Culture, Communication, and Leadership for Projects in Dynamic Environments
Table 3 lists the roles and industries of
the focus group participants. Quotes from
focus group participants will be identified
by their industry or by the label “FG.”
Data Collection Procedure
In keeping with grounded theory methodology, information was gathered from
a variety of sources to triangulate findings
and to inform the developing theory on
management for dynamic environments
Label Industry Example Project and Role
Const1-2 Construction 1. Planning engineer for joint venture road tunnel construction.
2. Project office manager for green power generation.
Space1 Aerospace 1. Project management leader for government space agency.
Aid1-3 International Community
1. Post conflict reconstruction project manager for international aid agency.
2. Community development project manager for aid agency in Middle East
3. International post disaster recovery aid project manager.
Pharm1-2 Pharmaceutical 1-2. Managing programs for drug development.
DefSvc1-3 Defense 1. Military commander of regional assistance project (Solomon Islands).
2. Military commander of post conflict regional assistance project (Timor).
3. Military procurement program management—including fighter jets, and warships.
Film1-3 Film Production 1. Feature film direction.
2. Documentary film production.
3. Feature film production and direction
Startup1-2 Startup in Science/Technology 1. New power storage technology development.
2. New power generation technology development.
VentCap1 Venture Capital 1. Managing a program or venture capital projects.
Research1-2 Research 1. Managing research projects.
ITSvc1-12 Information Technology 1-12. Information technology projects including software, data centers, and infrastructure.
Participants n531; Interviews n537; Face to Face n522; Via Email n514; Via Telephone n51; Second Interviews n56
Table 1: Interview participant profiles.
Code Focus Group Type Technique #Participants Date and Location
FG1International Face-to-face 4 June2010
FG2 National Face-to-face 7 June 2011
FG3 International Online 5 July 2011
Online convened from
Table 2: Focus group type, technique, number of participants, and location.
(Singleton & Straights, 2005). In-depth
semi-structured interviews and focus
groups were employed to explore, clar-
ify, and confirm participants’ views on
challenges and strategies to form new
ideas (Creswell, 2003; Flick, 2006). As
Boyce and Neale explained (2006) in-
depth interviews: ( 1) provide more
detailed information than, for example,
a survey; ( 2) provide a more relaxed,
frank, and open atmosphere; ( 3) are
time intensive; ( 4) require awareness of
bias when the participant is selling an
agenda; and ( 5) are not generalizable
due to small sample sizes. Participants
were asked to illustrate their responses
with examples and discuss their experi-
ences and identify new approaches they
use or believe could be useful when
dealing with dynamism in their project
environments. Field notes were used to
inform the findings and the developing
theory on project dynamism (Singleton
& Straights, 2005).
Three focus groups were conducted
to triangulate results. The beneficial
effects of the focus groups included group
interaction; widened range of responses;
idea snowballing; new interpretations;
deeper insights; cross verification of
plausibility; and improving the quality theory (Catterall & Maclaran, 1997;
Morgan, 1998). The results of the previously held in-depth interviews were also
used to guide discussion and gain more
accurate insights and as examples to