What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

What is a good project manager? An Aristotelian perspective

The purpose of this paper is to take a critical look at the question “what is a competent project manager?” and bring some fresh added-value insights. This leads us to analyze the definitions, and assessment approaches of project manager competence. Three major standards as prescribed by PMI, IPMA, and GAPPS are considered for review from an attribute-based and performance-based approach and from a deontological and consequentialist ethics perspectives. Two fundamental tensions are identified: an ethical tension between the standards and the related competence assessment frameworks and a tension between attribute and performance-based approaches. Aristotelian ethical and practical philosophy is brought in to reconcile these differences. Considering ethics of character that rises beyond the normative deontological and consequentialist perspectives is suggested. Taking the mediating role of praxis and phrónêsis between theory and practice into consideration is advocated to resolve the tension between performance and attribute-based approaches to competence assessment.

Reconnecting theory and practice in a pluralistic organizing context : issues and Aristotelian considerations

The overall purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theory - practice gap debate in organization studies, especially in pluralistic contexts such as project organizing. We briefly outline some of the current debates, i.e. modernist and postmodernist proposals, and the prevalent dichotomous thinking stance assumptions to better move beyond it, anchoring our contribution in the Aristotelian ethical and practical philosophy. We introduce the current state of the debate, part of the broad question of “science that matters”, and the various discourses between practice and academia within social sciences and more specifically organizational studies. We briefly critically summarize some main features of the two main philosophical stances (modernism, postmodernism), before presenting some key aspects, for the purpose of this paper, of the Aristotelian pre-modern practical and ethical philosophy. Then, we build on the foundations above established, discussing propositions to reconnect theory and practice according the Aristotelian ethical and practical philosophy, and some key implications for research notably in the following areas: roles played by practitioners and scholars, emancipatory praxeological style of reasoning, for closing the “phronetic gap” and reconnecting means and ends, facts and values, relation between collective praxis, development of “good practice” (standards), ethics and politics. We conclude highlighting the role of the suggested shift to an Aristotelian emancipatory style of reasoning for reconciling theory and practice.

Ethics in project management : some Aristotelian insights

Purpose My aim is to introduce, in the project management field, an Aristotelian ethics lens moving beyond the classical deontological and consequentialism approaches underlying the current ethical practices and codes of ethics and professional conducts. In doing so, I wish to pose the premises of a debate on the implications of a conscious ethical perspective for the structure and agency relationship within the project management field Design/methodology/approach Project management is a knowledge field on its own right. However the current perspectives applied to make sense and develop the field (modernism vs. postmodernism) leads to dichotomous thinking rather than recognizing the merits and contextual validity of both sides. I call for Aristotelian Ethics as a way of moving beyond this dichotomous thinking. I introduce briefly Aristotelian Ethics and its consequences in term of relation theory – practice, means and ends, facts and values, and finally politics (i.e. being part of a community of practitioners). Then I illustrate some consequences for the field taking PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and APM Code of Professional Conduct as supports for discussion Findings I suggest a need for revisiting and/or redesigning the codes of ethics and professional conducts for project management according to an Aristotelian perspective, in order to move beyond the normative limitations of classical deontological (conflict between competing duties, exemplified by PMI Code) or consequentialism (focusing on the "right" outcome to the detriment of duties, exemplified by APM Code) approaches (both, in fact, leading to a disconnection means and ends, and facts and values). This implicates shifting our view from the question "what is my duty?" to the questions "why should I undertake my duty?" and "how ought I act in this situation?" Practical implications Raising Professional Bodies, Industry and Education institutions awareness and consciousness and leading them to rethink about codes of ethics and the implications for the way they conceive practice and research, bodies of knowledge, credentialing, education... Originality/value To the best of my knowledge, this kind of discussion has not yet been conducted within the project management field, and considering the implication of project management in our life and for the well being of the society, an ethical debate may present some value(s)

Reconnecting theory and practice in pluralistic contexts: Issues and Aristotelian considerations

