PAPERS Ambiguity Acceptance as a Function
of Project Management: A New Critical
Success Factor
Marcia Hagen, Metropolitan State University, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Sunyoung Park, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
ABSTRACT
This research examines the relationship
between ambiguity acceptance and customer
and organizational outcomes within the Six
Sigma improvement project context. Results
find a curvilinear relationship between open
communication and customer outcomes for
project leaders. Results of multiple regression
find a significant positive relationship between
open communication and organization out-
comes, as well as a significant positive relation-
ship between ambiguity acceptance and cus-
tomer and organizational outcomes for team
leaders, while there is a significant positive
relationship between ambiguity acceptance
and customer and organizational outcomes for
team members. Theoretical and practical impli-
cations are examined.
KEYWORDS: leadership styles; ambiguity;
team communication; project outcomes
Project Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2, 5266
2013 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21329
52 April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
INTRODUCTION
ver the last 50 years, there has been an explosion in the use of work
O teams, designed to improve organizational performance.
Historically, a project, as a unit of improvement, was widely used in
such industries as aerospace and was employed as a way to deal
with the complexities of developing military applications of such things as
missile defense systems and other Cold War applications (Levin &
Kirkpatrick, 1966; Mulenburg, 1999). At that same time, the work of Elton
Mayo and his Hawthorne studies helped to promote an understanding of
how teams complete the new project methodology for organizational
improvement (Longbotham, 2000). Since that time, much research on team-
work, and the leadership of teams, has helped to establish which attributes
are essential to the development of an effective team (Longbotham, 2000;
Parker, 1990) and thus a successful project.
One area that relies heavily on projects is Six Sigma. Six Sigma is an orga-
nizational structure that resides outside normal operations and is developed
in an attempt to reduce variation in business processes. The process
improvement projects that take place within the Six Sigma structure are
directed by improvement specialists who use a structured method and per-
formance metrics with the aim of achieving strategic objectives for the
organization (Schroeder, Linderman, Liedtke, & Choo, 2007). It is within this
context that projects and projects teams are examined.
Critical Success Factors and Project Leadership
It has been well established in project management literature that the
actions, activities, and attributes of a teams leader can have a significant
impact on the outcomes of a project. There are several examples of
the impact that a project leader can have on the success of a project. For
instance, Thite (1999) found that the project leaders ability to switch effec-
tively between the transactional and transformational leadership styles at
appropriate times had a positive impact on the overall outcomes of a proj-
ect. This was corroborated by Kaissi (2005), who found that the use of the
rational persuasion style of leadership by project leaders was related to a
positive outcome on projects. Importantly, there have been several pieces of
recent research that help to establish the importance of team leader per-
formance as critical to project success (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Dvir, Lipovitsky,
Shenhar, & Tishler, 1998; Hyvari, 2006).
Open communication has also been well established within the litera-
ture as an important area in which leaders need to pay close attention. For
decades, management scholars have expressed the importance of leaders
open communication within organizations (Powell, 1995; Samson &
Terziovski, 1999). This also extends to
the project management literature,
where there are several calls to improve
open communication between project
leaders and members in an effort to
improve project outcomes (Belassi &
Tukel, 1996; Hyvari, 2006; Zimmerer &
Yasin, 1998), and in which open com-
munication is considered to be a criti-
cal success factor.
Acceptance of ambiguity has been
well established within the literature as
an important trait that differentiates
effective from ineffective leaders.
According to Lane and Klenke (2004),
there are some leader behaviors critical
for survival in contemporary organiza-
tions. Managers who exhibit leadership
styles that promote innovative,
adaptive, and entrepreneurial behav-
iors within their reports help to
build change-oriented organizations.
Importantly, these behaviors are best
achieved by people who have a toler-
ance for ambiguity and uncertainty
(Dollinger, Saxton, & Golden, 1995;
Ghosh, 1994). Within the project man-
agement literature, although there is a
great deal of information and ensuing
research on the impact of project ambi-
guity on project outcomes (Atkinson,
Crawford, & Ward, 2006; Pich, Loch, &
De Meyer, 2002; Samson & Terziovski,
1999), precious little is known about the
impact of a project leaders ability to
accept ambiguity within the project
context. Within much of the literature,
ambiguous and uncertain are consid-
ered to be synonymous, both defining a
situation or event that is vague or
imprecise (Ghirardato & Marinacci,
2002). However, it is important to note
that some scholars delineate these
terms, considering uncertain to
define a situation or event, with the
term ambiguous relating more to
the cognitive state that is the result
of the uncertain situation or event
(March & Olsen, 1975). For the purpose
of this article, ambiguity acceptance is
defined as behaviors that express an
individuals tolerance for ambiguity
and uncertainty (Dollinger et al., 1995).
Further, ambiguous and uncertain in
this study are considered to be synony-
mous, because both concepts refer to a
situation and the resulting cognitive
state from situation, and include chal-
lenges and possibilities for the practice
we cannot control (Best, 2008).
Project-customer outcomes (herein
referred to as customer outcomes) are
defined as the level of appreciation of
the project management results by rele-
vant interested parties (Caupin et al.,
2006). Project-related organizational
outcomes (herein referred to as organi-
zational outcomes) are those project
outcomes related to the enhancement
of larger organization strategy, goals,
and financial performance (Shenhar,
Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001). The purpose
of this article is to examine how both
open communication and ambiguity
acceptance by project leaders can
impact project outcomes such as cus-
tomer satisfaction and successful proj-
ect completion. In pursuing our
research purposes, the following
research questions were developed:
1. What is the relationship between
open communication and customer
outcomes?
2. What is the relationship between
open communication and organiza-
tional outcomes?
3. What is the relationship between
ambiguity acceptance and customer
outcomes?
4. What is the relationship between
ambiguity acceptance and organiza-
tional outcomes?
Literature Review
In this section, the relevant literature is
reviewed to investigate the impact of
open communication and ambiguity
acceptance on customer and organiza-
tional outcomes. Based on the review of
literature, possible relationships among
the variables are hypothesized.
Open Communication in Leadership
In leadership, three main elements
have been emphasized: influence,
group, and goal (Bryman, 1992, 1999).
April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Leaders can influence the behavior of
other people and display their abilities
in work groups to accomplish group
goals. Leadership is a process of social
influence whereby a leader steers
members of a group toward a goal
(Bryman, 1992, p. 2). Also, leadership
has been explained by trait (ability),
style (effectiveness), contingency (situ-
ation), and charisma (social relation-
ship; Bryman, 1992, 1999). Critical
evaluation and problem detection
skills, visioning skills, communication
skills, management skills, and empow-
erment skills are important competen-
cies to develop for effective leadership
(Conger & Kanungo, 1988).
Communication has been recog-
nized as an important intervention for
organizational goals, innovation, and
performance (Kivimaki et al., 2000;
Swenson, 1999). Specifically, leaders
communication has played a critical
role in improving team performance
and enhancing relationships with sub-
ordinates (Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu,
2000; Sarin & McDermott, 2003).
Leaders can inspire and motivate sub-
ordinates to perform and achieve goals
through open communication for
affirming organizational vision and
mission, driving transformational
change, encouraging action, reinforcing
organizational capability, and creating
supportive environments (Baldoni,
2004). Moreover, open communication
related activities (such as enhancing
communication skills, performing
broad communications, and using effec-
tive listening and conflict resolution
techniques) have been emphasized as
key factors for successful leaders who
perform well and establish better rela-
tionships with others (Hamlin, 2004;
Hellervik & Davis, 1984; Swenson,
1999). A supervisors open communica-
tion has a positive influence on subor-
dinates satisfaction (Jablin, 1979), and
is one of the key factors leading to effec-
tive coaching (Park, McLean, & Yang,
2008).
