30 years or so shows us that outstanding leaders, managers, advanced
professionals and people in key jobs, from sales to bank tellers, appear to require three clusters of competencies (i.e.,
behavioral habits) which can be thought of as threshold competencies and three clusters of competencies as
distinguishing outstanding performance.
2
The threshold clusters of competencies include:
1) expertise and experience is a threshold level of competency;
2) knowledge (i.e., declarative, procedural, functional and metacognitive) is
a threshold competency; and
3) an assortment of basic cognitive competencies, such as memory and deductive
reasoning are threshold competencies.
There are three clusters of competencies differentiating outstanding from average performers in many
countries of the world (Boyatzis, 1982; Boyatzis, 2006a; Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974; Campbell, Dunnette,
Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Goleman, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Howard & Bray, 1988; Kotter, 1982;
Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988; Thorton & Byham, 1982; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). They are:
1) Cognitive competencies, such as systems thinking and pattern recognition;
2) Emotional intelligence competencies, including self-awareness and self-management competencies, such
as emotional self-awareness and emotional self-control; and
3) Social intelligence competencies, including social awareness and relationship management
competencies, such as empathy and teamwork.
Competencies are a behavioral approach to emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence.
Competencies and Intelligence as Behavioral Manifestations of Talent
2
A special issue of the Journal of Management Development was devoted to original studies of the link between
competencies and performance in a variety of organizations in February, 2008.
6
While other interpretations of “intelligence” are offered in the literature, we believe that to be classified as
“an intelligence,” the concept should be:
1) Behaviorally observable;
2) Related to biological and in particular neural-endocrine functioning. That is, each cluster should be
differentiated as to the type of neural circuitry and endocrine system involved;
3) Related to life and job outcomes;
4) Sufficiently different from other personality constructs that the concept adds value to understanding the
human personality and behavior; and
5) The measures of the concept, as a psychological construct, should satisfy the basic criteria for a sound
measure, that is, show convergent and discriminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
An integrated concept of emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies offers more than a
convenient framework for describing human dispositions. It offers a theoretical structure for the organization of
personality and linking it to a theory of action and job performance. Goleman (1998) defined an “emotional
competence” as a “learned capability based on emotional intelligence which results in outstanding performance at
work.” In other words, if a competency is an “underlying characteristic of the person that leads to or causes effective
or superior performance” (Boyatzis, 1982), then: (a) an emotional, intelligence competency is an ability to
recognize, understand, and use emotional information about oneself that leads to or causes effective or superior
performance; (b) a social intelligence competency is the ability to recognize, understand, and use emotional
information about others that leads to or causes effective or superior performance; and (c) a cognitive intelligence
competency is an ability to think or analyze information and situations that leads to or causes effective or superior
performance.
If defined as a single construct, the tendency to believe that more effective people have the vital ingredients
for success invites the attribution of a halo effect. For example, person A is effective, therefore she has all of the
right stuff, such as brains, savvy, and style. Like the issue of finding the best “focal point” with which to look at a
photograph, the dilemma of finding the best level of detail in defining constructs with which to build a personality
theory may ultimately be an issue of which focal point is chosen. The separate competencies, like the clusters, are,
we believe, the most helpful focal point for description and study of performance.
7
Several studies of competencies of people in project management roles have been done, but few have been
published. In a study of project managers (called team leaders) of drug development teams in a major
pharmaceutical company, Boyatzis, Esteves, and Spencer (1992) found that the effective drug development teams
produced drugs with full FDA approval in almost half the time of most other teams that resulted in the companies
almost doubling their time under patent protection—a huge impact on their bottom line. Those project managers
showed significantly more (as compared to their less-effective counterparts): Emotional intelligence (EI)
competencies of Achievement Orientation, Initiative, Flexibility, and Self-Confidence; social intelligence (SI)
competencies of Empathy, Influence, Networking, and Team Leadership. They also showed significantly more
cognitive competencies of Systems Thinking and Pattern Recognition. Comparable findings appeared in project
managers of software development project managers in studies conducted for two technology companies (Boyatzis,
2008). This pattern of an assortment of EI, SI, and cognitive intelligence (CI) competencies being key to
effectiveness was further validated in a study of leaders in an international consulting company (Boyatzis, 2006a).
This was relevant because most of their work was delivered in client teams. In the study of the leaders of the
consulting firm, it was further shown that tipping points could be identified as the frequency of use of the
competency that “tipped” a person into outstanding and effective performance.
