Special Issue - Images of Governance: Ralf Müller

Project Management Journal

1–16
Governance in a Crisis and the Decision © 2024 Project Management Institute, Inc.

to Replace the Project Manager Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/87569728241245648
journals.sagepub.com/home/pmx

Jeffrey Pinto1 , Kate Davis2, and Neil Turner2

Abstract
This article explores the concept of governance behaviors during project crises, which demand rapid responses. Grounded in the
Cynefin model for decision-making and inspired by Iftikhar et al., (2021), we sought to explore in greater detail the challenge of a
particular and common response to crisis: project manager replacement. We address governance as essentially a two-level func-
tion: sensemaking under crisis conditions and offering guidance within the critical early stages of project manager replacement,
when the need for governance is crucial. Finally, this article offers some guidance for the employment of governance within dif-
ferent Cynefin complexity domains for maximizing effective replacement steps.

Keywords
project governance, crisis management, project manager replacement, Cynefin framework

Introduction guidance under varying levels of complexity within project

environments?
Among the recent developments in project management theory
and practice, one of the more profound has been the emergence
As we navigate the landscape of project governance in the
of the concept of governance as a means by which to better
face of crises, our research contributes to the ongoing discourse
understand organizational decision-making, planning, and
on project management, providing valuable insights for schol-
control. The work of scholars such as Ralf Müller has been
ars, project managers, and organizational leaders striving to
instrumental to our understanding of this key project process.
navigate the challenges posed by unexpected events.
It is particularly important in light of the dramatic upsurge in
This article is structured to address the elements of gover-
the adoption of project-based work by a wide variety of organi-
nance as a model for understanding organizational responses
zations and within disciplines as diverse as finance and insur-
in crisis settings. We categorize various forms of crisis, their
ance, IT and software development, sustainability, energy
signals, and common responses. Our contention is that gover-
development, artificial intelligence (AI), and social infrastruc-
nance responses to unexpected events, of which project crises
ture, to name but a few. Indeed, with the increasing interest
are one example, are often hampered by an unstructured, reac-
and adoption of megaprojects to address societal needs,
tive response pattern that forces project organizations to
Project Management Institute (PMI) and other companion pro-
develop ad hoc or partial solutions. The Cynefin framework,
fessional groups have plenty of evidence to clearly demonstrate
discussed in this article, offers project teams the opportunity
that projects remain a principal means to change our world
to apply a more structured sensemaking device to crisis detec-
(Pinto, 2019).
tion that contains more proactive and measured responses to
In this article we seek to explore the evolving role of gov-
crises with the goal of minimizing project disruptions.
ernance and its multiple manifestations, with a specific focus
Beyond a general context for addressing crises in projects, we
on responses to unexpected events, particularly in the realm
focus specifically on one governance response to project
of project crises. Drawing inspiration from the Cynefin com-
plexity model developed by Snowden and Boone (2007), we
delve into the interplay between governance and crisis man- 1
Black School of Business, Penn State University, the Behrend College Erie, PA,
agement. Our central research question, guiding this explora- USA
2
tion, is: Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK

Corresponding Author:
How does the decision to replace the project manager function Jeffrey Pinto, Black School of Business, Penn State University, the Behrend
as a potential governance response to project crises, and how College Erie, PA 16563, USA.
can the Cynefin complexity model be adapted to provide Email: [email protected]
2 Project Management Journal

crisis; namely, the decision to replace the project manager. The as a behavior/outcome orientation (Müller, 2009; Müller &
literature on crisis governance is in its infancy (see Iftikhar Lecoeuvre, 2014), complexifying the challenge for managers
et al., 2021) and, as such, there are opportunities to extend looking for the best way forward. The stakeholder satisfaction
our understanding of this phenomenon to specific, important aspect is integral to ideas of success (e.g., Davis, 2018; Shao
settings and conditions through the use of adaptive models & Müller, 2011), and the complexity of managing stakeholder
such as Cynefin, while offering a framework for project organi- relationships is a significant factor in project resilience (Yang
zations to recognize and rapidly respond to developing crises et al., 2022). We note here also the importance of “govern-
with the goal of minimizing disruptions. mentality,” or “(the combination of the words governance
and mentality) [which] sets the ‘tone’ … between governors
and governed individuals” (Müller et al., 2017, p. 379).
The Roots of Project Governance Governmentality thus addresses this vital people side
As a key development in our pursuit of better understanding and (Müller et al., 2014). We note also that the multiplicity of
management of projects, the exploration of governance systems stakeholders, including at different organizational levels,
for project-based organizations has witnessed remarkable leads to a number of different priorities, adding further diffi-
growth in recent years, from earlier work by Müller (2009), culties to the management task. Brunet (Brunet & Forgues,
Pryke (2005), Bekker and Steyn (2007), Clegg et al. (2002), 2019; Brunet, 2021) employs a sensemaking perspective in
and Turner and Keegan (2001), to more recent studies by a analyzing this challenge in megaprojects, and we draw on
variety of scholars, including Ahola et al. (2014), Bourne this approach later. Subsequent work (Brunet et al., 2023)
et al. (2023), Biesenthal and Wilden, (2014), Müller (2016), develops a framework for collaborative governance encom-
Song et al. (2022), and Unterhitzenberger et al. (2023), passing sensemaking, procedural, structural, and relational
among others. Indeed, the growth in the literature on project aspects.
governance has demonstrated its resonance with a growing So how might we best understand the nature of governance
body of scholars seeking both to understand the functioning and its singular role in managing projects more effectively?
of this concept and its relationship to project success (Joslin Turner and Keegan (2001) describe project governance as a
& Müller, 2016). means for controlling the risk exposure of individual projects
Governance “… comprises the value system, responsibili- through regulating relationships between the organization and
ties, processes and policies that allow projects to achieve orga- external clients while also normalizing and rationalizing
nizational objectives and foster implementation that is in the conduct between the project team and the parent firm.
best interest of all of the stakeholders, internal and external, Crawford and Cooke-Davies (2009) see project governance as
and the corporation itself” (Müller, 2009, p. 4). Within the a set of principles, structures, and processes that are intended
project setting, governance can be contrasted with simpler man- to define and regulate roles, accountabilities, decision-making,
agement practices and was seen, in Müller’s (2016, pp. 5–6) and boundary management related to projects in order to cen-
words, as: tralize the project planning and control function. In his book,
Müller (2009, p. 2) referred to project governance as “the
…The framework within which management tasks … are exe- conduct of conduct;” in other words, as a form of self-regulation
cuted. Governance is established based on governance princi- “where the regulator is part of the system under regulation.”
ples, which are the fundamental norms, rules, or values that Writing further, he suggests, “governance provides a frame-
are desirable and guide the establishment of governance prac- work for ethical decision-making and managerial action
tices. Governance principles are different from management within an organization that is based on transparency, account-
principles, as the former typically underpin the ways in which ability, and defined roles.” Another useful definition of gover-
management is steered, and thus provide norms, rules, and nance was developed by Bekker and Steyn (2007, p. 4) who
values for setting up a framework to steer management, suggest governance to be: “[A] set of management systems,
whereas management principles refer to the organization of rules, protocols, relationships, and structures that provide the
work and the people used to execute work. framework within which decisions are made for project devel-
opment and implementation to achieve the intended business
Thus, Müller (2016) notes that governance is not simply the or strategic motivation.” The underlying features of these
rigid application of some methodology but depends on the flex- views of governance emphasize methods to provide control,
ible and intelligent application of key principles of monitoring, not simply for the project at a microlevel, but within the
control, and regulation of activities. In this manner, we see the project organization itself by prescribing supporting structures,
multiple and diverse layers of governance, including regulation policies/regulations, individual roles and duties, decision
due to external, economic forces, internal, informal (but critical) authority channels, and clear stakeholder management guide-
cultural values and expectations, and cybernetic control systems lines. All are intended to help firms regulate and control the
(Pinto, 2006). behavior of their teams in developing projects.
Governance initiatives cannot be considered as one size fits Within project theory development, governance is a key
all. They can be viewed as a shareholder/stakeholder as well ongoing area of research. Current important issues include
Pinto et al. 3