A relationship with open communi-
cation can be described as one in
53
PAPERS
Ambiguity Acceptance as a Function of Project Management
which both parties perceive the other to
be a willing and receptive listener, and
refrain from responses which might be
seen as negative or non-accepting
(Eisenberg & Witten, 1987, p. 419). Open
communication is generally viewed to
have three elements: disclosure of
personal information, disclosure of non-
personal information, and clear com-
munication (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987).
The disclosure of personal information
emphasizes employees feelings and
emotions that influence effective
superiorsubordinate relationships. The
disclosure of nonpersonal information
focuses on task-related and technical
information that create power and
political dynamics in organizations.
Clear communication pays attention to
enhancing consensus and common
understanding through sharing organi-
zational languages (Eisenberg & Witten,
1987). Each of these takes place with
the intention to create active interac-
tion among team members and
encourage the team to participate in
sharing of ideas and open discussion of
different perspectives, in an effort to set
team-developed instructions, priori-
ties, deadlines, and standards for a
team project (Hirst & Mann, 2004).
Thus, within this research, open com-
munication is defined as the process of
transmitting information, based on
the style, content, and target elements
of the intended communication
(Montgomery, 1981) in a collaborative
effort to develop instructions, priori-
ties, deadlines, and standards for a
team project (Hirst & Mann, 2004).
Within the team context, leaders
have influence on communication
styles (Hirst & Mann, 2004). For
instance, facilitative leaders create a cli-
mate conducive to active interaction
among team members and encourage
the team to participate in sharing of
ideas and open discussion of different
perspectives, while directive leaders
communicate through instructions,
setting priorities, deadlines, and stan-
dards for team project (Hirst & Mann,
2004). Participative communication
54 April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
(suggested by facilitative leaders) and
task communication (emphasized by
directive leaders) influence communi-
cation processes, which form effective
teamwork stimulating exchange of
ideas and perspectives among team
members (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001).
In particular, participative communica-
tion has a strong, positive impact on the
level of innovation effectiveness and
productivity within a team (Kivimaki
et al., 2000).
Open Communication in Project
Management
The phases of project management,
such as project definition, planning and
organizing, implementation and con-
trol, and closeout, require communica-
tion; it is the most important factor for
project success (Finch, 2003; Hyvari,
2006; Pinto & Prescott, 1988). In addi-
tion, communication is not only a criti-
cal factor related to project team mem-
bers, but also the most critical leader-
ship feature to be an effective project
manager (Belassi & Tukel, 1996;
El-Sabaa, 2001; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998).
Communication has diverse func-
tions in project management. As project
strategy, strategic communication is a key
success factor for project management
(Toney & Power, 1997). Effective commu-
nication within teams externally con-
tributes to establishing relationships
among people, helping to contribute to
improved project management practice
(Loo, 2002). Open communication in
project teams plays an important role in
accessing, sharing, and interpreting
information; exchanging feedback; incor-
porating ideas; interacting with external
groups; maintaining relationships; and
making consensus during the conflict
(Gillard & Johansen, 2004). Moreover,
communication for brainstorming,
obtaining information, and reviewing the
progress attains and increases cross-
functional cooperation among project
teams (Pinto & Pinto, 1990).
In terms of project success, com-
munication has been strongly linked
with project outcomes. Project team
effectiveness and project performance
depend on the degree and quality of
communication between managers
from different functional departments
when cross-functional cooperation is
required (Pinto & Pinto, 1990).
Communication of project objectives
and effective information are strongly
related to project team performance
(Hirst & Mann, 2004; Thamhain, 1996).
In addition, the aspects of communica-
tion (such as open discussion of diverse
perspectives and participative commu-
nication processes) are positively asso-
ciated with customer ratings of project
performance (Hirst & Mann, 2004).
Enhancing clear communication chan-
nel and flow is one critical factor influ-
encing project success and outcomes
(Keller & Holland, 1983; White &
Fortune, 2002). Some research has indi-
cated that the relationship between
communication of team leaders and
team performance is curvilinear, with
lower performance resulting from
either too low or too high levels of com-
munication from team leaders (Goris,
Vaught, & Pettit, 2000; Patrashkova-
Volzdoska, McComb, & Green, 2003).
This curvilinear relationship has been
examined for communication frequen-
cy, and thus helps to guide new
research in the area of communication
and team performance.
Ambiguity Acceptance
According to the literature, ambiguity
is perceived when a lack of clarity, high
complexity, or paradox makes multiple
(rather than single or dichotomous)
explanations plausible (Martin, 1992,
p. 134). Ambiguity has been empha-
sized as a key feature of organizational
culture because the whole of an organi-
zations culture cannot be explained by
distinctive characteristics (Alvesson,
2002). In regards to organizational cul-
ture, ambiguity is displayed as those
areas that are viewed by individuals as
uncertain, complicated, and confusing,
forcing us to confront organizational real-
ity (Alvesson, 2002). In other words, ambi-
guity emphasizes multiple perspectives,
mixed values and meanings, and differ-
ent experiences within organizational
culture. At a national level, ambiguity
has been addressed as uncertainty
avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance
refers to the degree that a culture has
accustomed to the acceptance of ambi-
guity (Hofstede, 2001).
Ambiguity can be described differ-
ently according to individual, organiza-
tional, and national levels (Alvesson,
2002). It can also be used as a descrip-
tor of a project itself, as a project that
deviates from what is considered to be
normal project scope and definition
can be considered a project with a high
degree of ambiguity (Hllgren &
Maaninen-Olsson, 2005). The ambiguity
that is seen at the project level is espe-
cially apparent during the initial por-
tions of project deployment, when
projects go largely undefined (Brun,
Saetre, & Gjelsvik, 2009).
However, this article focuses on
ambiguity acceptance as a feature or
leadership trait (Alvesson, 2002) at the
individual level, as projects can be man-
aged within many different and varied
organizational cultures. Conversely,
ambiguity can be explored as an indi-
vidual feature; ambiguity acceptance or
ambiguity tolerance refers to the ten-
dency to perceive ambiguous situations
as desirable (Budner, 1962, p. 29) and
an individuals willingness to accom-
modate or adapt to encounters with
ambiguous situations or ideas
(Ausburn & Ausburn, 1978, p. 338).
Ambiguity acceptance is related to an
open attitude toward new ideas, multi-
ple solutions, and diverse perspectives
in decision making and collaboration.
In other words, ambiguity acceptance is
associated with adaptability and cogni-
tive flexibility (Peterson & Hicks, 1996).
Individuals with higher ambiguity
acceptance are more likely to take risks,
be persistent, and perform well when
confronted with novel, complex, and
contradictory situations (Jonassen &
Grabowski, 1993).
Within an organizational context,
research on ambiguity acceptance has
focused on clarifying predictors and
consequences of ambiguity acceptance
and exploring their relationships with
employees outcomes such as creativity,
flexibility, job satisfaction, knowledge
transfer, leader effectiveness, role
stress, and performance (Frone, 1990;
Lane & Klenke, 2004; Lysonski &
Andrews, 1990; Nutt, 1993; Powell,
Lovallo, & Caringal, 2006; Simonin,
1999; Tegano, 1990; Teoh & Foo, 1997).
For example, entrepreneurs in small
and medium-sized businesses have
higher levels of tolerance for ambiguity
and are less influenced by role stress in
the entrepreneurial role. This, then,
leads to a greater likelihood for better
performance outcomes (Teoh & Foo,
1997).