In a closely related study to this one, Dreyfus (2008) looked at the competencies differentiating the
outstanding versus average performing middle-level managers in the same lab studied in this paper. These people
were the managers of these project managers. She reported that outstanding managers of project managers showed
significantly more (as compared to their less-effective counterparts): EI competencies of Initiative, Accurate Self
Assessment, Self-confidence, and Flexibility; SI competencies of Developing Others and Team Leadership. This
was a government-based research laboratory. Because all of these managers had PhDs and had come up the ranks of
bench scientist to project manager to middle-level manager, they all topped the scales on the cognitive
competencies. But again, we see an assortment of competencies being needed for effective performance from EI and
SI clusters.
Design and Methods
A concurrent validation study was conducted on project managers in a major research and development
(R&D) laboratory which is part of a U.S. government agency. The agency was asked to generate a list of all staff in
8
project manager roles. It was determined that regardless of official title, the role reported to a middle-level manager.
Those studied by Dreyfus (2008) had to manage projects directly connected to the scientific and/or engineering
work of the lab. Administrative and support functions were excluded. They had to have managed at least one
previous project and have been a project manager for at least two years (not necessarily continuously). The list
contained 210 names.
To obtain a performance measure, nominations were used to determine effective performance (Boyatzis,
1982; Boyatzis, 2008; Luthans et al., 1988). Nominations have been shown to be more effective than ratings and a
rigorous approach to assessing effectiveness (Lewin & Zwany, 1976). As the bosses of the project managers, the
middle-level managers were sent and asked to complete nomination forms. The nomination form asked them, “On
the lines below, please list the names of the project mangers, if any, at XYZ that you consider to be highly effective
(e.g., superior or outstanding) in their role as project manager. PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM EVEN IF YOU
CHOOSE TO LIST NO NAMES.” The forms bore no identification as to whom they were from and were mailed
back to the first author at Case Western Reserve University. The forms from the middle-level managers were on
blue paper.
Each project manager was given a packet of similar nomination forms. One was on yellow paper for them
to complete on their peers (and project managers could include themselves). Also in the packet were five green
nominations forms to be given to various project team members. Each nomination form was accompanied by a self-
addressed, stamped, return envelope to the first author.
31% of the peer nomination forms, 23% of the subordinate nomination forms, and 51 % of the boss
nomination forms were returned. Nominations for each project manager were tallied. To be identified as a superior
performer, a project manager had to receive at least one boss nomination, two peer nominations, and two
subordinate nominations. This revealed 17 project managers as superior performers—8% of the eligible population.
To identify the sample of average performers, a random sample of 17 project managers was selected from the list of
project managers receiving no boss nominations, no peer nominations (not even their own), and no subordinate
nominations.
Fourteen of the 17 superior performers agreed to participate in the study. Of the three who declined, one
was retiring. The other two declined because of extensive travel schedules. Of the first 17 identified as average
performers, one was dropped because he had only been a project manager for one year and eight others declined to
9
participate due to busy travel schedules. More project managers were randomly selected from the sample who
received no nominations from any source. To obtain a sample of 15 willing to participate, 11 more had to be
solicited.
Of the 29 project managers (i.e., 15 average and 14 superior performers) who agreed to participate in the
study, one was female. The rest were male. Only one was African American. Nationalities of those who participated
included Asian, Central American, and Western European, as well as U.S. The two sub-samples were the same age
(46 and 44 for average and superior performers, respectively). They had the same years of education (18 and 17), the
same years of work experience (23 and 24), years employed by this organization (19 and 21), the same years in a
project manager role (11 and 9) and the same salary pay level (GS 13 and 14). Statistical analysis with Mann
Whitney U tests showed non-significance in each of these comparisons.
One of the superior performer’s audiotapes failed, so information for the Critical Incident Interview coding
was not available. Of the External Assessment Questionnaire (EAQ) data from others, Several boss’ did not
complete the EAQ resulting in a subsample of 13 average and 12 superior performers. Among the Peers, unless
more than 2 completed the EAQ, the results were not used in the analysis. Insufficient Peers completed the EAQ, so
one average and two superior performers were dropped from the analysis. For the same reasons, data from
subordinates was reduced by four average and one superior performer.