the challenge of governing megaprojects (Bourne et al., can signal or trigger such crises allows us to identify points of
2023), and interorganizational project working (Fernandes leverage where project governance can be meaningfully
et al., 2023; Roehrich et al., 2023; Unterhitzenberger et al., employed.
2023; Wang et al., 2023), including at multiple levels
(Martinsuo & Ahola, 2022). Other authors have addressed
how governance relates to coopetition (Rouyre et al., 2023). Project Crises and Their Signals
The complexity of the challenge is recognized (e.g., Adami It has been observed that the environments within which orga-
& Verschoore, 2018; Chakkol et al., 2018; Qui et al., 2019) nizations currently operate contain strong forces that increase
and governance remains an important topic for both research- the likelihood of the frequency of crises (Pearson & Clair,
ers and practitioners. 1998; Pearson et al., 2023). Pearson argues that the key
While the governance literature is growing apace, as scholars drivers include: (1) hypercompetition, (2) globalization, and
examine a variety of conditions or settings under which gover- (3) techno-acceleration. Hypercompetition suggests that firms
nance can enable more proactive and comprehensive project are seeking to do more with less, while working in a
control, there still exist many opportunities for evaluating this continuous-loop cycle to make products faster, cheaper, and
construct. Opportunities exist particularly in the gray areas or better. These challenges can lead to a natural desire to cut
special conditions under which governance models may corners with a resulting increase in errors and operating misun-
either: (1) not work well, or (2) provide only broad guidance derstandings, conditions that are ripe for creating crises.
due to special circumstances or less-understood circumstances. Globalization also can be a problem because, Pearson notes,
For example, what happens when project developments do not most multinational firms still center their crisis management
go according to plan; that is, what happens within organiza- operations at their home office or some centralized location,
tional systems guided by adequate governance processes despite operating in multiple countries, across ethnic and cul-
when they encounter unexpected events triggering some tural boundaries. Lacking a decentralized crisis management
crisis? As Müller and colleagues have noted, project gover- capability frequently leads to a failure to anticipate and
nance approaches are seriously complicated and even compro- respond rapidly to emergent crises. Finally, techno-acceleration
mised when a project faces a crisis (Iftikhar et al., 2021). We suggests that many technological advances produce higher
now look at the role of governance when the project encounters uncertainty, an inability to account adequately for the implica-
the unexpected. tions of such shifts (the law of unintended consequences), and,
ironically, compound crises by offering stakeholders and dis-
gruntled employees multiple avenues for advertising or exag-
Governance Response to the Unexpected gerating situations that snowball into full-blown, publicly
If we accept that governance offers the means by which project- viewed crises. Thus, as problems are discovered, organizations
based organizations can create and maintain the mechanisms may be put into reactive mode by having to fight a series of
and systems that allow for oversight and regulation of project rumors or false information rather than focusing their efforts
activities, we are tacitly acknowledging that governance is on averting a crisis.
often predicated on the maintenance of positive stasis. This con- Detecting evidence of likely or imminent problems in pro-
tinuance of behaviors is designed to control and promote ratio- jects is a challenge that has motivated scholars and practitioners
nal oversight of projects within an organizational system. alike for decades. Academic research into crises may require
The question arises, however, as to how such mechanisms serendipity in obtaining appropriate cases (Simard & Laberge,
respond when projects experience unintended or critical 2015). For practitioners, monitoring and control mechanisms,
events (e.g., Fang et al., 2023). That is, many of our previous early warning signals (Green et al., 1993), and other sensing
governance definitions ascribe a means for creating a frame- devices eventually gave way to data-driven metrics of the
work of deliberative behaviors—systems, rules, structures, type employed by earned value and earned schedule to
and so forth, based on the intent of orderly control. But these monitor cost performance and schedule performance indices.
best intentions can be thwarted in the case where projects and These are all designed to provide real-time evidence of the
their larger organizations are confronted with crises demanding status of an ongoing project. The problem, of course, is the
urgent sensemaking and corrective action. Are standard gover- need to distinguish between simple under-performance, of
nance systems capable of pivoting quickly to accommodate the the type that can be signaled by reviewing stage gates
rapid “outturns” (Ika & Pinto, 2022) to which projects are often (Cooper, 1990) and other interim monitoring methods, and
prone and that can render carefully developed governance legitimate crises that can upend the development of an other-
systems incapable or even counterproductive, should the wise well-progressing project. Indeed, the language used can
system be so rigid as to not adapt to emergent realities in a convey a certain muddiness in terms of what a real project
meaningful manner? crisis looks like. A crisis can be defined as “a low-probability
To understand more fully the nature of governance in atyp- and high-impact event” (Pearson & Clair, 1998, p. 60),
ical but significant circumstances, it is first necessary to identify which, should it occur, has the potential not simply to delay,
project crises as a phenomenon. Having a better sense of what but to affect a project beyond the point of recovery
4 Project Management Journal

(Hermann, 1963). Iftikhar et al. (2021) noted that a common, (i.e., project manager replacement) offers the opportunity to
albeit neutral, term used in project settings is “unexpected expand our understanding of effective crisis response.
event,” which attempts to convey a sense of project risk, even Moreover, we face the challenge of fully understanding the
though the authors caution against the intermingling of terms nature of the crisis we face; that is, crises come in multiple
such as “risk” and “crisis.” forms and due to a wide variety of proximate causes.
Project risk has been studied for many years now and some Offering alternative response options must be carefully under-
of its properties are suggested to include a sense of stood in context.
“unknown-knowns” (e.g., Fortis et al., 2018); that is, it is
identifiable and known to occur, though the actual timing of
these events, or their certainty, are unclear. In this sense, a Types of Crises and Common Responses
risk represents an event for which a statistical probability Following Shrivastava and Mitroff’s (1987) categorization of
may be determined due to the knowledge of the potential crises along two dimensions—internal/external and social/tech-
occurrence of such outcomes (Love et al., 2023). On the nical—we can formalize a system whereby it is possible to
other hand, the roots of a crisis are often intertwined with recognize the nature of a crisis, understand its root causes,
uncertainties, for which it is impossible to determine proba- and begin to formulate corrective strategies in applying
bilities. As Iftikhar et al. (2021, p. 395), suggest: “A crisis project governance to these situations (Iftikhar & Müller,
is commonly described as an unanticipated, surprising, and 2019). The first dimension, encompassing internal versus exter-
ambiguous event posing a significant threat, leaving only a nal crises, refers to the source of failures resulting in unexpected
brief time to make a decision.” Contingencies can be and serious events that have the capacity to derail a project. For
planned for risks, whereas a crisis is an event with a high example, internal events can include failures of organizational
level of uncertainty with typically no anticipation and contin- systems of control or culture; while external events are triggered
gency plan (Bell et al., 2018). by environmental upheavals, stakeholder interference, legal
In their study on the nature of crises, Iftikhar and Müller obstructions, and so forth. Second, Shrivastava and Mitroff
(2019) conducted a systematic literature review and determined (1987) note that root causes of crises can arise through social
that while there exist a variety of definitions of a crisis, there are or technical causes, including everything from workplace bully-
some key commonalities. First, they observed a crisis is an ing (social–internal) to changes in government forcing new reg-
unplanned event that has the potential of dismantling the inter- ulatory guidelines (technical–external), as in the recent case of
nal and external structures of an organization. A crisis may several previously approved gas and oil pipeline projects cur-
affect not only the employees and other members internal to rently in regulatory limbo in the United States. Understanding
the organization, but also key stakeholders external to the orga- the structural similarities of crises allows firms to develop cor-
nization. Second, a crisis may occur in any organization. For responding sets of ameliorative methods rather than treating
example, nonprofit organizations, governmental agencies, mul- each crisis as a one-off crisis requiring a unique solution that
tinational organizations, and so forth, all are susceptible to a prevents larger organizational learning or knowledge manage-
crisis (Barton, 1994). Finally, a crisis may affect the legitimacy ment (Shrivastava et al., 1988). Interestingly, a recent study
of an organization. In the event of a crisis, the ability to influ- by Iftikhar (2023) tested the Shrivastava and Mitroff (1987)
ence public or stakeholder perception may affect the survival typology and found differential effects of various types of
of an organization. crises (internal versus external; social versus technical). For
Considering the challenging environmental factors, such as example, external crises were not found to have the same neg-
hypercompetition, globalization, and techno-acceleration ative effect on project outcomes that came from internal crises.
(Pearson et al., 2023) that increase the frequency of crises in The challenge of addressing project crises is more marked by
today’s organizations, there is a need to explore further how the observance that such crises often bring out the worst possi-
governance functions in crisis situations. Governance’s role in ble responses by key stakeholders. For example, Loosemore
project crises is crucial yet complex. Iftikhar et al. (2021) exam- (1998), writing about crises within construction projects,
ined governance in a megaproject crisis, using a single case observed three ironies: (1) when effective communication is
study and found a number of important coping strategies most critical, it in fact becomes less likely, as organizational
when faced with unforeseen events. Another recent large-data subunits “circle the wagons” and adopt defensive patterns that
study examined the impact of relational and contractual gover- are self-preservatory; (2) when mutual sensitivity between
nance mechanisms on organizational resilience in infrastructure project team members is important, it is less likely, with
projects (Lv et al., 2023). Their findings suggest that when pro- natural responses being self-protective rather than collaborative;
jects are faced with crises (unexpected events), governance can and (3) when collective responsibility and teamwork are impor-
serve to enhance the project’s resilience when it focuses on rela- tant there is a decreased likelihood. Mutual problem-solving
tionship building and establishing contractual conditions that responses are delegitimized in favor of departments or individu-
allow for rapid response and remediation in unplanned event als “covering their tracks” or pointing fingers in other directions.
settings. Moving beyond these specific cases to a broader A persistent challenge during crises is the difficulty key actors
context, examining a particular top management response face in promptly shaping their interpretation of the event.
Pinto et al. 5

This impedes their ability to select the most effective course of

action for an early resolution.
While the Shrivastava and Mitroff’s (1987) categorization is
a useful point of departure, it fails to adequately inform us of the
trigger conditions under which various types of crises may be
most likely to occur and how they might be best interpreted
by key organizational actors (Iftikhar et al., 2023). To gain a
deeper understanding of this challenge and how governance
operates in crises, it is valuable to examine these distinctions
between risks and crises through the lens of the Cynefin model.