In the field of project management,
reducing and managing ambiguity or
uncertainty seems to be used as alter-
native expressions for ambiguity
acceptance in terms of planning, coor-
dinating, and monitoring projects. For
example, uncertainty is regarded as an
unknown probability of change in proj-
ect performance measures (time, bud-
get, scope, and quality), including both
positive and negative impact on the
project outcomes and objectives
(Perminova, Gustafsson, & Wiksrom,
2008).
Project team leaders adaptability to
changes in the project plan is one
important factor affecting project suc-
cess (Chan, Scott, & Chan, 2004).
Successful project management
requires appropriate management of
ambiguity about resources, schedule,
roles, responsibilities, objectives, prior-
ities, and relationships among stake-
holders in project (Ward & Chapman,
2003). Specifically, managing ambiguity
(uncertainty) is a critical part for flexi-
ble and rapid decision making when
choices are limited in the situation to
maximize the outcome of project man-
agement (Perminova et al., 2008). For
this research, ambiguity is discussed
relative to ambiguity acceptance, which
is the ability to tolerate ambiguity or
uncertainty related to project issues
April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
such as resources, schedules, and roles,
and the ability to take risks and seek
new solutions to problems related to
those areas and the project in general.
Within the context of this research,
ambiguity acceptance or the ability to
take or tolerate risk goes beyond the
traditional parameters and activities
of the project itself, also including the
tolerance of ambiguity related to
human resource issues, communica-
tion, and other interactional conditions
that can create ambiguity.
Moreover, project managers have
contributed to reducing ambiguity as a
project develops. For instance, project
leaders and managers can reduce and
control ambiguity by evaluating team
inputs at each project stage, making all
decisions, and integrating information
to achieve the desired outcomes
( Jaafari, 2001). In addition, project
leaders recognition and proactive
management of complexities and
ambiguity is a key success factor for
successful project management
( Jaafari, 2001). Particularly, project
managers diverse roles play an impor-
tant role in project success in ambigu-
ous situations. De Meyer, Loch, and
Pich (2002) suggested that the project
manager should be the troubleshooter
and expeditor, consolidator of project
achievements, flexible orchestrator,
networker, ambassador, entrepreneur,
and knowledge manager according to
the different types of uncertainty (e.g.,
variation, foreseen uncertainty, unfore-
seen uncertainty, and chaos).
For project success, ultimately,
ambiguity acceptance emphasizes that
project managers should be empow-
ered and flexible to successfully work
through unforeseen circumstances,
based on the project owners guidance
and customers expectations that pre-
sent how the owner and customers think
the project should be best achieved
(Jugdev & Mller, 2005). This implies
that customer satisfaction is critical to
the success of a project (Freeman &
Beale, 1992; Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996).
Providing satisfactory benefits to the
55
PAPERS
Ambiguity Acceptance as a Function of Project Management
project owner and satisfying the needs of
owners, users, and stakeholders, the proj-
ect team and supporters are continually
developing their own criteria for judging
successful projects (Turner, 1999).
Although ambiguity can be
described differently according to indi-
vidual, organizational, and national
levels, this article focuses on ambiguity
acceptance as an individual feature
because the positive influence of ambi-
guity in organizational culture is still
debated (Alvesson, 2002), and projects
can be implemented in different orga-
nizational cultures.
Hypotheses
Based on the literature review, the fol-
lowing relationships are suggested
among open communication, ambigui-
ty acceptance, and project outcomes:
Hypothesis 1: There will be a curvilin-
ear relationship between open com-
munication and customer outcomes.
Hypothesis 2: There will be a curvilinear
relationship between open communi-
cation and organizational outcomes.
Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive
relationship between ambiguity accept-
ance and customer outcomes.
Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive
relationship between ambiguity accept-
ance and organizational outcomes.
Method
The purpose of this study is to deter-
mine whether ambiguity acceptance
and open communication on the part
of a project leader impacts the out-
comes of that project. The study is
based on the known critical success
factors of project management (Belassi
& Tukel, 1996; Hyvari, 2006), as well as
the theoretical underpinnings of ambi-
guity acceptance within broader lead-
ership theory (Ghosh, 1994; Lane &
Klenke, 2004). The methods used to
carry out this research are described as
follows: (1) population, sample, and
data collection process are reviewed;
(2) instrumentation and scales are
described; and (3) data analysis is
explained.
56 April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
To test the hypotheses previously
listed, perceptual data for each of the vari-
ables of interestambiguity acceptance,
open communication, customer out-
comes, and organizational outcomes
were collected from team leaders and
team members of Six Sigma project
teams. Each project within the data set
was completed by applying Six Sigma
practices employed to help reduce vari-
ation and waste within an organization.
Six Sigma projects are accomplished by
using the prescriptive DMAIC method,
which is an acronym for the intercon-
nected phases of a process improve-
ment projectDesign, Measure,
Analyze, Improve, and Controlas
described by Bertels (2003).
Testing of the independent vari-
ables, open communication, and ambi-
guity acceptance through survey
research has been widely used and his-
torically accepted (Lovelace, Shapiro, &
Weingart, 2001; Sarin & McDermott,
2003; Wageman, 2001) and helps to add
to the body of knowledge in these areas
within the team context. Each team in
the sample consisted of one team
leader, who managed the work process-
es within that team, and two or more
team members. Team leader respon-
dents provided self-report perceptions
scoring of their own ability to accept
ambiguity and provide open communi-
cation, as well as their perceptions of
project and customer outcomes, while
team members provided perceptual
scores of their team leaders ability to
accept ambiguity and provide open
communication, as well as their per-
ceptions of project and customer out-
comes. The data was not aggregated.
The selection of Six Sigma project
teams as a source for information
on the impact of team leader behaviors
on team outcomes is appropriate as lit-
erature on the topic establishes Six
Sigma teams as exemplifying a team
environment (Repenning & Sterman,
2001).
Data were collected online from
four volunteering organizations, all of
which had implemented Six Sigma, and
used project teams as the core deploy-
ment tool for improvement projects.
Organizations A, B, C, and D can be
described as follows: (1) Organization A
is a Fortune 500 company with more
than $14 billion in annual sales and
50,000 employees, and had implement-
ed Six Sigma six years prior to research;
(2) Organization B is a Fortune 100
company with $51 billion in sales and
79,000 employees, and had implement-
ed Six Sigma 12 years prior to research;
(3) Organization C is a Fortune 500
company with $4 billion in sales and
34,000 employees, and had implement-
ed Six Sigma 10 years prior to research;
and (4) Organization D is a Fortune 100
company with $35 billion in sales and
122,000 employees, and had imple-
mented Six Sigma eight years prior to
research. Although each of the organi-
zations under study had fully instituted
Six Sigma, one organization had signifi-
cant experience in the area, having
deployed the program 12 years earlier,
while another had only implemented
six years earlier. Each of these organiza-
tions requires team leaders to have four
weeks of training plus a minimum of
one successfully completed project to
be certified as Black Belts and able
to lead Six Sigma project teams. All the
team leaders within the sample held
Black Belt certification, as defined by
the organization.
Emails with survey links were sent
to participants, along with one follow-
up reminder for non-respondents. The
survey was fully voluntary, and there-
fore response rates were accordingly
low. The response rates at these organi-
zations are shown in Table 1.