To assess the competencies, a Critical Incident Interview, also called the Behavioral Event Interview, was
used (Boyatzis, 1982; Flanagan, 1954; McClelland, 1998; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). In this interview, a person is
asked, “Tell me about an event, recently, in which you felt effective as a manager.” In a style similar to a journalistic
interview, the interviewer lets the respondent tell the story with minimal probes. Along the way, the interviewer may
ask: What led up to the situation? Who was involved? What did each person say or do? What were you thinking or
feeling? What was the result or outcome of the event? Once an effective incident is elicited, then the interviewer
asks the same question but about an ineffective event. There is an attempt to elicit two to three effective events and
two to three ineffective events. The interview usually takes about an hour to an hour-and-a-half, and is audio-taped.
The interviewers were blind to the performance group of the people they were interviewing. Names were given to
the interviewers in alphabetical order.
The audiotapes were coded for known competencies: EI competencies, including Efficiency Orientation,
Planning, Initiative, Self Control, Attention to Detail, Flexibility, and Self-Confidence; SI competencies, including
10
as Empathy, Persuasiveness, Developing Others, Group Management, Networking, and Negotiating; and CI
competencies, included Systems Thinking and Pattern Recognition. A competency score was calculated as the sum
of the number of incidents in which any of the behavioral indicators of a competency were shown. Another score
was computed as the diversity or complexity of the behavioral indicators shown across the incidents in a person’s
interview. While the former measure is interpreted as the strength of the competency (i.e., the likelihood a person
will use it in various situations), the latter measure of complexity is interpreted as the breadth or variety of how a
person may demonstrate or express a competency.
Inter-rater reliability among the three coders for each of these competencies were calculated on sub-
samples. They ranged from .70 to .96, with a mean of .89. Interviews were also examined for other possible
competencies using the method of thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998). All competencies discovered were minor
variations of existing, generic ones. The data from the new variations were incorporated into the existing
competencies. Coding was also done blind to the performance group of the project manager who was interviewed.
Since many of the generic competencies had been identified in other competency studies, a form of
assessment was chosen to allow for easier data collection. The method used was a multi-source feedback
assessment, often called a 360. The test used was called the Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) and the version
for others to complete was the EAQ. The boss of each project manager in the study, as well as an assortment of their
peers and subordinates, were asked to complete the EAQ on each project manager in the sample. It was developed
by Boyatzis in 1990 for assessment in an MBA program and competency research projects based on the results of
many competency studies, including Bray, Campbell, and Grant (1974), Boyatzis (1982), Kotter (1982), , Luthans
et. al. (1988), Howard and Bray (1988), and Thorton and Byham (1982). The data reported in this study was
collected in the 1990s. Studies using this test have been reported in Boyatzis, Cowen and Kolb (1995), Boyatzis,
Leonard, Rhee & Wheeler (1996), Boyatzis, Stubbs, and Taylor (2002), Boyatzis and Saatcioglu (2008), and
Williams (2008). A variation of the questionnaire was used in the studies reported in Boyatzis (2006a). It was also
the basis for the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI) developed by Boyatzis and Goleman (Boyatzis
and Sala, 2004).
The EAQ and SAQ each had items divided into 16 competencies. They were: Emotional Intelligence
competencies of Efficiency Orientation, Planning, Initiative, Attention to Detail, Self-Confidence, Self Control, and
Flexibility; Social Intelligence competencies of Empathy, Persuasiveness, Networking, Negotiating, Group
11
Management, Developing Others, and Oral Communications; and Cognitive Intelligence competencies of Systems
Thinking and Pattern Recognition. Because each scale had a different number of items, the totals are not comparable
across competencies, so average item scores were used. Cronbach alpha’s showed appropriate reliability in previous
studies (Boyatzis, et. al., 2002; Boyatzis and Saatcioglu, 2008; Boyatzis and Ratti, in press).
Given the literature on self versus other assessment of behavioral frequency (Taylor, 2006), it was decided
to use only the average of the boss, peer, and subordinate assessments. Each of the assessments were computed as
the sum of the item scores. The self-assessment was discarded from analysis.
Results
Analysis of the 360 results showed that bosses saw superior performers demonstrating significantly more
Planning than average performers. In bosses’ views, superior performers showed near significantly more Efficiency
Orientation and Group Management, as shown in Table 1. Peers saw superior performers demonstrating more
Efficiency Orientation, Planning, Attention to Detail, Empathy, Negotiating, Group Management, Developing
Others, Systems Thinking, and Pattern Recognition than average performers. In peers’ views, Superior showed more
Persuasiveness at a near-significant level. Subordinates saw superior performers showing more Efficiency
Orientation, Planning, Self-Control, Empathy, Persuasiveness, Group Management, and Systems Thinking than
average performers. In subordinates’ views, superior showed more Self-Confidence and Pattern Recognition at a
near-significant level.
