Culture, Communication, and Leadership for Projects in Dynamic Environments
PAPE
RS
relatively flat project team structure, link-
ing the hands-on staff to decision makers,
reinforced with comments like “tall hier-
archies are a big problem . . . hoarding
decisions at the top” (PartC-FG). FG1 is
illustrated as follows:
A tall hierarchy that over controls things
prevents you from adapting to change in
time. If you work in an environment that is
totally hierarchical and it doesn’t allow for
that [adapting to change] then you can’t
work in a dynamic environment, and I
have worked in organizations like that and
I have left (PartC-FG1).
FG2 settled on the concept that an
“enabling factor [for dynamic environ-ments] doesn’t have a huge amount
of middle management” (PartH-FG2).
They suggested lots of multi-skilled
teams at the hands-on level. A collaborative culture was reinforced with comments like: “we see people going above
and beyond because they are in that
collaborative situation” (PartH-FG2).
The benefits of flexibility in a dynamic
environment emerged as a common
theme, as explained by one participant:
We give flexibility for people to explore
and determine where and when they
explore, as long as there is justification it
is contributing to the overall objective. We
put a lot of effort into a culture of flexibility
and taking responsibility (Startup1).
To give another example, Pharm2
reported: “we promote initiative on the
ground; allow flexibility to take advan-
tage of fleeting moments; allow flex-
ibility with key higher level objectives in
mind. [We] pushed the line constantly
that staff had to embrace change.”
Another interesting illustration was
of the importance of a culture with the
correct levels of experimentation:
Many of the people in drug development
companies are scientists and so they real-
ize that an unsuccessful experiment can
teach as many lessons as a successful
one. However . . . shareholders do not
always take a similar view. So there is a
certain tension within the drug develop-
ment industry between the reality of what
Theme Sub Themes
Egalitarian, goal-orientated
culture that supports
experimentation
Having the smallest possible team with a flat hierarchy;
Customized for requirements;
Organic, flexible, adaptive, and collaborative;
Experimentation valued for its ability to eliminate dead ends;
Focused on goals, not process;
Culture supported by stakeholders.
Table 4: Themes for effective culture in dynamic environments.
Theme Sub Themes
More timely and efficient
communication
Increased emphasis on fast, timely, and succinct communication over
slow, thorough communication;
Adjust communication rates according to needs;
Use rapid communication during periods of rapid change;
Timeliness over thoroughness;
Formalize direct communication channels that bypass organizational
levels, if required;
Co-locate staff where they collaborate significantly to aid more rapid
communication.
Table 5: Themes for effective communication in dynamic environments.
Theme Sub Themes
Flexible leadership with
rapid decision making
Leader collaborates with smallest possible team;
Team is provided with a good understanding of the intent;
Highly adaptable;
Leader enables rapid decision making by: ( 1) delegating decisions
and ( 2) making quick reasonable decisions;
Decision delegation is achieved by communicating the vision (intent);
Decision making is made with a focus on speed and reasonableness
considering the consequences of a delay;
Quick, reasonable decisions are facilitated by: ( 1) high levels
of situational awareness (rapid constant data collection) and
( 2) pre-planned responses;
Cancelled experiments are rewarded as useful input;
Need for three key skills: ( 1) organizing, ( 2) understanding the
problem, and ( 3) understanding the solution.
Table 6: Themes for effective leadership in dynamic environments.
Cultural Styles for Dynamic
Environments
The cultural style themes emanating
from the interviews were reinforced and
refined in the focus groups. The benefit of
a flat hierarchy was a theme illustrated by
Startup1: “Our organization is flat . . . we
only have 10 staff” and Startup2: “Deci-
sions do not have to go up through com-
mittees . . . not a tall structure.” FG2
concluded that “a tall hierarchy would
not adapt quickly enough to achieve the
objectives. The opportunity gets missed.”
(PartG-FG2) The consensus was to use a