Viewing Crises in Projects: Snowden’s

Cynefin Framework
One of the challenges faced by management in project organi-
zations is how governance is maintained in the face of project
crises; that is, the process of recognizing and channeling
resources and energy to addressing these unplanned, disruptive
events, with the goal of returning the project to an earlier state of
normalcy, or even successfully pivoting by reorienting project Figure 1. Cynefin Framework (adapted from Snowden & Boone,
goals in the face of an uncorrectable challenge. This lack of sys- 2007, p. 72).
tematic sensemaking recurs in all manner of organizational
activities and is one of the principal reasons for the development
of the Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007; Snowden Second, the “Complicated” domain is one in which there may
& Rancati, 2021; Shalbafan et al., 2018). be many correct solutions, and expertise (e.g., project management
It is recognized that projects are complex, dynamic, and and technical specialists) is required to resolve issues using
present managers with a range of challenges over their life “sense-analyze-respond” to address “known-unknowns.” Refined
cycle (e.g., Geraldi et al., 2011; Maylor et al., 2013), with cor- judgment and expertise are necessary to break down questions
responding difficulties in managing performance (Pavlov & and generate a range of options that move toward optimal solu-
Micheli, 2023). We also noted that projects can be prone to tions. Artificial intelligence may be able to help with complicated
failure, either through a rapid crisis event, or through slower problems, in this domain.
creeping failure (Kutsch et al., 2015). Partly, it has been Third, the “Complex” domain suggests that there are no right
argued, that the inherent nature of the environments in which answers and cause-and-effect can only be deduced in retrospect
many projects are initiated harbor numerous challenges that (looking back at the decisions we made and how they panned
they are destined to encounter throughout their life cycle out), due to “unknown-unknowns” and embedded uncertainty.
(Maylor & Turner, 2017). The appropriate response here is “probe-sense-respond,” to deter-
The Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007) was orig- mine the right path through the fog. Examples may include the
inally developed as a sensemaking device. The underlying response to major market shifts, or the adoption of radical new
notion is that decision makers operate more effectively when technology. Dynamic complex project systems or organizational
they understand the context within which they are working, as cultures are examples of complex challenges that confound
there may be competing alternatives of decision options, as simple, reductionist approaches to their understanding.
well as connections of which they may not be aware. We Fourth, “Chaotic” circumstances are rare and characterized
utilize this framework as a way of showing that the nature of by unknowables and may well be disaster situations. Events
the challenge can be understood as one of the Cynefin categories, are too complicated to attempt to derive a rational response
and we use this later to develop guidance for managers faced through analysis and, instead, the key is immediate action.
with a crisis. The model (Figure 1) depicts four main domains: There is no time to ask for input. Here, “act-sense-respond” is
First, the “Simple” domain is stable and has clear cause-and- advised given the novelty of the situation where there is no tem-
effect relationships with “known-knowns.” Managing while in plate answer available. As Snowden and Boone (2007, p. 74)
this category is relatively straightforward. This domain permits write: “In the chaotic domain, a leader’s immediate job is not
us to use a “sense-categorize-respond” approach and can be to discover patterns but to staunch the bleeding. A leader
understood as applying standard operating procedures or princi- must first act to establish order, then sense where stability is
ples of established practice (including simple decision rules) in present and where it is absent, and then finally respond by
the project. For example, always employ a 10% contingency on working to transform the situation from chaos to complexity.
a construction project or require a minimum of three estimates Identifying emerging patterns can, both, help prevent future
for site grading. crises and discern new opportunities” [emphasis in original].
6 Project Management Journal

We note that the model could, for example, be used to interaction can constantly reshape actors’ understanding and
explore and test specific governance actions in appropriate capacity. Therefore, we highlight that practitioners should rec-
cases more fully (probe-sense-respond, sense-analyze-respond, ognize their opportunities for improvisations to confront unan-
etc.), but that is beyond the scope of this work. Rather, we use ticipated situations.
the quadrant terminology to examine response types, as dis-
cussed later. Equally, Snowden and Boone (2007) note that both “simple”
As the Cynefin framework suggests, chaotic circumstances and “complicated” scenarios may inhibit novel thinking. The
are often a characteristic of crisis situations. Whether the key to Cynefin formulations in the face of project crises is to
crisis is of a monumental, existential nature (e.g., the 2023 first apply, as Snowdon suggests, the correct framing device
fires in Maui) or an industrial accident or spectacular product to understand the nature of the challenge, which can signal
failure that represents a challenge to long-term corporate sur- the appropriate sensemaking progression necessary to reestab-
vival, the “appropriate” response is rarely immediately lish a logical governance.
evident, the cost of “paralysis by analysis” prohibitive, and
the efficacy of likely responses are impossible to determine a
priori. Under such circumstances, project crises may require a Governance and Crisis Management
bias for action rather than reflection, which, as Cynefin sug- We noted previously that project governance is not intended
gests, requires the reestablishment of order as quickly as simply as a static or cybernetic form of project control, but
possible. that its strength lies in the willingness of organizations to
The Cynefin framework has been employed effectively as a afford their governance systems sufficient flexibility to identify,
decision-making device in project settings. For example, Naim respond to, and learn from project processes. This capacity is
et al. (2022, p. 1377) use Cynefin with regard to understanding particularly important when dealing with unforeseen events of
construction project supply chains and highlight that it the type that define a crisis. Writing on this topic, Iftikhar and
“enlightens our thinking” and allows a narrative to be dis- Müller (2019) made several trenchant observations about the
cussed around the challenges of disordered, interconnected manner in which an effective governance system allows
issues beyond “the ‘risk register model’ norm” (see also project organizations the best opportunity to monitor,
Sawyerr & Harrison, 2020). Moreover, establishing the appro- respond, and learn from crisis events. They noted, however,
priate context within the framework allows us to reflect on the that it can be nearly impossible to study these events in real
state of the project and provides a language to discuss the chal- time, due to their unpredictability. Thus, their key argument
lenges. In particular, it can help facilitate a discussion over suggests:
whether the current performance (especially one of deteriorat-
ing performance and/or crisis) warrants a change of gover-
nance. Alexander et al. (2018) apply the Cynefin framework Crisis can be considered as an opportunity to change and opportu-
to performance measurement and management systems and nity to learn. It is an opportunity to change when warning signals
discuss the challenge of organizational culture. In “ordered” are recognized before a crisis occurs. However, it is often only
environments (the “simple” and “complicated” states), hierar- possible after the crisis, because warning signals are easier to
chy and command and control is more effective, though they detect after the crisis… There are two ways to deal with crises.
may not be sufficient to respond effectively under the “unor- The first is to prevent the crisis. Hence, a crisis is unimaginable,
dered” conditions of complexity. Although clear and unambig- so it is impossible to prevent them. The second is to prepare for
uous classifications of the Cynefin quadrants are difficult, if a a crisis, which is more realistic. (p. 67)
project departs from a predominantly structured execution
approach to a messier, complex one, then action should be Preparing for a crisis does not mean that all possible types
taken with regard to sensemaking strategies (i.e., matching of such events are planned in advance. As we noted previously,
the challenges to appropriate sensemaking processes). Such risk and uncertainty are not the same thing. Without a statistical
processes are far from straightforward, however. Song et al. probability for the likelihood of a crisis to emerge, it has
(2022, p. 342) examined the wider governance literature and been suggested that a more prudent strategy is to consider
recommend determining “how the interaction between the organization preparation actions that can put the firm in the
project and its embedded network, local community, and soci- best place to respond with corrective systems. In other words,
opolitical settings influence and are influenced by governance “unknown-unknowns” of the type that crises typically manifest
arrangements.” themselves do not allow for creating a form of risk register
The implications of the Cynefin framework on project gov- (Maylor & Turner, 2022, p. 245). Instead, crisis governance
ernance are important as they are liberating in their call for flex- concerns itself with identification and remediation practices
ible responses. As Song et al. (2022, p. 342) write: with steps that include developing a crisis management plan
to identify and manage events through clear communication
Project governance is no longer considered merely a one-off channels, mobilizing resources, and monitoring the situation
decision or a fixed arrangement, and temporality and contextual to assess impact.
Pinto et al. 7