-----------------------------
insert Table 1 about here
-----------------------------
In the results from the coding of the Critical Incident Interview, superior performers showed significantly
more Planning, Group Management, Developing Others, and Self-Confidence than average performers, as shown in
Table 2. superior performers showed near significantly more Empathy than average performers. The breadth of the
competency indicators a person was using showed that superior performers showed significantly more breadth of
Planning, Initiative, Self-Confidence, Persuasiveness, Group Management, Developing Others, and Pattern
Recognition.
------------------------------
12
Insert Table 2 about here
------------------------------
Discussion
To summarize the findings, superior performing project managers showed or used more of these
competencies than their average-performer counterparts, as summarized in Table 3:
1) Emotional Intelligence Competencies: Planning, Self-Confidence, Efficiency Orientation, Attention to
Detail, and Self-control;
2) Social Intelligence Competencies: Group Management, Empathy, Persuasiveness, Developing Others,
and Negotiating; and
3) Cognitive Intelligence Competencies: Systems Thinking and Pattern Recognition.
------------------------------
insert Table 3 about here
------------------------------
The pattern found in the other studies reviewed of project managers and their bosses showed that an
assortment of EI, SI, and CI competencies are needed to be an effective project manager.
One of the limitations of this study was the small sample size. Unfortunately, due to the small sample size,
multivariate analysis such as multiple regression was not appropriate.
Another possible explanation might be that the 360 is more comprehensive than the critical incident
interview. In other words, the 360 may have allowed people to articulate more behavior seen and therefore
demonstrated by various managers. Because it is a recall of specific incidents at work, it is possible that the Critical
Incident Interview (or Behavioral Event Interview) does not provide as comprehensive a sample of a person’s
behavior as the 360. By only sampling four-to-six incidents, some of the manager’s behavior may not be involved in
those incidents.
The Critical Incident Interview has been referred to as a more conservative assessment tool. If someone
shows a competency in the interview, they are likely to have it as part of their repertoire. If a person does not show a
competency in the critical incident interview, we cannot contend they do not have access to this competency, or that
they use it less frequently and it did was not relevant in the particular incidents sampled (Boyatzis, Stubbs, &
13
Taylor, 2002; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Discriminant validity studies of each of these two forms of competency
assessment will help to clarify the extent to which the 360 is more comprehensive or not.
Equally possible is that the 360 reminds informants of other behavior, and again, portrays a more
comprehensive view of the manager’s behavior. If this is a factor, then it may also arouse social desirability and
result in an escalation of assessments. Construct validation studies on 360s and other forms of evident behavior
evaluations, like coded critical incident interviews, will help to determine the degree to which this is a source of
contamination of the results.
Concluding Thought
The typical pattern of promoting the best individual contributor to be the Project Manager, as a reward for a
job well done, is condemning the organization to lackluster performance and dwindling innovation. As we
understand and document the impact of competencies on effectiveness of Project Managers specifically, we move
closer to being able to refine our research and conduct studies looking for precise causality. With such research
results, we also equip ourselves to help identify potentially effective project managers for hiring or examining
scientists and others for potential promotions to Project manager roles. Similarly, knowing the important
competencies helps us to design development programs, developmental opportunities, and other activities that can
help people develop and nurture the competencies to be outstanding Project Managers. These findings and future
research on emotional and social intelligence competencies will help expand the effectiveness of getting the right
people into Project Management jobs or developing people in the best way to be effective Project Managers
References
Anderson, S. D. & Tucker, R. L. (1994). Improving project management design. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 10(4), 35-44.
Avots, I. (1969). Why does project management fail? California Management Review, 12(1), 66-72.
14
Berger, L. (1996). Emerging role of management in civil engineering. Journal of Management in Engineering,
12(4), 37-39.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance, New York: John Wiley.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2006a). Using tipping points of emotional intelligence and cognitive competencies to predict
financial performance of leaders, Psicothemia, 17, 124-131.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2006b). Intentional change theory from a complexity perspective, Journal of Management
Development, 25(7), 607-623.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century, a special issue of the Journal of Management
Development.
Boyatzis, R.E., Cowen, S.S., & Kolb, D.A. (1995). Innovation in professional education: Steps on a journey from
teaching to learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyatzis, R.E., Esteves, M.B., & Spencer, L.M. (1992). Entrepreneurial innovation in pharmaceutical development.
Human Resource Planning, 15(4). 15-30.