Of the team leader respondents 123
provided usable results. One hundred
twenty-five usable responses were col-
lected from team members. While the
response rate at Organization C falls
below the desired boundaries suggest-
ed by Baruch and Holtom (2008), given
the challenge of gaining access to the
current population and the use of mul-
tiple survey reminders, we believe it
is justifiable to use this sample, as it is
 Possible Leader
Organization Respondents
A 23
B 89
C 119
D 43
Totals 247
Table 1: Survey response rates.
currently the only research examining
ambiguity acceptance within this con-
text and serves as a catalyst for further
examining ambiguity acceptance with-
in the project management context. In
this research, all teams were working on
a project, and leaders were also
deemed to be project managers, as
defined by Globerson (2002).
The survey was conducted in online
format and measured the extent to
which respondents agreed or disagreed
with the statements provided, on a 6-
point Likert-type scale. A 6-point scale
was employed based on the arguments
of Cummins and Gullone (2000) who
performed a review of research litera-
ture indicating that expanding the
number of choice-points beyond 5- or
7-points does not systematically dam-
age scale reliability, yet does increase
scale sensitivity. Since the questions in
this research are inherently value-
laden, the use of a neutral choice was
unnecessary and would have provided
little additional information.
Scales
Ambiguity Acceptance
The scale used to measure ambiguity
acceptance was originally developed as
a portion of the Coaching Skills
Instrument (Park et al., 2008) as a
4-item instrument that measures
leader tolerance of ambiguity on a
7-point Likert-type scale. Validity was
both originally established and further
confirmed in this research through fac-
tor analysis, field testing, and review by
Usable Leader Possible Team Member
Respondents Respondents
19 66
46 74
33 422
25 103
123 685
content experts. One item from the
original scale was omitted, as it lacked
face validity.
The scale included such statements
as: The team leader stresses risk-taking
when helping team members make
decisions. The scale, originally devel-
oped using a 7-point Likert-type scale,
was revised for this research and tested
using the following 6-point Likert-type
scale: strongly disagree 1, disagree
2, slightly disagree 3, slightly
agree 4, agree 5, strongly agree
6, and not applicable; and yielded a
Cronbachs alpha score of 0.805.
Open Communication
The dimension open communication
was developed by Park and her colleagues
(2008) within the Coaching Skills
Instrument as a 4-item scale that meas-
ures a leaders ability to build partnerships
within a team. Validity was both originally
established and further confirmed in this
research through factor analysis, field test-
ing, and review by content experts.
The scale included such statements
as: The team leader was willing to dis-
cuss team experiences when the situa-
tion warranted it. The scale, originally
developed using a 7-point Likert-type
scale, was revised for this research and
tested using the 6-point Likert-type
scale previously described. It yielded a
Cronbachs alpha score of 0.789.
Outcomes
The project outcomes and customer out-
comes scales were originally developed
and validated by Shenhar and colleagues
April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Usable Team Member
Respondents
21
16
68
20
125
(2001) as the Project Success Assessment
Questionnaire that tests the overall suc-
cess of a project, measured on a 5-point
Likert-type scale. Validity was initially
established using factor analysis and
review by content experts. The organiza-
tional outcomes scale measured project-
related organizational outcomes that
resulted from the successful completion
of a project, and measured such areas as
the projects contribution to organiza-
tion performance, the projects strategic
impact, and the projects monetary sav-
ings. The customer outcomes scale, how-
ever, measured the level of satisfaction of
the projects internal and/or external
customers, and included information on
whether the project met customer
expectations and resulted in positive
feedback.
The scale included such statements
as: (1) The project contributed posi-
tively to the overall organizational per-
formance, and (2) The project was
completed within budget. Each of
these scales was also collected on the
6-point Likert-type scale previously
described. The organizational out-
comes scale yielded a Cronbachs alpha
score of 0.906, while the customer out-
comes scale yielded a Cronbachs alpha
score of 0.947.
Statistical Analysis
Regression analysis was used to test the
independent variable ambiguity
acceptance and its two corresponding
hypotheses, while the independent
variable open communication, and its
57
PAPERS
Ambiguity Acceptance as a Function of Project Management

two corresponding hypotheses, were
tested by viewing the curve fit for each
of the hypotheses. Composite scores
were calculated for each of the scales
used for the dimensions ambiguity
acceptance, open communication, cus-
tomer outcomes, and organizational
outcomes. Each of the variables was
tested using the mean scores of each
item in the scale for each individual
participant. The reliability of each of
the scales was tested using Cronbachs
alpha and indicated appropriate alpha
coefficients ranging from 0.789 to 0.947
as defined by Malhotra (1998).
Importantly, factor analysis was used to
test, and supported, the a priori model
suggested by the previously developed
scales as has been suggested by Suhr
(2006).
A principle components factor
analysis was performed with varimax
rotation, which showed the presence of
four distinct factors with factor load-
ings in line with original scales. It is
worthy of note that scales were used as
originally developed, except one item
within the customer outcomes scale,
which was removed from analysis due
to issues of multicollinearity, as sug-
gested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986).
The results of the factor analysis dictate
that the research be analyzed using four
dimensions: ambiguity acceptance,
open communication, project out-
comes, and customer outcomes.
Results can be found in Table 2.
Following the results of the factor
analysis, four research dimensions
(ambiguity acceptance, open commu-
nication, customer outcomes, and
organizational outcomes) were tested
for collinearity among the variables
using a correlation matrix. The results
can be found in Table 3.
Correlation coefficients results
showed several significant, but low to
moderate, correlations of between
0.339 and 0.457 for the variables, except
for the correlation between ambiguity
acceptance and open communication,
which yielded a correlation of 0.763.
Importantly, the variance inflation fac-
tor yielded from each variable is rela-
tively low, with none exceeding 2.915,
which is far lower than the cutoff of 10
suggested by Kutner, Nachtsheim, and
Neter (2004). This result, together with
the results of the factor analysis, sug-
gests construct validity among the vari-
ables used in the research and helps
establish that the variables being tested
are not subject to collinearity.
Data were gathered from two
groups: project team leaders and
project team members. Multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
performed in order to determine
whether significant differences existed
between team leaders and team mem-
bers. Results indicated that significant
differences existed between groups for
the following variables: ambiguity
acceptance, open communication, cus-
tomer outcomes, and organizational

Scale Item AA OC CO OO Communality

Ambiguity Acceptance 1 0.659 0.444 0.146 0.021 0.654
Ambiguity Acceptance 2 0.779 0.270 0.118 0.254 0.759
Ambiguity Acceptance 3 0.926 0.179 0.142 0.211 0.779
Open Communication 1 0.148 0.878 0.169 0.053 0.823
Open Communication 2 0.390 0.741 0.027 0.149 0.724
Open Communication 3 0.440 0.604 0.065 0.243 0.622
Customer Outcomes 1 0.178 0.107 0.854 0.403 0.935
Customer Outcomes 2 0.166 0.157 0.873 0.359 0.944
Organizational Outcomes 1 0.127 0.173 0.295 0.822 0.809
Organizational Outcomes 2 0.106 0.159 0.195 0.831 0.766
Organizational Outcomes 3 0.122 0.136 0.126 0.788 0.670
Organizational Outcomes 4 0.146 0.051 0.176 0.796 0.689
Organizational Outcomes 5 0.200 0.005 0.197 0.825 0.759
Variance 2.2365 2.1129 1.7946 3.7955
Cronbachs alpha 0.8051 0.7894 0.9407 0.9069
Note: Numbers in boldface type indicate items that represent factors.

Table 2: Factor analysis.

58 April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Factor Ambiguity Acceptance Open Communication Customer Outcomes Project Outcomes
Ambiguity Acceptance 1.0
Open Communication 0.763* 1.0
Customer Outcomes 0.457* 0.359* 1.0
Organizational Outcomes 0.427* 0.339* 0.564* 1.0
*Denotes significant correlations where (p 0.05).