The role that effective leadership can play during project model, we can gain insights into how organizations can navi-
crises cannot be underestimated. A variety of unexpected gate crises, adapt their governance systems, and ensure their
events (including but not limited to governance system failures) projects move toward recovery and stability.
in projects can lead to the need for crisis responses where the
project manager plays a critical role. This issue is considered
Governance in a Crisis: Why is the Project
especially key because of the central position that project man-
agers occupy with their projects, serving as a visible focal point Manager Replaced?
for all critical stakeholders, both internal and external to the The Role of Agency Theory
organization. They are often the ones accountable for the We consider the role of governance here through the conceptual
outputs (Zwikael & Meredith, 2018; Zwikael et al., 2019), lens of agency theory (Martinsuo & Ahola, 2022; Turner &
thus, when the crisis emerges, the project manager is expected Müller, 2003). Agency theory assumes the separation of owner-
to respond quickly and take action to minimize the impact on ship and control, which is a fundamental problem in organiza-
the project’s activities and overall direction. Because the tions (Pirhonen & Vartiainen, 2007). This separation is the
project manager is the face of the project, expectations naturally result of absent or distant owners/shareholders (i.e., principals),
exist regarding both their capabilities and willingness to step entrusting decision-making to the agents (i.e., project manag-
into the breach to begin corrective responses. As Pearson ers) to act on their behalf (Hill & Jones, 1992; Jensen &
et al. (2023) observed, effective crisis leaders must not only Meckling, 1976). It is important that controls are in place to
lead their teams effectively, but they must be boundary span- minimize a divergence of interests and, generally, alignment
ners, able to influence beyond their team and designated is achieved through appropriate incentives and contractual obli-
“turf” even when they lack the position power to do so. gations. There are two key reasons for recognizing the centrality
Moreover, they need to make and reinforce connections and of the project manager in governance and in response to crises,
foster trust, while stepping up to take charge, all while particularly when contemplating their removal and replace-
making rapid decisions and acting promptly in the face of ment, and are discussed as follows.
high volatility under which crisis situations often occur Project managers, as agents, act as independent decision
(Maylor & Turner, 2017). makers, balancing critical financial, technical, and behavioral
Given the centrality and critical nature of leadership variables all while seeking to maintain positive relationships
responses in times of crisis, the key question must be consid- with a variety of project stakeholders, both internal (e.g., top
ered: under what circumstances might it be the case where the management) and external (e.g., contractors, regulatory
solution to a crisis involves the necessity of replacing the bodies, etc.). These diverse stakeholders each has their own rea-
project manager? In other words, when has project leadership sonable and compelling needs, which must be effectively
“failed” to the degree that replacing the project manager is jus- balanced by the project manager. The added challenge is that
tified as the best choice for fixing a challenging problem? The their multiple needs and expectations may shift and compete
importance of effective leadership of projects is a topic that is over time, so acting in the principal’s best interests is a
widely covered in the project management literature, which dynamic requirement (Maylor et al., 2023; Olander, 2007).
points to the key role project managers play in successful pro- Project managers, as agents, occupy a unique position that
jects (Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner & Müller, 2005). affords them decision authority and a degree of autonomy,
Consequently, this article endeavors to explore the relationship much as a CEO assumes a similar, high-visibility position as
between crisis governance and the decision to replace a project a symbol of the organization they are running (Anantatmula,
manager. Our focus extends beyond delineating the primary 2010). Thus, in considering replacement, the nature of the rela-
reasons for a manager’s replacement. From a governance stand- tionship between the agent and the organization is often a crit-
point, we also delve into the actions that the incoming project ical determinant (Toivonen & Toivonen, 2014). Replacing the
manager, in collaboration with the project organization, can ini- project manager in an ongoing project suggests that organiza-
tiate to restore control and propel the project forward. tions tacitly accept the disruption that such a decision might
If governance is indeed a form of self-regulation, as Müller engender. Retrenchment, reimagining, rescoping (and even
has noted, it is imperative to understand the way a project rethinking) of the project are decisions that are often motivated
system can correct and begin to self-regulate itself in the after- by extreme circumstances. Moreover, the financial and project
math of a replacement decision. This point is even more stakeholder impacts can be significant and destabilizing when
pressing when we consider our previous argument that a these decisions are made. Past research suggests that project
crisis necessitating project manager replacement can affect manager replacement often occurs in the post-planning phases
the perceived legitimacy of the organization, and the ability of the project life cycle, precisely when the project is most vul-
to influence stakeholder perception under crisis conditions nerable, given that activities are ramping up dramatically,
is paramount. expenditures are increasing, and the project and its parent orga-
The interplay among governance, project manager replace- nization are experiencing higher risk (Wideman, 2004). As a
ment, and crisis management is intricate and complex. By result, any decision to replace the project manager has huge
examining these dynamics through the lens of the Cynefin financial and stakeholder management implications.
8 Project Management Journal

Governance and Replacement development (Davis, 2018; Maylor et al., 2013). Therefore, at
A search for the keywords, “project manager replacement,” will later, specific points in time in order to reflect the needs of
reveal multiple examples—many of them familiar—of world- new social interactions, a new project manager may be
class firms making the decision to remove and replace the orig- judged to be better than their predecessor in managing, monitor-
inal project manager in the midst of a crisis. Indeed, it has been ing, and controlling the context in which these interactions are
suggested that project manager replacement decisions are sur- embedded.
prisingly common across industries and a wide variety of To offer a typical example that we see regularly, as related
project types (Dubber, 2015). by our post-graduate students and executive education partic-
In the context of project manager replacement, governance ipants, it is not uncommon for a technically adept engineer to
behaviors serve a dual role. First, they act as the driving force lead a project during the initial, proof-of-concept phase, as
behind the initial decision to replace the project manager, a major technological decisions are made, and then have lead-
decision typically made by top management (see Zwikael & ership transition to someone with broader organizational
Meredith, 2018). This includes top-level governance actions experience or someone who is viewed as better able to
such as evaluating project performance against strategic objec- liaise effectively with critical stakeholders. These anecdotes
tives, ensuring adherence to project management standards, and offer confirmation for Maylor et al. (2013, p. 50), who
identifying any significant deviations from desired outcomes. advocate:
When governance mechanisms reveal misalignment between
the project and organizational goals, top management may Understanding the dominant complexities within a piece of
opt for a project manager replacement. work allows the allocation of a manager with the appropriate
Second, governance plays a pivotal role in the post- experience and skills. For example, if the complexities are pri-
replacement phase, where the new project manager takes marily structural, a more planning and control-oriented ‘mana-
charge. Here, governance pertains to the actions taken by the gerial’ approach may be warranted; to address sociopolitical
project manager to establish effective governance mechanisms complexities, a skilled relationship builder who takes more of
within the project. This involves defining clear roles and a ‘leadership’ approach may be preferable.
responsibilities, setting performance metrics, and ensuring
robust stakeholder engagement. These governance behaviors This perspective fits within the wider issue of project team com-
are executed at the project manager level and are critical for position, which may also change over the duration of the
stabilizing the project and addressing concerns raised by stake- project. As Bell and Outland (2017, p. 17) advise, “For mem-
holders. Interestingly, Zwikael and Meredith (2018) point out bership change during the life cycle of a team, team composi-
the role of governance enacted at the project management tion information can be used to determine which team
office, specifically manifested at the project manager tier, members will best complement the existing team.” This dyna-
which is notably below that of senior management. mism is an important factor (Quintane et al., 2013) for manage-
Consequently, governance actions exist as distinct entities at ment consideration. Focusing on project manager replacement,
these two separate hierarchical levels. The new project this is a recognized occurrence (Vartiainen et al., 2012), includ-
manager must adeptly navigate these governance structures ing for underperformance (Vartiainen et al., 2010), which “is a
to regain control, build trust with key stakeholders, and initiate complex phenomenon and has economic and social conse-
corrective actions. quences (e.g., for the client and the team)” (Vartiainen et al.,
2011, p. 112).
More recent research on the dynamics of project manager
Reasons for Replacement replacement has identified some of the primary reasons for
Although research and anecdotal evidence suggest that the act replacing the project manager (Davis et al., 2023). Among the
of replacing the project manager is commonly dictated by key findings were four primary dynamics relating to the use
poor project performance and key stakeholders’ dissatisfaction of replacement as a “preventative practice:”
(Dubber, 2015), it is also the case that this decision is associated
with the strategic direction of the project-based organization. 1. Under Performance: The simplest and most basic reason
Both social and technical dynamics in projects can change for replacing a project manager is through clear evidence
quickly, and the need for balance among those dynamics in that the project is underperforming against expected stan-
order to deliver the promised benefits is a recurrent task for dards or interim goals. Spiraling project indicators (e.g.,
project managers (Maylor et al., 2013). Projects are complex time, cost, quality) will offer clear evidential markers her-
systems, and organization requirements and technical or alding an inevitable replacement point. The evidence that
business-case specifications might differ and/or change at best demonstrates these performance gaps include: (1) the
each phase of the project life cycle or at various key decision project is not meeting standards of schedule, budget, or
gates. The emergence of new stakeholders, regulatory patterns, quality; (2) the project is failing to realize planned bene-
shifting political interests, and key actors in the supply chain fits and is in a recovery phase; (3) failure to engage with
can come into play at different points during project key stakeholders; and (4) the client perceives that the
Pinto et al. 9