The purpose of this article is to contribute, from a research practitioner perspective, to the theory–practice gap debate in organization studies, focusing on pluralistic contexts such as project organizing. The current debate is introduced; then the features of the two main philosophical traditions (i.e., modernism and postmodernism) are critically summarized. Then, propositions to reconnect theory and practice according to the Aristotelian premodern ethical and practical philosophy are discussed. Some key implications in the following areas are outlined: roles played by practitioners and scholars; emancipatory praxeological style of reasoning; closing the “phronetic gap”; and the development of “good practice,” ethics, and politics.

The ethics of professional accountants: An Aristotelian perspective

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how Aristotle’s ethics can be applied to the ethics of professional accountants, in relation to the approach adopted by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), and to consider the reasons that justify the Aristotelian approach. Design/methodology/approach The paper outlines IFAC’s approach and identifies several weaknesses. Three themes of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics are applied to the work of professional accountants. Reasons why this perspective is more suitable for professional accountants are then articulated. Findings Several aspects of Aristotle’s ethics can be fruitfully applied to the ethics of professional accountants. These include the relationship between function, goals and the good, an awareness of the human goal to achieve eudaimonia, the development of both excellences of character and of intelligence, and the significance of non-rational aspects of morality, including emotions, will, responsibility and choice. Research limitations/implications This perspective provides an alternative conceptualisation of the ethics of professional accountants. Although it does not provide concrete guidance regarding what the ethical approach to specific situations may be, it presents a useful counterpoint to existing approaches that are largely deontological and utilitarian. Practical implications This paper provides accountants in practice with a more comprehensive and adequate perspective on what it means for a professional accountant to be ethical, and raises several issues related to how ethics is included in the education and training of accountants. Originality/value Investigating the philosophical basis for professional ethics approaches professional codes of ethics in a way that it is not typically considered. The paper also provides a more comprehensive application of Aristotelian ethics than previous work.

A discourse on the non-method

In spite of the activism of professional bodies and researchers, empirical evidence shows that project management still does not deliver the expected benefits and promises. Hence, many have questioned the validity of the hegemonic rationalist paradigm anchored in the Enlightenment and Natural Sciences tradition supporting project management research and practice for the last 60 years and the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management. In order to address these limitations many authors, taking a post-modernist stance in social sciences, build on ‘pre-modern’ philosophies such as the Aristotelian one, specially emphasizing the role of praxis (activity), and phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence). Indeed, ‘Praxis … is the central category of the philosophy which is not merely an interpretation of the world, but is also a guide to its transformation …’ (Vazquez, 1977:. 149). Therefore, praxis offers an important focus for practitioners and researchers in social sciences, one in which theory is integrated with practice at the point of intervention. Simply stated, praxis can serve as a common ground for those interested in basic and applied research by providing knowledge of the reality in which action, informed by theory, takes place. Consequently, I suggest a ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning (praxeology being defined as study or science of human actions and conduct, including praxis, practices and phronesis) and to go beyond the ‘Theory-Practice’ divide. Moreover, I argue that we need to move away from the current dichotomy between the two classes ‘scholars experts-researchers’ and ‘managers/workers-practitioners-participants’. Considering one single class of ‘PraXitioner’, becoming a phronimos, may contribute to create new perspectives and open up new ways of thinking and acting in project situations. Thus, I call for a Perestroika in researching and acting in project management situations. My intent is to suggest a balanced praxeological view of the apparent opposition between social and natural science approaches. I explore, in this chapter, three key questions, covering the ontological, epistemological and praxeological dimensions of project management in action. 1. Are the research approaches being currently used appropriate for generating contributions that matter to both theory and practice with regards to what a ‘project’ is or to what we do when we call a specific situation ‘a project’? 2. On the basis of which intellectual virtues is the knowledge generated and what is the impact for theory and practice? 3. Are the modes of action of the practitioners ‘prudent’ and are they differentiating or reconciling formal and abstract rationality from substantive rationality and situated reasoning with regards to the mode of action they adopt in particular project situations? The investigation of the above questions leads me to debate about ‘Project Management-as-Praxis’, and to suggest ‘A’ (not ‘THE’) ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning and mode of inquiry – acknowledging a non-paradigmatic, subjective and kaleidoscopic perspective – for ‘Knowing-as-Practicing’ in project management. In short, this is about making a ‘Projects Science’ that matters.