Boyatzis, R.E. & Ratti, F. (in press). Emotional, social and cognitive intelligence
competencies distinguishing effective Italian managers and leaders in a private
company and cooperatives. Journal of Management Development
Boyatzis, R.E., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Wheeler, J.V. (1996). Competencies can be developed, but not the way
we thought, Capability, 2(2), 25-41.
Boyatzis, R.E., and Sala, F. (2004). Assessing emotional intelligence competencies. In Glenn Geher (ed.), The
measurement of emotional intelligence, Hauppauge, NY: Novas Science Publishers, 147-180.
Boyatzis, R.E. & Saatcioglu (2008). A twenty year view of trying to develop emotional, social
and cognitive intelligence competencies in graduate management education. Journal of
Management Development, 27(1), 92-108.
Boyatzis, R.E., Stubbs, L., & Taylor, S. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence competencies through
graduate management education. Academy of Management Journal on Learning and Education, 1(2),
150-162.
15
Bray, D.W., Campbell, R.J., & Grant, D.L. (1974). Formative years in business: A long term AT&T study of
managerial lives. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E.III, & Weick, K.E.Jr. (1970), Managerial behavior, performance, and
effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Campbell, D.T., and Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- muiltimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Dailey, C.A. (1975), Assessment of lives: Personality evaluation in a bureaucratic society,
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dreyfus, C. (2008). Identifying characteristics that predict effectiveness of R&D managers. Journal of Management
Development. 27(1), 76-91.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954), The critical incident technique, Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-335.
Gillard, S. & Price, J. (2005). The competencies of effective project managers: A conceptual analysis. International
Journal of Management, 22(1), 48-53.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998), Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R.E., & McKee, A. (2002), Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional
intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Howard, A., & Bray, D. (1988), Managerial Lives in Transition: Advancing Age and Changing Time., New York:
Guilford Press.
Jiang, J., Klein, G., & Chen, H. (2001). The relative influence of IS project implementation policies and project
leadership on eventual outcomes. Project Management Journal, 32(3), 49-55.
Kotter, J.P. (1982), The general managers. NewYork: Free Press.
Lewin, A.Y. and Zwany, A. (1976). Peer nominations: a model, literature critique and a paradigm for research.
Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R.M., & Rosenkrantz, S.A. (1988), Real managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Press.
McClelland, D.C. (1973), Testing for competence rather than intelligence, American Psychologist, 28(1) 1-40.
McClelland, D.C. (1985), Human motivation, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
16
McClelland, D.C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral event interviews. Psychological Science, 9,
331-339.
McClelland, D.C. & Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), “The leadership motive pattern and long term success in management”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737-743.
Spencer, L.M. Jr. & Spencer, S.M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Spreier, S.W., Fontaine, M. H., & Malloy, R. L. (2006) Leadership Run Amok: The Destructive Potential of
Overachievers. Harvard Business Review,
Taylor, S. (2006). Why the real self is fundamental to intentional change, Journal of Management Development,
25(7): 643-656.
Thornton, G.C. III & Byham, W.C. (1982), Assessment centers and managerial performance, New York: Academic
Press.
Turner, J. & Muller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature
review. Project Management Journal, 36(1), 49-61.
Weber, S. S. & Torti, M. T. (2004). Project managers doubling as client account executives. Academy of
Management Executive, 18(1), 1-12.
Wilemon, D. L. & Cicero, J. P. (1970). The project manager-Anomalies and ambiguities. Academy of Management
Journal, 13(3), 269-282.
Williams, H. (2008). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals. Journal of Management
Development. 27:1, 36-54.
17
Figure 1. Theory of Action and Job Performance: Best Fit (maximum performance,
stimulation, and commitment) = Area of Maximum Overlap or Integration
INDIVIDUAL
Vision, values,
philosophy
Knowledge
Competencies or
abilities
Life/career stages
Style
Interests
JOB DEMANDS
Tasks
Functions
Roles
ORGANIZATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT
Culture and climate
Structure and systems
Maturity of the Industry &
strategic position of the org.