project is not performing according to plan. Thus, client/ with key clients may be crucial. Another reason might
stakeholder disappointment is seen as the main trigger of be the perception that some project managers are able
the replacement process, where a perceived lack of com- to handle internal, technical challenges well but lack
petence from the current project manager is often flagged. the skills to close out the project or are quickly needed
2. Lack of Necessary Traits of the Project Manager: to rotate to a new project, leaving the near-completed
Replacing the project manager is often associated with venture in the hands of a skilled termination administrator.
the perception that they lack necessary skills or have 4. Replacement is Context-Dependent: A final dynamic for
demonstrated errors in judgment that endanger the project manager replacement from Davis et al. (2023) is
project or key stakeholder relationships. Davis et al. the determination that the context within which the
(2023) found that when the replacement decision is project is operating (i.e., the characteristics of the
taken, it is usually for one or more of the following project itself) can have an impact on the likelihood of
reasons: (1) loss of client or stakeholder trust in the replacement. For example, they found that replacement
project manager; (2) the project manager lacks techni- is more common in larger projects with higher budgets
cal skills to understand and manage critical elements and longer schedules than in shorter or less expensive
of the work; (3) the project manager lacks soft skills, ones. Moreover, some firms have a reputation for replac-
creating relationship barriers and breakdowns; and (4) ing their project managers to a greater degree than others
as the project moves to a different phase, there is the in the same industry (e.g., construction).
need for a dissimilar skill set to manage the upcoming
challenges. Thus, a key reason is that the original In addition to the “preventative practice” reasons why a project
manager may be inept in terms of maintaining high- manager may be replaced, Davis et al. (2023) also found evi-
quality stakeholder relations, resulting in alienation dence that replacement can be a purposeful choice by the
and critical disputes. project organization to signal a message for change. In this
3. Strategic Decision: It was noted that replacement need sense, the project manager is considered the visible (and there-
not necessarily be a reactive response to poor perfor- fore, expendable) symbol of the current state of the project or
mance in that sometimes the decision is planned in the larger organization in the eyes of key stakeholders.
advance and the project manager is fully aware that Hence, the project manager is the first imputable person,
their replacement has been in the cards since the begin- much like a professional sports team would signal their commit-
ning. There are several common reasons for making the ment to change by sacking their manager.
strategic decision to replace the project manager. For Davis et al.’s (2023) process model, as illustrated in Figure 2,
example, some project managers are perceived as better provides a visual representation of these cause-and-effect relation-
able to manage key stakeholder relationships at different ships among key variables, with governance behaviors throughout.
points in the project; as in, when a defense project moves This model outlines how various antecedent factors lead to
into verification and qualification stages, having a project stakeholder disaffection, ultimately culminating in the deci-
manager who has built a positive working relationship sion to replace the project manager. It underscores the

Figure 2. Project manager replacement process model (Davis et al., 2023, p. 1686).
10 Project Management Journal

significant role of governance-related considerations through- replacing a project manager and ensuring a smooth hand-over
out the replacement process. period, with its profound implications for governance and its
dynamics, can also be interpreted within the framework of the
Cynefin model. Although we distinguish between the
Replacement: Internal Versus External
domains, we acknowledge that—in practice—the exact situa-
Selecting a replacement for the project manager is a pivotal
tion can be difficult to ascertain, and classification in real time
decision in the aftermath of their removal and it holds signifi-
can be challenging, with blurred boundaries.
cant implications, particularly concerning governance. The
The concept of a well-planned hand-over process following
choice between sourcing this replacement internally or recruit-
a structured approach aligns seamlessly with the Cynefin
ing externally sends crucial signals about the organization’s
model’s Simple domain. In this domain, best practices and stan-
approach. This issue is, of course, exacerbated in crisis situa-
dard procedures are clearly defined. It becomes evident that a
tions where time is often of the essence, options may be
systematic hand-over plan is paramount to ensure a fast transi-
limited because of the impossibility of conducting a full infor-
tion without disrupting ongoing project operations. Governance
mation search, and multiple stakeholders are impatiently
in this context revolves around establishing clear guidelines and
waiting for demonstrated action being taken to alleviate the
ensuring their diligent adherence during the hand-over process.
dangers. Thus, while the Davis et al. (2023) model offers an
In the Complicated domain, the need for senior and execu-
empirically derived process flow for replacement, it must be
tive management to support the transition by facilitating a col-
reconsidered in project crisis situations where these steps are
laborative overlap between the outgoing and incoming project
often truncated or simply papered over initially, as the act of
managers finds its natural home. The Complicated domain
“doing something” is of immediate, paramount importance.
deals with situations where expertise and rigorous analysis are
When top management’s objective is to minimize disruption
required to determine the optimal solution. Governance here
and ensure a smooth transition focused on corrective action to
demands meticulous coordination and management of the tran-
get the project back on track, they often opt for an internal
sition process, with a focus on aligning the project’s goals and
replacement (Davis et al., 2023). This decision is regarded as
objectives with the capabilities of the incoming project
the most time- and cost-effective solution and is perceived as
manager.
less risky. Most organizations have a pool of skilled project
As the hand-over process unfolds, it may enter the Complex
managers already familiar with the project’s environment.
domain, influenced by multifaceted factors such as organiza-
Consequently, an internal replacement accelerates the recovery
tional culture, sponsor pressures, and project characteristics.
process because the new project manager is well versed in the
In this domain, there is a recognition that a one-size-fits-all
project management systems, processes, and the organization’s
approach will not suffice, and outcomes emerge through adap-
culture. Moreover, an internal project manager is typically seen
tive responses. Governance in this context necessitates flexibil-
as a cost-effective option and is more likely to overcome and
ity and a willingness to experiment with diverse approaches to
mitigate any relationship barriers or breakdowns.
the hand-over process, as highlighted by Davis et al. (2023). It
Conversely, when the project organization believes that a
involves fostering an environment conducive to learning and
transformational change is essential, external sourcing for the
adaptation, acknowledging the intricate nature of the transition
replacement is more common. This action signals a commitment
for the new project manager.
to taking any necessary measures to get the project back on
When the cases where the hand-over process is spinning out
track. In such cases, an external replacement is expected to
of control, it enters the Chaotic domain of the Cynefin model.
bring an unbiased perspective and to disconnect from the prior
Here, the emphasis shifts to rapidly restoring order and stability.
management style. However, this choice involves disruptions
Clear communication and effective collaboration become
and adjustments during the recruitment and settling-in period
imperative, acting as linchpins to prevent further turmoil.
of the external replacement. This individual requires time to
Governance in the Chaotic domain revolves around swift
gain a comprehensive understanding, not only of the project
actions to regain control and reestablish a semblance of order
itself, but also the operating environment, chain of command,
within the project.
and cultural nuances that will inevitably affect their transition.
What becomes the role of the outgoing project manager
For instance, opting for an internal replacement is often seen
during transition? The answer is that it very much depends on
as a “less traumatic” and safer option for other project team
the way the initial replacement took place, the willingness of
members, as new external project managers may be perceived
top management and the former project manager to cooperate
as potential catalysts for more extensive and disruptive changes.
for the good of the project, and the ability of the new project
manager to accept temporary assistance in recovering stability.
Thus, the willingness of the outgoing project manager to coop-
Governance in the Aftermath of Project
erate and support the transition becomes a pivotal governance
Manager Replacement dynamic in this context. Its relevance can be correlated to the
The Cynefin model, discussed earlier, offers guidance for sense- Cynefin model as follows, and we include illustrative interview
making in the face of a project crisis. Importantly, the process of quotes from our previous data set (Davis et al., 2023):
Pinto et al. 11

