Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Guiding Principles
- Chapter 1 The Rise and Fall of the Planning Fallacy
- Chapter 2 Unveiling the Hiding Hand
- Chapter 3 Voyages of Discovery
- Chapter 4 Temporal Structuring and Project Behavior
- Chapter 5 Managing Project Complexity and Uncertainty through Dynamic and Systemic Stakeholder Modeling
- Part II Deviating from Plans
- Part III Practical Tips
- Index
- References
Chapter 3 - Voyages of Discovery
Balancing Leadership, Control, and Capabilities in Megaproject Delivery
from Part I - Guiding Principles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2025
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Guiding Principles
- Chapter 1 The Rise and Fall of the Planning Fallacy
- Chapter 2 Unveiling the Hiding Hand
- Chapter 3 Voyages of Discovery
- Chapter 4 Temporal Structuring and Project Behavior
- Chapter 5 Managing Project Complexity and Uncertainty through Dynamic and Systemic Stakeholder Modeling
- Part II Deviating from Plans
- Part III Practical Tips
- Index
- References
Summary
Over the last decade there have been significant advances in our understanding of how delivery models enable megaproject innovation. Despite this, megaprojects often misbehave and struggle to take advantage of opportunities to innovate because control and leadership practices crowd it out. In this chapter we return to Albert Hirschman and his Voyage of Discovery principle and Latitude concept of project governance. Hirschman was a major proponent of innovation and observed the importance of a spirit of enterprise during the execution of large development projects. However, he did not elaborate on how the capacity to innovate might be mobilized in specific project contexts. This chapter extends these ideas by examining the literature on megaproject capabilities and the delivery model architectures that enable innovation during megaproject execution. We then examine the literature on the complementary roles that megaproject control and leadership can play in balancing and driving innovative responses to complexity and uncertainty. We conclude that there is a need for further research in this area.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 58 - 70Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1967). Management misinformation systems. Management Science, 14(4), 147–156.10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelman, J. (2013). Worldly philosopher: The essential Hirschman. Economics Books.10.2307/j.ctt24hprxCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., and Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806–818.10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alacevich, M. (2014). Visualizing uncertainties, or how Albert Hirschman and the world bank disagreed on project appraisal and what this says about the end of “high development theory.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 36(2), 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2016). Of hiding hands and other ways of coping with uncertainty: A commentary. Social Research, 83(4), 1005–1010.10.1353/sor.2016.0064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubry, M., and Lièvre, P. (2010). Ambidexterity as a competence of project leaders: A case study from two polar expeditions. Project Management Journal, 41(3), 32–44.10.1002/pmj.20183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R. J., Schwab, A., and Sydow, J. (2016). Organization Studies, 37(12), 1703–1719.10.1177/0170840616655982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blight, J. G., and Lang, J. M. (2005). The fog of war: Lessons from the life of Robert S. McNamara. Rowman & Littlefield.10.5771/9780742580220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(2), 257–277.10.1177/1741143208100301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, T., and Davies, A. (2010). Learning to deliver a mega-project: The case of Heathrow Terminal 5 (pp. 190–212). In Caldwell, N. and Howard, M. (eds.). Procuring Complex Performance. Routledge.Google Scholar
Brady, T., and Davies, A. (2014). Managing structural and dynamic complexity: A tale of two projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, T., Davies, A., Nightingale, P., Söderland, J., and Geraldi, J. (2012). Dealing with uncertainty in complex projects: Revisiting Klein and Meckling. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 718–736.10.1108/17538371211269022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, D., and Boddy, D. (1992). The expertise of the change agent: Public performance and backstage activity. Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., and Nahapiet, J. (1980). The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygballe, L. E., and Swärd, A. (2019). Collaborative project delivery models and the role of routines in institutionalizing partnering. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 161–176.10.1177/8756972818820213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicmil, S., and Braddon, D. (2012). Fading glory? Decision-making around the project – how and why “glory” projects fail (pp. 221–255). In Williams, T. M. and Samset, K. (eds.). Project Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137274618_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., and Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking project management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Skyttermoen, T., and Vaagassar, A. L. (2021). Project management: A value creation approach. Sage.Google Scholar
Cleland, D. I. (1995). Leadership and the project-management body of knowledge. International Journal of Project Management, 13(2), 83–88.10.1016/0263-7863(94)00018-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Damayanti, R., Hartono, B., and Wijaya, A. (2021). Complexity, leadership, and mega project performance: A configuration analysis. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 14(3), 570–603.10.3926/jiem.3476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., (2017). Projects: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.10.1093/actrade/9780198727668.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., Gann, D., and Douglas, T. (2009). Innovation in megaprojects: Systems integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5. California Management Review, 51(2), 101–125.10.2307/41166482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., and Brady, T. (2016a). Explicating the dynamics of project capabilities. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 314–327.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., Dodgson, M., and Gann, D. (2016b). Dynamic capabilities for a complex project: The case of London Heathrow Terminal 5. Project Management Journal, Special Issue: Innovation and Project Management: Bridging Contemporary Trends in Theory and Practice, 34, 314–327.Google Scholar