Table 3: Correlation matrix of variables.

SE p-value t df Mean Difference

Ambiguity Acceptance 3.504*** 0.978 0.000 0.193 246 0.4750
Open Communication 32.061*** 0.669 0.000 2.827 246 0.2954
Customer Outcomes 28.513*** 0.920 0.000 5.238 246 0.2754
Organizational Outcomes 0.193*** 1.102 0.000 0.895 246 0.5380
***p 0.01.
Table 4: Between group comparison.

outcome, as indicated in Table 4. The
results of the MANOVA suggest signifi-
cant differences between groups on
multiple variables; therefore regres-
sions were run with data split between
the two groups (team leaders and team
members). Importantly, for both
groups, team leaders were included
only in the team leader group and were
not counted as both a member and
leader. Likewise, care was taken to be
certain that any participant (team
leader or team member) could not be
counted on two different teams simul-
taneously.
Results
Hypothesis 1 and 2
Analysis of the variable open communi-
cation resulted in curve estimates that
showed a curvilinear relationship for
open communicationcustomer out-
comes for the team leader group, as indi-
cated when both regression models and
squared terms are significant (Hatcher &
Stepanski, 1994; Patrashkova-Volzdoska
et al., 2003). However, curvilinear rela-
tionships between open communica-
tioncustomer outcomes for the team
member group and for open communi-
cationorganizational outcomes for both
the team leader and team member
groups for this data set were not indicat-
ed; a linear relationship existed for each
of these variable combinations. Figure 1
shows the curvilinear relationship pres-
ent for team leaders in the relationship
between open communication and cus-
tomer outcomes.
Thus, hypothesis 1 was confirmed
for the team leader group, while
hypothesis 2 was not accepted for
either the team leader or team member
groups. For those groups in which a
curvilinear relationship was not pres-
ent, regression analysis was performed;
the relationship between open commu-
nication and dependent variables cus-
tomer outcomes and organizational
outcomes was tested for all groups in
which a curvilinear relationship was
not apparent.
Hypothesis 1 suggested that there is
a curvilinear relationship between
open communication and customer
outcomes of a Six Sigma project. This
hypothesis was confirmed in the team
leader groups. However, the hypothesis
was not confirmed in the team member
group, as the relationship between
open communication and customer
outcomes was not curvilinear, as
suggested within the literature (Lin,
Chai, Brombacher, & Wong, 2009;
Patrashkova-Volzdoska et al., 2003).
Prior research indicated that a curvilin-
ear relationship may exist for both
groups; however, it existed only for
team leaders in this study. This result
indicates that while there may be a tip-
ping point, in terms of level of commu-
nication that can exist between team
and leader and the reduction of cus-
tomer outcomes from the perspective
of team leaders, team members, in gen-
eral, do not necessarily have that same
perspective. Also, this finding may
imply that the relationship between
open communication and customer
outcomes for team members would be
influenced by team leaders. Team lead-
ers have played a significant role in the
internal dynamics and outcomes of
the team (Sarin & McDermott, 2003).
When team leaders can make the com-
munication among team members
more effective, the relationship between

April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 59

PAPERS
Ambiguity Acceptance as a Function of Project Management
6 acceptance and organizational out-
S 0.743077
R-Sq 17.3%
R-Sq(adj) 15.9%
5 ber groups. Ambiguity acceptance
CO
4
3 four proposed relationships and pres-
2 Discussion
1 2
Figure 1: Fitted plot line for curvilinear relationship between open communication and customer
outcomes for team leader group.
open communication and customer
outcomes for team members would be
more positive.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that there is
a curvilinear relationship between
open communication and project out-
comes. This hypothesis was not con-
firmed in either the team leader or
team member groups. However, the lin-
ear relationship that exists among the
independent variable open communi-
cation and dependent variable organi-
zational outcomes did exist within the
team leader group. Open communica-
tion accounted for 14.2% of the vari-
ance of project outcomes.
Hypothesis 3 and 4
A significant positive relationship exists
between ambiguity acceptance and
customer outcomes. Ambiguity accept-
ance accounted for 6.4% of the variance
within the team leader group. A similar
significant positive relationship existed
between ambiguity acceptance and
open communication for project out-
comes for team leaders. In this case,
ambiguity acceptance accounted for
60 April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
3 4 5 6
OC
2.9% of the variance in project out-
comes, while open communication
accounted for 14.2% of the variance.
Results for team members showed
a significantly positive relationship
between ambiguity acceptance and
customer outcomes, with 17.2% of the
variance accounted for, while there was
also a significantly positive relation-
ship between organizational outcomes
and ambiguity acceptance, which
accounted for 15.2% of the variance.
For the team member group, there was
no significant relationship between
independent variable open communi-
cation and dependent variables cus-
tomer outcomes or organizational
outcomes.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that there is a
positive relationship between ambiguity
acceptance and customer outcomes of a
Six Sigma project. This hypothesis was
confirmed in both the team leader and
team member groups. Ambiguity
acceptance accounted for 6.4% of the
variance for team leaders and 17.2% of
the variance for team members for
dependent variable customer outcomes.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that there is
a relationship between ambiguity
comes. This hypothesis was confirmed
in both the team leader and team mem-
accounted for 2.9% of the variance for
organizational outcomes for the team
leader group and accounted for 15.2%
of the variance in the team member
group. Table 5 summarizes the results
of multiple regression analysis for the
ents that multicollinearity did not
occur.
The implementation of performance
improvement teams within the Six
Sigma context is the result of attempts
to improve profitability and competi-
tive advantage in an age of increasing
competition and globalization, with the
aim of achieving strategic objectives for
the organization (Schroeder et al.,
2007). The deployment and implemen-
tation of a Six Sigma program is often
costly. According to Dusharme (2004),
while the cost of Six Sigma deployment
for very small companies can be less
than $10,000 per year, many large com-
panies have invested more than $10
million. The cost of deployment is just
one of several reasons why it is impor-
tant that we gain an understanding of
those things that help or hinder Six
Sigma project success and ultimately
project management in general. This
research is significant in that it helps to
establish the importance of ambiguity
acceptance within the project manage-
ment literature, further defining its
importance beyond the area of general
management and into project manage-
ment in particular.
Practical and Theoretical
Implications
There have been several pieces of
research that have identified open
communication as critical to the suc-
cess of a project (Belassi & Tukel, 1996;
Hyvari, 2006; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998).
 By Dependent Variable B SE R2 (adj.) p-value VIF
Team Leaders
Customer Outcomes:
Constant 3.980 0.396
Ambiguity Acceptance 0.268** 0.089 6.4% 0.003 1.00
Organizational Outcomes: 1.820 0.627
Ambiguity Acceptance 0.207** 0.101 2.9% 0.025
Open Communication 0.298*** 0.124 14.2% 0.001 1.221
Team Members
Customer Outcomes:
Constant 3.144 0.457
Ambiguity Acceptance 0.474*** 0.132 17.2% 0.001
Open Communication 0.055 0.159 0.0% 0.693 2.915
Organizational Outcomes: 3.056 0.473
Ambiguity Acceptance 0.486*** 0.137 15.2% 0.001
Open Communication 0.104 0.164 0.6% 0.464 2.915
**p 0.05. ***p 0.01.

Table 5: Multiple regression analysis.