In ordered domains (Simple and Complicated), the willing- Moving into the Complicated domain, the focus shifts to
ness of the outgoing project manager to cooperate aligns harmo- rebuilding stakeholder confidence, emphasizing the importance
niously with established governance norms. It signifies a of clear and effective governance practices. During this stage,
smooth hand-over process characterized by clearly defined the governance framework may require recalibration to
roles and responsibilities. enhance transparency and trust-building mechanisms. It is
imperative to revisit and optimize existing governance practices
If you have enough resources internally then that can be the best to ensure alignment with the new project manager’s reassurance
solution because you can grab [the project manager] quickly and efforts and the evolving project dynamics.
they probably know something about the organization. […] So In the Complex domain, where goals and expectations
yeah, generally you need internal knowledge as well as some- undergo clarification, the adaptability of the governance frame-
body you can rely on for program management. work becomes paramount. Governance transforms into a
dynamic process, flexing to accommodate the evolving needs
of the project under new leadership. This adaptability enables
In Complex and Chaotic domains, which are marked by greater
the framework to remain agile in response to changes in
unpredictability, the willingness of the outgoing project
project direction and objectives.
manager to cooperate assumes heightened importance for effec-
Furthermore, the Chaotic domain underscores the urgency of
tive governance. It can either serve to stabilize the situation in
governance framework revisions. As the new project manager
Chaotic scenarios or facilitate adaptation and learning in
takes control to improve project performance and stability,
Complex domains.
rapid review and adjustment of governance policies and structures
are often necessary. Governance actions may include streamlining
The role of the project manager is critical. Absolutely critical. communication channels and reinforcing project oversight mech-
The project manager sets a tone for the whole project. […] anisms to support the new project manager’s actions effectively.
[Their] management style sets the culture whether it’s an open We summarize these ideas in Figure 3, highlighting the key
culture or whether it’s a bombastic culture. I think it’s very, replacement responses within the Cynefin categories.
very important. Beyond these domain-specific considerations, the conse-
quences of project manager replacement, such as disruptions
If you’re taking a person from outside it’s much more time con- and impacts on time and budget constraints, reinforce the
suming, let’s be very open to the fact that once a new person importance of governance framework adaptation. By recogniz-
comes in, [they] need a little bit of a [lee]way to understand ing the need for timely governance revisions in response to
the process; you need to do a little bit of hand-holding, you changing circumstances, organizations can better manage and
need to give a little bit of room for mistakes and, mostly impor- mitigate these consequences. A responsive governance frame-
tant, the tolerance level on a project which is intense with strin- work ensures alignment with the evolving project landscape,
gent timelines is less.

The hand-over process within project management represents a

complex interplay of governance behaviors influenced by the
Cynefin model’s domains. Effective governance in this
context necessitates adaptability, transparent communication,
collaborative efforts, and a judicious balance of authority and
cooperation among project managers and top management
(Iftikhar et al., 2023). Recognizing the inherent complexities
of these transitions is essential for crafting governance
approaches that align seamlessly with the project’s evolving
needs and circumstances. In the dynamic landscape of transi-
tioning project managers, the need to revise the governance
framework emerges as a strategic imperative. This imperative
holds true across various domains of the Cynefin model, reflect-
ing the ever-changing nature of project management dynamics.
In the Simple domain, where structured processes are crucial,
recognizing the necessity for governance framework adjust-
ments arises as the replacement project manager embarks on
the information-gathering journey. Here, governance must
evolve to facilitate the smooth assimilation of information and
evaluation of the project’s current state, ensuring that the frame- Figure 3. Project manager replacement responses in the Cynefin
work supports these critical initial phases effectively. framework.
12 Project Management Journal

ultimately contributing to the project’s success and enhancing communication, and enabling flexible solutions. With regard
organizational resilience in the face of leadership transitions to our research question on the utilization of the Cynefin
and project challenges. model, we posit that as complexity increases, managerial
effort may best be focused on the relational issues to support
project performance, rather than the technical issues.
The Intersection of Governance, Crisis
Management, and Project Manager Recommendations
Replacement In the context of the Cynefin framework, the relationship
While we have made progress in understanding the intricate among governance failures, crisis management, and project
dynamics of governance, particularly in the context of project manager replacement, we recommend the following:
manager replacements and crisis management, there remains In the Simple domain, where problems are clear, best prac-
room for further refinement. A crucial aspect to focus on in tices are evident, and standard procedures apply, maintaining
the future stages of our research is a deeper exploration of the consistency in the governance structure during project
process diagram (see Figure 2) outlined in Davis et al. manager replacement is essential. The replacement project
(2023). This diagram serves as a valuable tool for visualizing manager should receive a clear introduction to the existing gov-
the complex interactions among governance mechanisms, ernance framework and have access to the necessary resources
project managers, and crisis response. For example, the study to ensure a smooth transition. This aligns with the principle of
found that a continuous cycle of behaviors—inquiry, reassurance, maintaining stability and clear guidelines when addressing
revalidation, and control—offer new project managers key “touch straightforward issues.
points” for connecting and developing a productive relationship In more complex workplace scenarios of the Complicated
with their project team, it is helpful to reflect further on how domain where causality may not be immediately evident, and
these activities must be addressed. That is, within the Cynefin analysis is required to understand and respond effectively,
framework, we know from previous research that organizations take a structured approach to governance. This involves con-
tend to relax central control and empower leaders and teams ducting a detailed analysis of the situation, considering
under crisis (Nachbagauer, 2021). Consequently, do various factors such as organizational culture, sponsor pressures, and
behaviors become more or less critical, depending on the the nature of the project. Integrated into the governance frame-
domain in which the project (and the new project manager) find work should be well-defined crisis management plans, outlining
themselves? How might effective reassurance in the chaotic envi- steps to be taken if a crisis occurs. This approach acknowledges
ronment differ from reassurance in simple domains? the need for a systematic and analytical approach to crisis man-
Moreover, it is essential to emphasize the pivotal role played agement within complicated work contexts.
by governance behaviors at different organizational levels. In complex workplace situations of the Complex domain
Here, we recognize that governance operates in a dual capacity where multiple interacting factors create unpredictability and
within this framework. First, it serves as the driving force emergence, such as when dealing with both project manager
behind the initial decision to replace the project manager, typi- replacement and crisis management, the approach should be
cally initiated by top management in response to critical project adaptive. When a project manager is replaced during a crisis,
issues. This top-down governance perspective reflects the moti- ensure that the replacement manager is fully informed about
vations and strategies of upper-level decision makers. Second, any ongoing crisis plans and actions taken. However, also rec-
governance functions as a crucial means for reorienting and ognize that outcomes in complex situations are emergent and
steering the project back on course following the replacement, unpredictable. The governance framework in these cases
a decision often led by the new project manager. This perspec- should facilitate ongoing learning and adaptation, allowing
tive underscores the agency and decision-making authority the new manager to continue or adjust crisis response efforts
vested in project managers, highlighting their role in project as needed. Embrace the idea that in complex workplace scenar-
recovery and crisis resolution. ios, solutions evolve, and governance needs to be flexible to
Finally, we would note the importance of stakeholders in address evolving challenges.
Müller’s work (e.g., Müller, 2009; Müller et al., 2014; Müller
et al., 2017; Müller & Lecoeuvre, 2014; Shao & Müller,
2011), and the centrality of this perspective is also reflected Limitations
in this article. The model of Davis et al. (2023) in Figure 2 It is also appropriate to consider some limitations of the current
shows that the act of project manager replacement is often work as they relate to the use of Cynefin for categorizing
strongly driven by a need to improve stakeholder satisfaction. responses to crisis situations. We noted previously that disasters
From our utilization of the Cynefin framework, we show in may not fit naturally into one of the four categories in the frame-
Figure 3 that as the responses move through the quadrants work. Thus, caution must be taken in both sensemaking and
from “Simple” to “Chaotic,” the actions become less about subsequent response. That is, Cynefin is not intended to serve
systems and processes, and more reliant on relationships, as a sort of “restaurant menu” of options to assumed causality
Pinto et al. 13