Davies, A., Dodgson, M., Gann., D., and MacAulay, S. (2017). Five rules for managing large, complex projects. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), 73–78.Google Scholar
Davies, A., Dodgson, M., and Gann., D. (2017). Innovation and flexibility in megaprojects: A new delivery model (pp. 313–339). In Flyvbjerg, B. (ed.). The Oxford handbook of megaproject Management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, A., MacAulay, S., and Brady, T. (2019). Delivery model innovation: Insights from infrastructure projects. Special Issue: Innovation in infrastructure delivery models, Project Management Journal, 50(2), 1–9.10.1177/8756972819831145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. R., Hoojberg, R., and Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, D. (2017). Taking advantage of emergence for complex innovation eco-systems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(3), 14.10.1186/s40852-017-0067-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drouin, N., Sankaran, S., van Marrewijk, A., and Müller, R. (2021). Megaproject leaders: Reflections on personal life stories. Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781789902976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. Wiley.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review January, 107–116.Google Scholar
Engwall, M. (2012). PERT, Polaris, and the realities of project execution. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 595–616.10.1108/17538371211268898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, K., Wikström, K., Hellström, M., and Levitt, R. E. (2019). Projects in the business ecosystem: The case of short sea shipping and logistics. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of “leadership.” Human Relations, 58(11), 1467–1494.10.1177/0018726705061314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grint, K. (2010). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: The role of leadership (pp. 169–186). In Brookes, S. and Grint, K. (eds.). The new public leadership challenge. Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230277953_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grint, K. (2020). Leadership, management and command in the time of the Coronavirus. Leadership, 16(3), 314–319.10.1177/1742715020922445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. M., and Scott, W. R. (2019). Early stages in the institutionalization of integrated project delivery. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 128–143.10.1177/8756972818819915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havermans, L. A., Den Hartog, D. N., Keegan, A., and Uhl‐Bien, M. (2015). Exploring the role of leadership in enabling contextual ambidexterity.
Human Resource Management, 54(S1), 179–200.10.1002/hrm.21764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1967). Development projects observed. Reissued in 1995. The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Hodgson, D., and Cicmil, S. (2007). The politics of standards in modern management: Making “the project” a reality. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 431–450.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00680.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A. (2018). Beneficial or detrimental ignorance: The straw man fallacy of Flyvbjerg’s test of Hirschman’s hiding hand. World Development, 103, 369–382.10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., Love, P. E., 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.2020.3040526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ika, L. A., and Söderlund, J. (2016). Rethinking revisited: Insights from an early rethinker. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 931–954.10.1108/IJMPB-05-2016-0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., and Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems theory and management. Management Science, 10(2), 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Volery, T., and Parker, S. K. (2021). Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm lifecycle stages. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 39(1), 40–63.10.1177/0266242620943371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, E., and Cuganesan, S. (2020). Enabling organisational ambidexterity: Valuation practices and the senior-leadership team. Human Relations, 73(2), 190–214.10.1177/0018726718823247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreiner, K. (2020). Conflicting notions of a project: The battle between Albert O. Hirschman and Bent Flyvbjerg. Project Management Journal, 51(4), 400–410.10.1177/8756972820930535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, E. T., Tworoger, L., Ruppel, C. P., and Yurova, Y. (2021). TMT leadership ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation behaviors for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(3), 703–719.10.1108/EJIM-07-2020-0275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenfle, S., and Loch, C. (2010). Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. Californian Management Review, 53(1), 32–55.10.1525/cmr.2010.53.1.32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenfle, S., and Loch, C. (2017). Has megaproject management lost its way? Lessons from history (pp. 21–38). In Flyvbjerg, B. (ed.). Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, R. E., and Scott, R. S. (2017). Institutional challenges and solutions for global megaprojects (pp. 96–117). In Flyvbjerg, B. (ed.). Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loch, C., De Meyer, A., and Pich, M. (2006). Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing high uncertainty and risk in projects. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundy, V., and Morin, P. P. (2013). Project leadership influences resistance to change: The case of the Canadian public service. Project Management Journal, 44(4), 45–64.10.1002/pmj.21355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N., and Rashid, Y. (2017). The impact of emotional intelligence, project managers’ competencies, and transformational leadership on project success: An empirical perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58–75.10.1177/875697281704800304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion, R., and Uhl-bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389–418.10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00092-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, R. (2012). Project governance (pp. 297–320). In Morris, P., Pinto, J., and Söderlund, J. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, R., Zhu, F., Sun, X., Wang, L., and Yu, M. (2018a). The identification of temporary horizontal leaders in projects: The case of China. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 95–107.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, R., Sankaran, S., Drouin, N., Vaagaasar, A.-L., Bekker, M. C., and Jain, K. (2018b). A theory framework for balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 83–94.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nightingale, P., and Brady, T. (2012). Projects, paradigms and predictability (pp. 83–112). In Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., and Täube, F. (eds.). Project-based organizing and strategic management – advances in strategic management. Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Peck, M. J., and Scherer, F. M. (1962). The weapons acquisition process: An economic analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1, 51–52.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570–581.10.2307/2392363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picciotto, R. (2015), Hirschman’s ideas as evaluation tools. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 11(24), 1–11.10.56645/jmde.v11i24.416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. (2020) Risk culture and information culture: Why an “appetite for knowledge’ matter (pp. 42–72). In Tuveson, M., Ralph, D., Alexander, K. (eds.). Beyond bad apples: Risk culture in business. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316996959.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramasesh, R. V., and Browning, T. (2014). A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosing, K., Frese, M., and Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974.10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapolsky, H. M. (1972). The Polaris system development: Bureaucratic and programmatic success in government. Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674432703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R., and Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. Sage.Google Scholar
Scott-Young, C. M., Georgy, M., and Grisinger, A. (2019) Shared leadership in project teams: An integrative multi-level conceptual model and research agenda. International Journal of Project Management, 37(4), 565–581.10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenhar, A. J., and Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Singer, H. W. (1969), Albert O. Hirschman: Development projects observed. Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 1(3), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. The Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.Google Scholar
Solheim-Kile, E., Lædre, O., and Lohne, J. (2019). Public-Private Partnerships: Agency Costs in the Privatization of Social Infrastructure Financing. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 144–160.10.1177/8756972818824908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. L., and Heimer, C. A. (1985
). Organization theory and project management: Administering uncertainty in Norwegian offshore oil. Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourish, D. (2020). Introduction to the special issue: Why the coronavirus crisis is also a crisis of leadership. Leadership, 16(3), 261–272.10.1177/1742715020929242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourish, D., and Vatcha, N. (2005). Charismatic leadership and corporate cultism at Enron: The elimination of dissent, the promotion of conformity and organisational collapse. Leadership, 1(4), 455–480.10.1177/1742715005057671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhl-bien, M., and Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9–20.10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vine, R. (2018). The intelligent client: Learning to govern through numbers at Heathrow Airport. Thesis, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Vine, R. (2020). Riskwork in the construction of Heathrow Terminal 2. SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-20, 1–38.10.2139/ssrn.3755049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S. P. (2016). Revisiting the roles of accounting in society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 49, 41–50.10.1016/j.aos.2015.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, J., Le, Y., Wang, G., Xia, N., and Liu, X. (2020). Carrot or stick? The impact of paternalistic leadership on the behavioral integration of top management teams in megaprojects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(5), 937–960.10.1108/IJMPB-12-2019-0302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Whyte, J. (2019). How digital information transforms project delivery models. Project Management Journal, 50(2), 177–194.10.1177/8756972818823304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, J., Naderpajouh, N., Clegg, S., Matous, P., Pollack, J., and Crawford, L. (2022). Project leadership: A research agenda for a changing world. Project Leadership and Society, 3.Google Scholar
Zerjav, V., Edkins, A., and Davies, A. (2018). Project capabilities for operational outcomes in inter-organisational settings: The case of London Heathrow Terminal 2. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3), 444–459.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.004CrossRefGoogle 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.