This research helps to solidify open
communication between the team
leader and team members as highly
important to both customer (internal
and external) perceptions of results and
project results that are related to orga-
nizational performance, such as project
impact organizational strategy and
project cost savings. Tolerance for
ambiguity, or ambiguity acceptance, is
an important piece in leadership litera-
ture and has been used as an effective
way to predict effective and ineffective
leaders (Ghosh, 1994; Lane & Klenke,
2004), but has had little testing within
the area of project management and
project leadership. Again, this research
helps to establish the relationship
between a team leaders ambiguity
acceptance and the outcomes of a
projectboth customer outcomes
and project-related organizational out-
comes.
While the variances explained
between ambiguity acceptance and
customer and organizational outcomes
within the team member group are
large (17.2% and 15.2%, respectively),
the team leader groups explained vari-
ances are smaller (6.4% and 2.9%).
Considering the differences between
the two groups and their perceptions of
what may impact the results of a proj-
ect, it is apparent that team members
perceive outcomes to be more strongly
tied with project outcomes than do
team leaders. This result could be related
to several factors including differences
in the overall perception of leaders and
leadership styles within the project
context, among other possible explana-
tions. Causes notwithstanding, given
the sheer volume of possible and prob-
able contextual elements related to
project outcomes, even small variances
explained help us to better understand
how and why some projects fail while
others thrive.
It is important to acknowledge the
impact that individual projects have on
overall quality initiatives when the
results of this research are placed within
the quality improvement framework. If
Juran (1989) is correct in his assessment
that quality improvement must take
place on a project-by-project basis and
in no other way, then, in order for quali-
ty improvement to take place, individual
projects must be successfully completed;
without the successful completion of
individual projects, no quality improve-
ment program is sustainable. The results
of this research indicate that the greater
the ambiguity acceptance and willing-
ness for open communication that a
team leader possesses, the greater likeli-
hood that the project he or she leads will
have positive results in terms of cus-
tomer and organizational outcomes.

April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 61

PAPERS
Ambiguity Acceptance as a Function of Project Management
A great deal of literature has
attempted to define success in terms
of project management, and success
within the project management context
is seen as a multifaceted and complex
issue that is difficult to measure
(Besner & Hobbs, 2006; Dvir et al., 1998;
Fortune & White, 2006). This research
helps to establish the importance of
leadership on perceived outcomes
from the perspective of both project
customers and the larger organizational
contexts. And this, in turn, provides an
organization with the fuel needed to
gain further traction for its Six Sigma
program.
This research also helps to clarify
the importance of training in areas
beyond the traditional statistical
methodologies that are often the core
of Six Sigma preparation. A review of
communication and communication
skills may help to develop those project
leader skills. In order for performance
improvement to take place within a
project team, it is essential for team
leaders to communicate with team
members on a wide range of topics,
including project goals, project scope
and project design, and project infra-
structure (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Dvir,
Raz, & Shenhar, 2003; Hyvari, 2006);
these communications skills can be
learned within Six Sigma training and
transferred to team leadership behav-
iors (Graham, Wedman, & Garvin-
Kester, 1994). This strategy helps to aid
in the development of a stronger learn-
ing environment within the project
team, as described by Ellinger, Ellinger, &
Keller (2003), ultimately leading to bet-
ter performing teams.
A team leaders tolerance for ambi-
guity also improves the outcomes of a Six
Sigma project. There has been little
prior research to test the impact of lead-
ers ambiguity acceptance on project
outcomesespecially those outcomes
that involve customer and strategic con-
texts. The current findings help to further
establish how ambiguity acceptance can
positively impact team outcomes by
allowing for a level of flexibility within
62 April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
team processes, thereby encouraging
creativity and innovation within the proj-
ect environment (Kirton, 1981; Tegano,
1990). The selection of appropriate Six
Sigma candidates is critical to the suc-
cess of a project (Zimmerer & Yasin,
1998). Given this result, one may suggest
that team leaders be assessed for his or
her tolerance for ambiguity as well as
his or her propensity for open commu-
nication, either before or during the Six
Sigma training process. This assess-
ment can help to choose acceptable
candidates, as well as guide the devel-
opment of training for potential Six
Sigma candidates.
Implications for Future Research
The way a team is managed has much
impact on the outcomes of that project.
Importantly, this research helps to con-
firm the importance of open communi-
cation and ambiguity acceptance as
important traits for project leaders to
possess. However, although many
scholars agree that open communica-
tion is an important piece of project
management; little mention is given to
the impact of ambiguity acceptance. In
fact, a thorough review of the writing on
critical success factors within the proj-
ect management literature reviews
reveals no mention of ambiguity
acceptance as critical to project success
(Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Cooke-Davies,
2002; Dvir et al., 2003; Fortune & White,
2006; Hyvari, 2006; Pinto & Slevin, 1987;
White & Fortune, 2002). Given that
much of the critical success factor
research is based on survey research of
team leaders and team members who
are asked to either rate or rank a preset
list of possible success factors, or list
the factors without a predetermined
list, the way this research is conducted
should be examined. For ambiguity
acceptance, it may be difficult for indi-
viduals to identify this characteristic
within other individuals, as suggested
by Zaccaro (2007).
Thus, we suggest that going for-
ward, ambiguity acceptance, along with
an explanation of the concept, should
be included in critical success factor
research. With areas such as ambiguity
and ambiguity acceptance as rich
sources of information on teams, team
leadership, and team dynamics, it is
also suggested that research using qual-
itative and/or interpretive methodolo-
gies be considered. Research such as this
may help to expand the knowledge in
these areas and help us understand the
impact of ambiguity, communication,
and general leadership more deeply.
While the concept of ambiguity
acceptance has been largely ignored
within the project management critical
success factor research, this may be the
result of some difficultly developing a
standardized set of identifiable, behav-
ioral or psychological traits in terms of a
construct (Furnham, 1994; Furnham &
Ribchester, 1995). Given this, practi-
tioners may have a difficult time identi-
fying this trait, among the many others,
when asked to list and describe success
factors on a broad scale. While this
research shows the correlation between
project leaders ambiguity acceptance
and project outcomes, the develop-
ment of a list or observable behaviors
or attitudes within the project manage-
ment literature may help both scholars
and practitioners to more fully identify,
and thus understand, how this trait
impacts project outcomes. This research
has explored ambiguity acceptance
within the Six Sigma context, but look-
ing at it in other project management
contexts and in multiple settings and
situations would help to further clarify
its impact on project management
processes and results.
Limitations
This research has several limitations to
its generalizability, and research results
must be applied carefully, as the context
in which the research was conducted
delimits its reach. First, while some
important and theoretically substanti-
ated variables, such as ambiguity
acceptance and open communication
were incorporated into the research,
the research was not inclusive of all
possible variables that can have an
impact on project outcomes. Due to
issues of multicollinearity, the cus-
tomer outcomes variable is limited by
its inclusion of two, rather than three,
items within the scale. Further, this
research is limited by the perceptual
nature of the data that was collected. In
kind, the use of self-reported data and
the use of self-reported scores by team
leaders may affect the validity of the
survey, as found in Cook, Campbell,
and Day (1979). Finally, the research
may also be limited by confounding
effects due to causal relationships
between variables at the group level.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the regression
analysis presented here, it is apparent
that a team leaders ability to communi-
cate openly and frequently with team
members is essential to project success.
However, a more interesting result of
this research is the proposition that
ambiguity acceptance, or the ability to
work within ambiguous contexts, is very
important to a team leaders ability to
guide a complex project through com-
pletion with good results. And, while it is
widely suggested that team leader com-
munication skills are important, very lit-
tle discussion within scholarly literature
has suggested that a team leaders abili-
ty to deal with ambiguity will result in
greater project successand it has, to
date, not been suggested that this might
be an uncommonly important charac-
teristic of team leaders. Thus, this
research suggests that we may begin to
think of ambiguity acceptance as anoth-
er, rather important, critical success fac-
tor in project management literature.