of crises. Within each quadrant are suggested ways of orienting Data Availability
our thinking in order to best apply governance responses to Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not
assumed cause and effect, but they are not formulaic. There agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data are not
exists a need to continue to explore the utility of the Cynefin available.
framework empirically to move beyond theoretical action/
response to include outcomes (i.e., crisis remediation) in Acknowledgments
order to gain better understanding of how this framework can
The authors acknowledge the many helpful suggestions made by
aid in crisis governance. Cynefin does offer a valuable way of
Shankar Sankaran and three anonymous reviewers on the abstract
addressing project governance in crisis, but we are still only
and original version of this article.
at the front end of a potential movement in this direction. The
more we can fill in the gaps through cause-and-effect analysis,
ORCID iD
the greater the potential for proposing concrete steps in estab-
lishing effective project crisis governance. Jeffrey Pinto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3502-7620
We have addressed these ideas with numerous project man-
agement professionals in postgraduate executive master’s References
classes as well as in executive education teaching, and manag- Adami, V. S., & Verschoore, J. R. (2018). Implications of network
ers report that they offer a beneficial way of conceptualizing and relations for the governance of complex projects. Project
categorizing their business issues around governance and com- Management Journal, 49(2), 71–88.
plexity. We believe that while work on the implications of Ahola, T., Russka, I., Artto, K., & Kujula, J. (2014). What is project
project manager replacement needs to continue to expand as a governance and what are its origins? International Journal of
contingency model for multiple circumstances (e.g., type of Project Management, 32(8), 1321–1332.
project, stage in the life cycle when replacement occurs, Alexander, A., Kumar, M., & Walker, H. (2018). A decision theory
national and cultural diversity, etc.), this research, embedded perspective on complexity in performance measurement and
in Müller’s conceptualizations of governance as a framework, management. International Journal of Operations &
is beneficial for both practitioners and researchers as we seek Production Management, 38(11), 2214–2244.
to govern complex projects effectively to enable valuable out- Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Project manager leadership role in improv-
comes from the work. ing project performance. Engineering Management Journal,
22(1), 13–22.
Barton, L. (1994). Crisis management: Preparing for and managing
Conclusions disasters. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
By considering the Cynefin framework, organizations can tailor Quarterly, 35(2), 59–65.
their governance practices to specific domains, allowing for more Bekker, M. C., & Steyn, H. (2007). Defining ‘project governance’ for
effective responses to governance failures, crises, and project large capital projects. Proceedings IEEE Conference Africa
manager replacements. This approach acknowledges the (pp. 1–13).
varying degrees of complexity and adaptability required in differ- Bell, S. T., Fisher, D. M., Brown, S. G., & Mannet, E. M. (2018). An
ent situations, ultimately promoting better project management approach for conducting actionable research with extreme teams.
outcomes. Building on this framework, it is essential to recognize Journal of Management, 44(7), 2740–2765.
the dual nature of governance, operating both at the upper eche- Bell, S. T., & Outland, N. (2017). Team composition over time. In
lons of an organization, where strategic decisions are made, and E. Salas, W. Vessey, & L. Landon (Eds.), Team dynamics over
at the project manager level, where day-to-day management and time (pp. 3–27).
corrective actions are implemented. Recognizing these dual Biesenthal, C., & Wilden, R. (2014). Multi-level project governance:
dimensions of governance is pivotal in our quest to guide projects Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project
back onto a productive path, ultimately ensuring their successful Management, 32(8), 1291–1308.
outcomes. A second duality that is underscored in this work is the Bourne, M., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., & Pesämaa, O. (2023). Moving
distinction between the cybernetic control aspects of governance goals and governance in megaprojects. International Journal of
and the human behavior elements. Müller (2009) has long noted Project Management, 41(5), 102486.
that governance has to be more than simply “control” writ large. Brunet, M. (2021). Making sense of a governance framework for
Our exploration of the Cynefin framework within the specific megaprojects: The challenge of finding equilibrium.
joint contexts of project crisis management and project International Journal of Project Management, 39(4), 406–416.
manager replacement underscores his point, as these conditions Brunet, M., & Forgues, D. (2019). Investigating collective sensemak-
argue for a much broader, human orientation for governance. ing of a major project success. International Journal of
This comprehensive approach to governance underscores its Managing Projects in Business, 12(3), 644–665.
multifaceted nature and its critical importance in navigating the Brunet, M., Petit, M. C., & Romero-Torres, A. (2023).
complexities of project management, especially in times of Interorganizational design for collaborative governance in
crisis and transition. co-owned major projects: An engaged scholarship approach
14 Project Management Journal

[Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Management, HEC Iftikhar, R. (2023). Crises and capabilities in project-based organiza-
Montreal; School of Management, Université du Québec à tions: Conceptual model and empirical evidence. International
Montréal (ESG UQAM); School of Management, UQAM. Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 16(3), 543–570.
DOI:10.1177/87569728231208853 Iftikhar, R., Majeed, M., & Drouin, N. (2023). Crisis management
Chakkol, M., Selviaridis, K., & Finne, M. (2018). The gover- process for project-based organizations. International Journal
nance of collaboration in complex projects. International of Managing Projects in Business, 16(8), 100–125.
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(4), Iftikhar, R., & Müller, R. (2019). Taxonomy among triplets: Opening
997–1019. the black box. International Journal of Management, 10(2),
Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., Rura-Polley, T., & Marroszeky, M. (2002). 63–85.
Governmentality matters: Designing an alliance culture of inter- Iftikhar, R., Müller, R., & Ahola, T. (2021). Crises and coping strate-
organizational collaboration for managing projects. Organization gies in megaprojects: The case of the Islamabad–Rawalpindi
Studies, 23(3), 317–337. Metro Bus Project in Pakistan. Project Management Journal,
Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing 52(4), 394–409.
new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44–54. Ika, L. A., & Pinto, J. K. (2022). The “re-meaning” of project success:
Crawford, L., & Cooke-Davies, T. (2009). Project governance: The Updating and recalibrating for a modern project management.
role and capabilities of the executive sponsor. Project International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 835–848.
Perspectives, 31, 66–74. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm:
Davis, K. (2018). Reconciling views of project success: A multi- Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure.
ple stakeholder model. Project Management Journal, 49(5), Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
38–47. Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). The relationship between project gov-
Davis, K., Di Maddaloni, F., & Pinto, J. K. (2023). Drawing new cards ernance and project success. International Journal of Project
or standing pat: Antecedents, dynamics, and consequences of Management, 34(4), 613–626.
project manager replacement. IEEE Transactions on Kutsch, E., Hall, M., & Turner, N. (2015). Project resilience: The art of
Engineering Management, 70(5), 1670–1692. noticing, interpreting, preparing, containing and recovering. Gower.
Dubber, R. J. (2015). Investigating the effects of replacing the project Loosemore, M. (1998). The three ironies of crisis management in con-
manager during project execution [Unpublished master’s thesis]. struction projects. International Journal of Project Management,
Department of Engineering Management, University of 16(3), 139–144.
Johannesburg. Love, P. E. D., Ika, L., & Pinto, J. K. (2023). Homo heuristicus: From
Fang, F., Valk, W., Vos, B., & Akkermans, H. (2023). Down the drain: risk management to managing uncertainty in large-scale infra-
The dynamic interplay of governance adjustments addressing structure project costs [Manuscript submitted for publication].
setbacks in large public–private projects [Manuscript submitted Curtin University, Perth, Australia; University of Ottawa,
for publication]. DOI: 10.1002/joom.1277 Canada; Black School of Management, Penn State University.
Fernandes, E. B., Wegner, D., & Möllering, G. (2023). Governance of DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3184871 (in press).
interorganizational projects: A process-based approach applied to Lv, L., Chen, C., & Wang, Z. (2023). Resource and cognitive perspec-
a Latin American–European case. Project Management Journal, tives: Unravelling the influence mechanism of project gover-
54(3), 219–234. nance on organizational resilience in infrastructure projects.
Fortis, Z., Maon, F., Frooman, J., & Reiner, G. (2018). Unknown Buildings, 13(11), 2878.
knowns and known unknowns: Framing the role of organiza- Martinsuo, M., & Ahola, T. (2022). Project management in inter-
tional learning in corporate social responsibility develop- organizational contexts. International Journal of Project
ment. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), Management, 40(7), 813–826.
277–300. Maylor, H., Geraldi, J., Budzier, A., Turner, N., & Johnson, M. (2023).
Geraldi, J. G., Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011). Now, let’s Mind the gap: Towards performance measurement beyond a
make it really complex (complicated): A systematic plan-execute logic. International Journal of Project
review of the complexities of projects. International Management, 41(4), 102467.
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Maylor, H., & Turner, N. (2017). Understand, reduce, respond: Project
31(9), 966–990. complexity management theory and practice. International
Green, S. G., Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (1993). Managers at Journal of Operations and Production Management, 37(8),
work: Red flags at dawn, or predicting R&D project termina- 1076–1093.
tion at start-up. Research-Technology Management, 36(3), Maylor, H., & Turner, N. (2022). Project management (5th ed.).
10–12. Pearson.
Hermann, C. F. (1963). Some consequences of crisis which limit the Maylor, H., Turner, N., & Murray-Webster, R. (2013). How hard can it
viability of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, be? Actively managing complexity in technology projects.
8(1), 61–82. Research-Technology Management, 56(4), 45–51.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Müller, R. (Ed.). (2016). Governance and governmentality for pro-
Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154. jects: Enablers, practices, and consequences. Taylor & Francis.
Pinto et al. 15