Core competence
Larger context
Best
Fit
18
Table 1. Others’ Views of Competencies Demonstrated by Outstanding (n=12) versus Average Project
Managers (n=13)
Mean Mean Mean
Boss’s Views Peers’ Views Subordinates’ Views
n=13 n=12 n=14 n=12 n=11 n-13
Competency Ave. Superior z
3
Ave. Superior z Ave. Superior z
Efficiency Orientation 8.9 9.8 -1.5+ 7.4 9.0 -1.9* 7.1 9.1 -2.22*
Planning 10.8 12.8 -1.9* 9.7 12.3 -2.1* 9.0 12.0 -3.02**
Initiative 5.9 5.9 -.03 5.0 5.8 -1.2 4.9 5.7 -1.2
Attention to Detail 4.3 5.0 -1.15 4.0 4.9 -2.0 4.5 4.3 -.18
Self-Confidence 3.8 4.0 -.4 3.8 4.2 -.86 3.4 4.3 -1.55+
Self Control 6.1 6.0 .00 5.4 6.0 -.86 5.2 6.1 -1.66*
Flexibility 4.2 4.9 -1.01 4.1 4.7 -1.01 4.0 4.2 -.20
Empathy 8.6 9.3 -1.0 8.5 9.8 -1.83* 8.1 9.4 -1.78*
Persuasiveness 10.2 10.4 -.4 10.0 11.3 -1.35+ 8.8 11.3 -2.23**
Networking 6.5 5.4 -1.2 6.1 6.3 -.29 6/0 6.0 -.09
Negotiating 6.0 5.8 -.2 5.2 6.9 -2.55** 6.0 6.9 -.82
Group Management, 10.9 12.4 -1.43+ 9.7 12.6 -3.11*** 10.3 12.2 -1.60*
Developing Others 6.9 7.8 -.7 6.4 7.7 -1.83* 6.9 7.9 -1.05
Oral Communications 13.4 14.5 -.8 13.6 14.7 -.80 142 139 -.43
Systems Thinking 4.2 3.6 -.8 2.7 3.92 -2.55** 2.8 3.7 -1.86*
Pattern Recognition 6.3 5.9 -.4 5.7 7.5 -1.99* 5.7 6.6 -1.37+
3
Mann Whitney U tests were performed due to the small sample size. Significance levels of one tailed tests are
indicated by: + means near significant; * p< .05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001.
19
Table 2. Behavioral Demonstration of the Competencies in Work Samples from Critical Incident Interviews
by Outstanding (n=13) versus Average Project Managers (n=15)
[For each competency, the first line of numbers are mean strength. The second line are complexity or breadth.]
Competency Average Performer Superior Performer z
4
Efficiency Orientation 2.47 2.62 -.19
2.33 2.69 -.71
Planning 1.27 1.92 -1.63*
1.53 2.77 -2.23**
Initiative .87 1.15 -1.08
.53 1.08 -1.65*
Attention to Detail .40 .69 -.80
.40 .62 -.77
Self-Confidence
5
.20 .77 -2.96**
Self Control .33 .31 -.52
.27 .31 -.17
Flexibility .20 .39 -.73
.20 .39 -.73
Empathy 1.40 1.92 -1.54+
1.80 2.23 -.86
Persuasiveness 2.80 2.77 -.31
2.53 4.08 -2.16**
Networking .73 .77 -.20
.53 .77 -.89
Negotiating .27 .54 -.47
.33 .38 -.23
Group Management, .27 .77 -1.99*
.40 1.15 -1.98*
4
Mann Whitney U tests were performed due to the small sample size. Significance levels of one tailed tests are
indicated by: + means near significant; * p< .05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001.
5
Self-Confidence is not coded per incident but once for the entire interview. Therefore, the breadth code was
inappropriate.
20
Developing Others .40 1.00 -1.61*
.40 1.08 -1.78*
Systems Thinking .67 .92 -.79
.53 .62 -.43
Pattern Recognition 1.73 1.77 -.34
1.33 2.23 -2.11*
21
Table 3. Summary of Competencies Distinguishing Outstanding from Average Project Managers
Emotional Intelligence Competencies
Planning from all 3 sources in Critical Incidents from work
Self-Confidence from 1 source (subordinates) in Critical Incidents from work
Efficiency Orientation from all 3 sources
Attention to Detail from 1 source (peers)
Self-control from 1 source (subordinates)
Social Intelligence Competencies
Group Management from all 3 sources in Critical Incidents from work
Empathy from 2 sources (peers and subordinates) in Critical Incidents from work
Persuasiveness from 2 sources (peers and subordinates) in Critical Incidents from work
Developing Others from 1 source (peers) in Critical Incidents from work
Negotiating from 1 source (peers)
Cognitive Intelligence Competencies
Systems Thinking from 2 sources (peers and subordinates)
Pattern Recognition from 2 sources (peers and subordinates) in Critical Incidents from work