References
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding
organisational culture. London,
England: Sage.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S.
(2006). Fundamental uncertainties in
projects and the scope of project man-
agement. International Journal of
Project Management, 24(8), 687698.
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978).
Cognitive styles: Some information
and implications for instructional
design. Educational Communication
and Technology Journal, 26(8),
337345.
Baldoni, J. (2004). Powerful leadership
communication. Leader to Leader, 32,
2024.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008).
Survey response rate levels and trends
in organizational research. Human
Relations, 61(8), 1139.
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). A new
framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 14(3), 141151.
Bertels, T. (2003). Rath and Strongs Six
Sigma leadership handbook. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2006). The
perceived value and potential contri-
bution of project management prac-
tices to project success. Project
Management Journal, 37(3), 37.
Best, J. (2008). Ambiguity, uncertainty,
and risk: Rethinking indeterminacy.
International Political Sociology, 2(4),
355374.
Brun, E., Saetre, A. S., & Gjelsvik, M.
(2009). Classification of ambiguity in
new product development projects.
European Journal of Innovation
Management, 12(1), 6285.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and lead-
ership in organizations. London,
England: Sage.
Bryman, A. (1999). Leadership in
organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy,
& W. R. Nord (Eds.), Managing organi-
zations: Current issues (pp. 2642).
London, England: Sage.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambi-
guity as a personality variable. Journal
of Personality, 30(1), 2950.
Caupin, G., Knoepfel, H., Kock, G.,
Pannenbacker, K., Perez-Polo, F., &
Seabury, C. (Eds.). (2006). ICb-IPMA
Competence Baseline, Version 3.0.
Nijkerk, Netherlands: IPMA.
April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D., & Chan, A. P. L.
(2004). Factors affecting the success of
a construction project. Journal of
Construction Engineering, 130(1),
153155.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988).
Behavioral dimensions of charismatic
leadership. In J. A. Conger & R. N.
Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leader-
ship: The elusive factor in organization-
al effectiveness (pp. 7897). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Day, A.
(1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design
& analysis issues for field settings.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The real suc-
cess factors in projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 20(3),
185198.
Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000).
Why we should not use 5-point Likert
scales: The case for subjective quality
of life measurement. In Proceedings,
Second International Conference on
Quality of Life in Cities (pp. 7493).
Singapore: National University of
Singapore.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T.
(2002). Managing project uncertainty:
From variation to chaos. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 43(2), 5967.
Dollinger, M. J., Saxton, T., & Golden,
P. A. (1995). Intolerance of ambiguity
and the decision to form an alliance.
Psychological Reports, 77(3), 11971198.
Dusharme, D. (2004). Six Sigma sur-
vey: Six Sigma on the brain? Quality
Digest. Retrieved from
http://www.qualitydigest.com/nov04/
articles/01_article.shtml
Dvir, D., Lipovitsky, S., Shenhar, A., &
Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project
classification: A non-universal
approach to project success factors.
Research Policy, 27(9), 915935.
Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. J. (2003).
An empirical analysis of the relation-
ship between project planning and
project success. International Journal
of Project Management, 21(2), 8895.
63
PAPERS
Ambiguity Acceptance as a Function of Project Management
Eisenberg, E. M., & Witten, M. G.
(1987). Reconsidering openness in
organizational communication.
Academy of Management Review, 12,
418426.
Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller,
S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching
behavior, employee satisfaction, and
warehouse employee per romance: A
dyadic perspective in the distribution
industry. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 14, 435458.
El-Sabaa, S. (2001). The skills and
career path of an effective project
manager. International Journal of
Project Management, 19(1), 17.
Finch, P. (2003). Applying the Slevin-
Pinto project implementation profile
to an information systems project.
Project Management Journal, 34(3),
3239.
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006).
Framing of project critical success fac-
tors by a systems model. International
Journal of Project Management, 24(1),
5365.
Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992).
Measuring project success. Project
Management Journal, 23(1), 818.
Frone, M. R. (1990). Intolerance of
ambiguity as a moderator of the occu-
pational role stressstrain relationship:
A meta-analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 11, 309320.
Furnham, A. (1994). A content, corre-
lational and factor analytic study of
four tolerance of ambiguity question-
naires. Personality and Individual
Differences, 16(3), 403410.
Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995).
Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the
concept, its measurement and applica-
tions. Current Psychology, 14(3),
179199.
Ghirardato, P., & Marinacci, M. (2002).
Ambiguity made precise: A compara-
tive foundation. Journal of Economic
Theory, 102(2), 251289.
Ghosh, D. (1994). Tolerance for ambi-
guity, risk preference, and negotiator
effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 25(2),
263280.
64 April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Gillard, S., & Johansen, J. (2004).
Project management communication:
A systems approach. Journal of
Information Science, 30(1), 2329.
Globerson, S. (2002). The impact of the
project manager on project manage-
ment planning processes. Project
Management Journal, 33(3), 5864.
Goris, J. R., Vaught, B. C., & Pettit, J. D.
(2000). Effects of communication
direction on job performance and sat-
isfaction: A moderated regression
analysis. Journal of Business
Communication, 37(4), 348369.
Graham, S., Wedman, J. F., & Garvin-
Kester, B. (1994). Manager coaching
skills: What makes a good coach?
Performance Improvement Quarterly,
7(2), 8194.
Hllgren, M., & Maaninen-Olsson, E.
(2005). Deviations, ambiguity and
uncertainty in a project-intensive
organization. Project Management
Journal, 36(3), 1726.
Hamlin, R. G. (2004). In support of uni-
versalistic models of managerial and
leadership effectiveness: Implications
for HRD research and practice. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2),
189215.
Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (1994). A
step-by-step approach to using the SAS
system for univariate and multivariate
statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Hellervik, L. W., & Davis, B. L. (1984).
Improving managerial effectiveness: A
handbook of development suggestions.
Minneapolis, MN: Personnel
Decisions.
Hirst, G., & Mann, L. (2004). A model of
R&D leadership and team communica-
tion: The relationship with project per-
formance. R&D Management, 34(2),
147160.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001).
Teamwork quality and the success of
innovative projects: A theoretical con-
cept and empirical review.
Organization Science, 12(4), 435449.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures conse-
quence: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across cul-
tures (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hyvari, I. (2006). The success of proj-
ects in different organizational condi-
tions. Project Management Journal,
37(4), 3141.
Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of
risks, uncertainties and opportunities
on projects: Time for a fundamental
shift. International Journal of Project
Management, 19(2), 89101.
Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate
communication: The state of the art.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 12011222.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L.
(1993). Handbook of individual differ-
ences, learning, and instruction.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Jugdev, K., & Mller, R. (2005). A retro-
spective look at our evolving under-
standing of project success. Project
Management Journal, 36(4), 1931.
Juran, J. M. (1989). Juran on leadership
for quality. New York, NY: Free Press.
Kaissi, A. K. H. (2005). Leadership
influence styles: Investigating their
effect on Six Sigma change program
implementation in a high-tech
industry (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). University of Phoenix,
Detroit, MI.
Keller, R. T., & Holland, W. E. (1983).
Communicators and innovators in
research and development organiza-
tions. Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 742749.
Kirton, M. J. (1981). A reanalysis of two
scales of tolerance for ambiguity.