Müller, R. (2009). Project governance. Gower Publishing. Roehrich, J., Kalra, J., Squire, B., & Davies, A. (2023). Network
Müller, R., & Lecoeuvre, L. (2014). Operationalizing governance cat- orchestration in a large inter-organizational project. Journal of
egories of projects. International Journal of Project Operations Management, 69(7), 1078–1099.
Management, 32(8), 1346–1357. Rouyre, A., Fernandez, A.-S., & Estrada, I. (2023). Co-evolution of
Müller, R., Pemsel, S., & Shao, J. (2014) Organizational enablers for governance mechanisms and coopetition in public-private pro-
governance and governmentality of projects: A literature jects [Manuscript submitted for publication].
review. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), Sawyerr, E., & Harrison, C. (2020). Developing resilient supply
1309–1320. chains: Lessons from high-reliability organisations. Supply
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of Chain Management, 25(1), 77–100.
successful project managers. International Journal of Project Shalbafan, S., Leigh, E., Pollack, J., & Sankaran, S. (2018).
Management, 28(5), 437–448. Decision-making in project portfolio management: Using the
Müller, R., Zhai, L., & Wang, A. (2017) Governance and governmen- Cynefin framework to understand the impact of complexity.
tality in projects: Profiles and relationships with success. International Research Network on Organizing by Projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 378–392. Melbourne, Australia.
Nachbagauer, A. (2021). Managing complexity in projects: Extending Shao, J., & Müller, R. (2011). The development of constructs
the Cynefin framework. Project Leadership and Society, 2, of program context and program success: A qualitative
100017. study. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8),
Naim, M., Gosling, J., & Hewlett, B. (2022). Rethinking infrastruc- 947–959.
ture supply chain management: A manifesto for change. Shrivastava, P., & Mitroff, I. I. (1987). Strategic management of cor-
International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, porate crises. The Columbia Journal of World Business, 22(1),
25(10), 1359–1380. 5–11.
Olander, S. (2007). Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project Shrivastava, P., Mitroff, I. I., & Miglani, A. (1988). Understanding
management. Construction Management and Economics, 25(3), industrial crises. Journal of Management Studies, 24(4),
277–287. 285–303.
Pavlov, A., & Micheli, P. (2023). Rethinking organizational perfor- Simard, M., & Laberge, D. (2015). From a methodology exercise to the
mance management: A complexity theory perspective. discovery of a crisis: Serendipity in field research. Project
International Journal of Operations & Production Management Journal, 46(2), 47–59.
Management, 43(6), 899–915. Snowden, D., & Rancati, A. (2021). Managing complexity (and chaos)
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. in times of crisis. A field guide for decision makers inspired by the
Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 59–76. Cynefin® framework (B. Smith, E. Snowden, V. Winthagen,
Pearson, C. M., Naderpajouh, N., & Hällgren, M. (2023). Cultivating P. Andriani, & A. Caspari, Eds.). Publications Office of the
crisis research in project studies: Insights from management and European Union. Luxembourg.
organization studies by Christine Pearson. International Journal Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for
of Project Management, 41(4), 102477. decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76.
Pinto, J. K. (2019). Project management: Achieving competitive Song, J., Song, L., Liu, H., Feng, Z., & Müller, R. (2022). Rethinking
advantage (5th ed.). Pearson. project governance: Incorporating contextual and practice-based
Pinto, J. K. (2006). Organizational governance and project success: views. International Journal of Project Management, 40(4),
Lessons from Boston’s Big Dig Concept Symposium 2006: 332–346.
Principles of governance for major investment projects. Toivonen, A., & Toivonen, P. U. (2014). The transformative effect of
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, top management governance choices on project team identity and
Norway. relationship with the organization: An agency and stewardship
Pirhonen, M., & Vartiainen, T. (2007). Replacing the project manager approach. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8),
in information system projects: What knowledge should be trans- 1358–1370.
ferred? Proceedings of 13th Americas Conference on Turner, J. R., & Keegan, A. (2001). Mechanisms of governance in the
Information Systems (pp. 1–8). project-based organization: Roles of the broker and steward.
Pryke, S. D. (2005). Towards a social network theory of project gov- European Management Journal, 19(3), 254–267
ernance. Construction Management and Economics, 23(9), Turner, R., & Müller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a tem-
927–939. porary organization. International Journal of Project
Qiu, Y., Chen, H., Sheng, Z., & Cheng, S. (2019). Governance of insti- Management, 21(1), 1–8.
tutional complexity in megaproject organizations. International Turner, R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager’s leadership
Journal of Project Management, 37(3), 425–443. style as a success factor on projects: A literature review.
Quintane, E., Pattison, P. E., Robins, G. L., & Mol, J. M. (2013). Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49–61.
Short-and long-term stability in organizational networks: Unterhitzenberger, C., Müller, R., Vaagaasar, A.L., Ke, Y., Alonderiene,
Temporal structures of project teams. Social Networks, 35(4), R., Minelgaite, I., Pilkiene, M., Wang, L., Zhu, F., Drouin, N.,
528–540. Chmieliauskas, A., Šimkonis, S., & Mongeon, M. (2023). A
16 Project Management Journal

multilevel governance model for interorganizational project net- Author Biographies

works. Project Management Journal, 54(1), 88–105.
Jeffrey Pinto, PhD, is the Andrew Morrow and Elizabeth Lee
Vartiainen, T., Aramo-Immonen, H., Jussila, J., Pirhonen, M., &
Black Chair in Technology Management at Penn State-Erie’s
Liikamaa, K. (2011). Replacement of the project manager
Black School of Business and Honorary Professor at Apsley
reflected through activity theory and work–system theory. In
Business School (London). Since 2002, Professor Pinto has
Information systems development: Asian experiences (pp. 111–
been the Program Chair for Penn State’s on-line Master of
121). Springer.
Project Management (MPM) degree program. He is the
Vartiainen, T., Aramo-Immonen, H., & Liikamaa, K. (2010).
author or editor of 28 books and over 200 scientific articles,
Replacing project manager: Reasons of replacement interpreted
and the recipient of several awards from Project Management
through the activity theory [Conference paper and presentation].
Institute and International Project Management Association.
Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Taipei,
He can be contacted at [email protected]
Taiwan.
Vartiainen, T., Pirhonen, M., Aramo-Immonen, H., & Liikamaa, K. Kate Davis, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at Cranfield University
(2012). Replacement of project manager during IT projects: A specializing in the areas of strategic organizational project man-
research agenda [Conference paper and presentation]. Americas agement, consultancy and designing and delivering courses that
Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, Washington. have a real impact. She has particular expertise in the develop-
Wang, L., Müller, R., & Zhu, F. (2023). Network governance for inter- ment and implementation of modules with large student
organizational temporary organizations: A systematic literature numbers, pioneering the development and deployment of tech-
review and research agenda. Project Management Journal, nology to improve teaching and learning. She completed her
54(1), 35–51. PhD on issues that examine multiple stakeholder perceptions
Wideman, M. (2004). A management framework for project, pro- of project success and participates in research projects in the
gramme and portfolio integration. Trafford. topic of organizational project management. She can be con-
Yang, X., Wang, L., Zhu, F., & Müller, R. (2022). Prior and governed tacted at kate.davis@cranfield.ac.uk
stakeholder relationships: The key to resilience of inter- Neil Turner, PhD, is a Professor of Project Management at
organizational projects. International Journal of Project Cranfield School of Management, following a career as an engi-
Management, 40(1), 64–75. neering manager in a major telecommunications firm. His
Zwikael, O., & Meredith, J. (2018). Who’s who in the project zoo? The current research activities involve organizational knowledge
ten core project roles. International Journal of Operations & and learning in the context of complex projects, and how strate-
Production Management, 38(2), 474–492. gic operational choices can improve both delivery performance
Zwikael, O., Meredith, J., & Smyrk, J. (2019). The responsibilities and resilience. His interests lie primarily in how managers deal
of the project owner in benefits realization. International with the organizational realities they face, including supply
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(4), chain challenges in both the public and private sectors. He can
503–524. be contacted at neil.turner@cranfield.ac.uk