Averaging Out Divergent Project Behavior

doi:10.1017/9781009322737.009

Chapter 6 - Averaging Out Divergent Project Behavior

An Unintended Consequence of Project Structures

from Part II - Deviating from Plans

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2025

Kim van Oorschot ,

Therese F. Dille and

Jonas Söderlund

Edited by

Lavagnon A. Ika and

Jeffrey K. Pinto

Show author details

Lavagnon A. Ika: Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Jeffrey K. Pinto: Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter presents a longitudinal process study of an information systems project and suggests that a hierarchy of sub-projects that belong to the same overall project may trigger unfavorable project behavior. Our findings indicate that project managers run the risk of “balancing” divergent evaluations of sub-projects via an averaging rule, which in turn leads to an overestimation of the overall project performance and consequently negatively impacting project behavior. Based on our case-study findings, we develop a process model explaining the dynamic relationship between hierarchical project structures, managerial decisions, and project behavior. Interestingly, this research shows how hierarchical project structures may hinder rather than support complex task execution, a finding that could help explain the erroneous decision making often observed in troubled projects.

Keywords

averaging bias project behavior cognitive framing organizational hierarchy project management

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 99 - 114

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009322737.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Anderson, C., and Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 55–89.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anheier, H. K. (2016). Of hiding hands and other ways of coping with uncertainty: A commentary. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 83(4), 1005–1010.10.1353/sor.2016.0064CrossRef Google Scholar

Benbya, H., and McKelvey, B. (2006). Toward a complexity theory of information systems development. Information Technology & People, 19(1), 12–34.10.1108/09593840610649952CrossRef Google Scholar

Bendoly, E., and Swink, M. (2007). Moderating effects of information access on project management behavior, performance and perceptions. Journal of Operations Management, 25(3), 604–622.10.1016/j.jom.2006.02.009CrossRef Google Scholar

Bowker, G. C., and Star, S.L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Brough, A. R., and Chernev, A. (2012). When opposites detract: Categorical reasoning and subtractive valuations of product combinations. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 399–414.10.1086/663773CrossRef Google Scholar

Bunderson, J. S., Van der Vegt, G. S., Cantimur, Y., and Rink, F. (2016). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1265–1289.10.5465/amj.2014.0601CrossRef Google Scholar

Cheng, J. L. C. (1984). Organizational coordination, uncertainty, and performance – an integrative study. Human Relations, 37(10), 829–851.10.1177/001872678403701004CrossRef Google Scholar

Chernev, A., and Gal, D. (2010). Categorization effects in value judgments: Averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 738–747.10.1509/jmkr.47.4.738CrossRef Google Scholar

Christensen, M., and Knudsen, T. (2010). Design of decision-making organizations. Management Science, 56(1), 71–89.10.1287/mnsc.1090.1096CrossRef Google Scholar

Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Dilts, D. M. and Pence, K. R. (2006). Impact of role in the decision to fail: An exploratory study of terminated projects. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 378–396.10.1016/j.jom.2004.12.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Drach-Zahavy, A., and Somech, A. (1999). Constructive thinking: A complex coping variable that distinctively influences the effectiveness of specific difficult goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(5), 969–984.10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00041-0CrossRef Google Scholar

Engwall, M., and Westling, G. (2004). Peripety in an R&D drama: Capturing a turnaround in project dynamics. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1557–1578.10.1177/0170840604048000CrossRef Google Scholar

Ethiraj, S. K., and Levinthal, D. (2004a). Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 404–437.10.2307/4131441CrossRef Google Scholar

Ethiraj, S. K., and Levinthal, D. (2004b). Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science, 50(2), 159–173.10.1287/mnsc.1030.0145CrossRef Google Scholar

Ewusi-Mensah, K., and Przasnyski, Z. H. (1991). On information systems project abandonment: An exploratory study of organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 67–80.10.2307/249437CrossRef Google Scholar

Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Soane, E., Nicholson, N., and Willman, P. (2011). Thinking, feeling and deciding: The influence of emotions on the decision making and performance of traders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1044–1061.10.1002/job.720CrossRef Google Scholar

Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). Top-ten behavioral biases in project management: An overview. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 531–546.10.1177/87569728211049046CrossRef Google Scholar

Foss, N. J., and Weber, L. (2016). Moving opportunism to the back seat: Bounded rationality, costly conflict, and hierarchical forms. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 61–79.Google Scholar

Gaba, V., and Joseph, J. (2013). Corporate structure and performance feedback: Aspirations and adaptation in M-form firms. Organization Science, 24(4), 1102–1119.10.1287/orsc.1120.0788CrossRef Google Scholar

Gibson, C. B., Birkinshaw, J., McDaniel Sumpter, D. and Ambos, T. (2019). The hierarchical erosion effect: A new perspective on perceptual differences and business performance. Journal of Management Studies, 56(8), 1713–1747.10.1111/joms.12443CrossRef Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G. (2003). Why does framing influence judgment? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 960–961.10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.30901.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gregory, R. W., Beck, R. and Keil, M. (2013). Control balancing in information systems development offshoring projects. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1211–1232.10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.10CrossRef Google Scholar