Journal of Personality Assessment,
45(4), 407414.
Kivimaki, M., Lansisalmi, H.,
Elovainio, M., Heikkila, A., Lindstrom,
K., Harisalo, R., . . . Puolimatka, L.
(2000). Communication as a determi-
nant of organizational innovation.
R&D Management, 30(1), 3342.
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C., & Neter,
J. (2004). Applied linear regression
models (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.
Lane, M. S., & Klenke, K. (2004). The
ambiguity tolerance interface: A modi-
fied social cognitive model for leading
under uncertainty. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies,
10(3), 6981.
Levin, R. I., & Kirkpatrick, C. A. (1966).
Planning and control with the project
evaluation and review technique. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lin, J., Chai, K. H., Brombacher, A. C., &
Wong, Y. S. (2009). Optimal overlap-
ping and functional interaction in
product development. European
Journal of Operational Research,
196(3), 11581169.
Longbotham, G. J. (2000). The relation-
ship of leadership, environmental, and
team factors, to process improvement
team success: An ex-post facto study
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Loo, R. (2002). Working towards best
practices in project management: A
Canadian study. International Journal
of Project Management, 20(2), 9398.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., &
Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing
cross-functional new product teams
innovativeness and constraint adher-
ence: A conflict communications per-
spective. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(4), 779793.
Lysonski, S., & Andrews, J. C. (1990).
Effects of moderating variables on pro-
duction managers behavior.
Psychological Reports, 66, 295306.
Malhotra, Y. (1998). Business process
redesign: An overview. IEEE
Engineering Management Review,
26(3), 210223.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). The
uncertainty of the past: Organizational
learning under ambiguity. European
Journal of Political Research, 3(2),
147171.
Marks, M., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu,
J. E. (2000). Performance implications
of team leaders briefings and team
interaction training to team adaptation
to novel environments. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(6), 971986.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organiza-
tions: Three perspectives. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Montgomery, B. (1981). Verbal intima-
cy as a behavioral indicator of open
communication content.
Communication Quarterly, 30(1),
2834.
Mulenburg, G. M. (1999). The charac-
teristics of project managers: An explo-
ration of completed projects in the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Golden Gate University,
San Francisco, CA.
Munns, A. K., & Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996).
The role of project management in
achieving project success.
International Journal of Project
Management, 14(2), 8188.
Nutt, P. C. (1993). Organizational pub-
licness and its implications for strate-
gic management. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory,
3(2), 209231.
Park, S., McLean, G. N., & Yang, B.
(2008, February). Revision and valida-
tion of an instrument measuring man-
agerial coaching skills in organizations.
Paper presented at the Academy of
Human Resource Development
International Research Conference in
the Americas, Panama City, FL.
Parker, G. M. (1990). Team players and
teamwork: The new competitive busi-
ness strategy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Patrashkova-Volzdoska, R. R.,
McComb, S. A., & Green, S. G. (2003).
Examining a curvilinear relationship
between communication frequency
and team performance in cross-func-
tional project teams. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 50(3),
262269.
Perminova, O., Gustafsson, M., &
Wiksrom, K. (2008). Defining uncer-
tainty in projects: Merging theory and
April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
practice. International Journal of
Project Management, 26, 7379.
Peterson, D. B., & Hicks, M. D. (1996).
Leaders as coach: Strategies for coach-
ing and developing others. Minneapolis,
MN: Personnel Decisions
International.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A.
(2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management.
Management Science, 48(8), 10081023.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988).
Variations in critical success factors
over the stages in the project life cycle.
Journal of Management, 14(1), 516.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987).
Critical factors in successful project
implementation. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 34(1), 2227.
Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1990).
Project team communication and
cross-functional cooperation in new
program development. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 9(3),
200212.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986).
Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of
Management, 12(4), 531544.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Quality manage-
ments competitive advantage: A
review and empirical study. Strategic
Management Journal, 16(1), 1537.
Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Caringal, C.
(2006). Causal ambiguity, management
perception, and firm performance.
Academy of Management Review, 31(1),
175196.
Repenning, N., & Sterman, J. (2001).
Nobody ever gets credit for fixing prob-
lems that never happened. California
Management Review, 43, 6488.
Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999).
The relationship between total quality
management practices and opera-
tional performance. Journal of
Operations Management, 17(4),
393409.
Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The
effect of team leader characteristics on
65
PAPERS
Ambiguity Acceptance as a Function of Project Management
learning, knowledge application, and
performance of cross-functional new
product development teams. Decision
Sciences, 34, 707739.
Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K.,
Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. S. (2007). Six
Sigma: Definition and underlying the-
ory. Journal of Operations Management,
26(4), 536554. Retrieved from
http://www.science direct.com.floyd.
lib.umn.edu/science?_ob ArticleListU
RL&_method list&_ ArticleListID
733841678&_sort d&view c&_acct
C000032378
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., &
Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A
multidimensional strategic concept.
Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699725.
Simonin, B. L. (1999). Transfer of mar-
keting know-how in international strate-
gic alliances: An empirical investigation
of the role and antecedents of knowl-
edge ambiguity. Journal of International
Business Studies, 30(3), 463490.
Suhr, D. (2006, March). Exploratory or
confirmatory factor analysis? Paper
presented at the 2006 SAS Global
Forum, San Francisco, CA.
Swenson, J. (1999). Communication.
In D. G. Langdon, K. S. Whiteside, &
M. M. McKenna (Eds.), Intervention
resource guide: 50 performance
improvement tools (pp. 9197). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of
tolerance for ambiguity and playfulness
66 April 2013 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
and creativity. Psychological Reports,
66(3), 10471056.
Teoh, H. Y., & Foo, S. L. (1997).
Moderating effects of tolerance for
ambiguity and risk taking propensity
on the role conflict-perceived perfor-
mance relationship: Evidence from
Singaporean entrepreneurs. Journal of
Business Venturing, 12(1), 6781.
Thamhain, H. J. (1996). Enhancing
innovative performance of self-direct-
ed teams. Engineering Management
Journal, 8(3), 3139.
Thite, M. (1999). Identifying key char-
acteristics of technical project leader-
ship. Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, 20(5), 253261.
Toney, F., & Power, R. (1997). Best prac-
tices of project management groups in
large organizations. Upper Darby, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of
project-based management: Improving
the processes for achieving strategic
objectives. London, England:
McGraw-Hill.
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster
self-managing team effectiveness:
Design choices versus hand-on coach-
ing. Organization Science, 12(5), 559577.
Ward, S., & Chapman, C. (2003).
Transforming project risk management
into project uncertainty management.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21(1), 97105.
White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current
practice in project managementAn
empirical study. International Journal
of Project Management, 20(1), 111.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based per-
spectives of leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 616.
Zimmerer, T. W., & Yasin, M. M. (1998).
A leadership profile of American proj-
ect managers. Project Management
Journal, 29(1), 3138.
Marcia Hagen is an assistant professor of man-
agement at Metropolitan State University in
Minneapolis, MN. She received her PhD in
human resource development from the
University of Minnesota. Her research interests
include quality management, performance
improvement, project management, and Six
Sigma. She welcomes your feedback and can be
reached at marcia.hagen@metrostate.edu.
Sunyoung Park is an instructional designer at
the Kelley School of Business and was a post-
doctoral fellow/visiting scholar in the
Department of Instructional Systems
Technology at Indiana University. Her research
interests are organizational culture, workplace
learning, leadership, knowledge sharing, per-
formance improvement, and instructional
technology. She received a PhD in human
resource development from the University
of Minnesota. She can be reached at suny-
park@gmail.com.
Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.