Spiritual wisdom of Taoism in business : through the lens of interpretation realism in a Cisco end-to-end case study

This paper explores how the amalgamated wisdom of East and West can instigate a wisdombased renaissance of humanistic epistemology (Rooney & McKenna, 2005) to provide a platform of harmony in managing knowledge-worker productivity, one of the biggest management challenges of the 21st century (Drucker, 1999). The paper invites further discussions from the social and business research communities on the significance of "interpretation realism" technique in comprehending philosophies of Lao Tzu Confucius and Sun Tzu (Lao/Confucius/Sun] written in "Classical Chinese." This paper concludes with a call to build prudent, responsible practices in management which affects the daily lives of many (Rooney & McKenna, 2005) in today's knowledgebased economy. Interpretation Realism will be applied to an analysis of three Chinese classics of Lao/Confucius/Sun which have been embodied in the Chinese culture for over 2,500 years. Comprehending Lao/Confucius/Sun's philosophies is the first step towards understanding Classical Chinese culture. However, interpreting Chinese subtlety in language and the yin and yang circular synthesis in their mode of thinking is very different to understanding Western thought with its open communication and its linear, analytical pattern of Aristotelian/Platonic wisdom (Zuo, 2012). Furthermore, Eastern ways of communication are relatively indirect and mediatory in culture. Western ways of communication are relatively direct and litigious in culture (Goh, 2002). Furthermore, Lao/Confucius/Sun's philosophies are difficult to comprehend as there are four written Chinese formats and over 250 dialects: Pre-classical Chinese Classical Chinese Literary Chinese and modern Vernacular Chinese Because Classical Chinese is poetic, comprehension requires a mixed approach of interpretation realism combining logical reasoning behind "word splitting word occurrences", "empathetic metaphor" and "poetic appreciation of word.

Moving on (part 1): The physics of power and curriculum history

This is the first of two papers that map (dis)continuities in notions of power from Aristotle to Newton to Foucault. They trace the ways in which bio-physical conceptions of power became paraphrased in social science and deployed in educational discourse on the child and curriculum from post-Newtonian times to the present. The analyses suggest that, amid ruptures in the definition, role, location and meaning given 'power' historically in various 'physical' and 'social' cosmologies, the naming of 'power' has been dependent on 'physics', on the theorization of motion across 'Western' sciences. This first paper examines some (dis)continuities in regard to histories of motion and power from Aristotelian 'natural science' to Newtonian mechanics.

After virtue and accounting ethics

Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue presented a reinterpretation of Aristotelian virtue ethics that is contrasted with the emotivism of modern moral discourse, and provides a moral scheme that can enable a rediscovery and reimagination of a more coherent morality. Since After Virtue’s publication, this scheme has been applied to a variety of activities and occupations, and has been influential in the development of research in accounting ethics. Through a ‘close’ reading of chapters 14 and 15 of After Virtue this paper considers and applies the key concepts of practices, institutions, internal and external goods, the narrative unity of a human life and tradition, and the virtues associated with these concepts. It contributes, firstly, by providing a more accurate and comprehensive application of MacIntyre’s scheme to accounting than available in the existing literature. Secondly, it identifies areas in which MacIntyre’s scheme supports the existing approach to professional accounting ethics as articulated by the various International Federation of Accountants pronouncements as well as areas in which it provides a critique and challenge to this approach. The application ultimately provides an alternative philosophical perspective through which accounting can be examined and further research into accounting ethics pursued.