Hirschman, A. O. (1967). Development projects observed. Brookings Institution.Google Scholar

Hoegl, M. (2005). Smaller teams – better teamwork: How to keep project teams small. Business Horizons, 48(3), 209–214.10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.013CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., and Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

Holmgren, M., Andersson, H., and Sörqvist, P. (2018). Averaging bias in environmental impact estimates: Evidence from the negative footprint illusion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 48–52.10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Ika, L. A., Love, P. E. D., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). Moving beyond the planning fallacy: The emergence of a new principle of project behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3310–3325.10.1109/TEM.2020.3040526CrossRef Google Scholar

Ingvaldsen, J. A., and Rolfsen, M. (2012). Autonomous work groups and the challenge of inter-group coordination. Human Relations, 65(7), 861–881.10.1177/0018726712448203CrossRef Google Scholar

Jacobides, M. G. (2007). The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, 18(3), 455–477.10.1287/orsc.1070.0278CrossRef Google Scholar

Kappelman, L., McKeeman, R., and Zhang, L. (2006). Early warning signs of IT project failure: The dominant dozen. Information Systems Management, 23(4), 31–36.10.1201/1078.10580530/46352.23.4.20060901/95110.4CrossRef Google Scholar

Keil, M., and Mähring, M. (2010). Is your IT project turning into a black hole? California Management Review, 53(1), 6–31.10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.6CrossRef Google Scholar

Keren, M., and Levhari, D. (1979). The optimum span of control in a pure hierarchy. Management Science, 25(11), 1162–1172.10.1287/mnsc.25.11.1162CrossRef Google Scholar

Keum, D. D., and See, K. E. (2017). The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process. Organization Science, 28(4), 653–669.10.1287/orsc.2017.1142CrossRef Google Scholar

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.10.2307/259349CrossRef Google Scholar

Lindebaum, D.a, nd Fielden, S. L. (2011). ‘It’s good to be angry’: Enacting anger in construction project management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 64(3), 437–458.10.1177/0018726710381149CrossRef Google Scholar

Macrae, C. N., and Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120.10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mähring, M., and Keil, M. (2008). Information technology project escalation: A process model. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 239–272.10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00191.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Mihm, J., Loch, C. H., Wilkinson, D., and Huberman, B. A. (2010). Hierarchical structure and search in complex organizations. Management Science, 56(5), 831–848.10.1287/mnsc.1100.1148CrossRef Google Scholar

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. 2nd ed. Sage.Google Scholar

Nelson, R. (2007). IT project management: Infamous failures, classic mistakes and best practices. MIS Quarterly Executive, 6(2), 67–78.Google Scholar

PRINCE2. (2023). Projects versus programmes. www.prince2.com/eur/blog/project-vs-programme.Google Scholar

Radner, R. (1992). Hierarchy: The economics of managing. Journal of Economic Literature, 30(3), 1382–1415.Google Scholar

Rhee, L., Ocasio, W., and Kim, T.-H. (2019). Performance feedback in hierarchical business groups: The cross-level effects of cognitive accessibility on R&D search behavior. Organization Science, 30(1), 51–69.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sadler-Smith, E., and Shefy, E. (2004). The intuitive executive: Understanding and applying ‘gut feel’ in decision-making. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 76–91.Google Scholar

Seo, M. G., and Barrett, L. F. (2007). Being emotional during decision making – good or bad? An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 923–940.10.5465/amj.2007.26279217CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar

Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G., and Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 541–562.10.5465/amj.2010.0696CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, R. P., and Eppinger, S. D. (1997). Identifying controlling features of engineering design iteration. Management Science, 43(3), 276–293.10.1287/mnsc.43.3.276CrossRef Google Scholar

Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., and Rowles, C. (2004). The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Science, 50(12), 1674–1689.10.1287/mnsc.1040.0289CrossRef Google Scholar

Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Storbeck, J., and Clore, G. L. (2005). With sadness comes accuracy; with happiness, false memory: Mood and the false memory effect. Psychological Science, 16(10), 785–791.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01615.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Thompson, M., and Wildavsky, A. (1986). A cultural theory of information bias in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 23(3), 273–286.10.1111/j.1467-6486.1986.tb00954.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Tushman, M. L. (1978). Technical communication in R&D laboratories: The impact of project work characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 624–645.10.2307/255704CrossRef Google Scholar

Tushman, M. L., and Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613–624.10.2307/257550CrossRef Google Scholar

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Unterhitzenberger, C. (2021). Special issue on project behavior. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 527–530.10.1177/87569728211054716CrossRef Google Scholar

Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199226290.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Oorschot, K. E., Akkermans, H., Sengupta, K., and Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2013). Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 285–307.10.5465/amj.2010.0742CrossRef Google Scholar

Visser, B. (2000). Organizational communication structure and performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42(2), 231–252.10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00087-1CrossRef Google Scholar

von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429CrossRef Google Scholar

Zhou, Y. M. (2013). Designing for complexity: Using divisions and hierarchy to manage complex tasks. Organization Science, 24(2), 339–355.10.1287/orsc.1120.0744CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.