The Self Aware Project Manager 1
Amid growing concern that the project management body of knowledge (PM BoK) and a large part of the literature does not adequately describe the ‘lived experience’ of contemporary project management practice, we offer a sociologically enhanced description of the practice of project management. We achieve this in two ways. Firstly, through an examination of a body of literature that has its roots in the interpretive domain. Secondly, we explore project management practice through the lived experience of the project manager.
We draw on ideas from the Chicago School of Sociology, including the work of Mead and Cooley on the
‘self’. This allows us to develop the intellectual apparatus to illuminate, in part, the lived experience of the project manager. This framework stresses the importance of positioning the project manager’s ‘self’ as an entity, and the other participants subjectively. Such a positioning provides significant insights into the Project Manager’s self, the role of the self-concept and the generalized other.
Keywords : Project Management, Project Manager, Self, Self Concept, Self-Aware, Autoethnography
Our aim is to emphasise the importance of understanding the project manager’s ‘self’ as an entity. Until recently, much of the project management (PM) literature has focused on planning orientated techniques, project success or project failure. It has paid limited attention towards the actual work of project management (Blomquist et al., 2010, Soderlund, 2004 #556; Cicmil and Hodgson, 2006). This failure to capture the experience of PM practice has been recognised for some time as evidenced by Peter W.
Morris noting back in 1994 that “much of the writing is dry and mechanistic” and misses the “challenges and exhilarations” of real projects (Morris, 1994, p. v). UK government funded research network -
Rethinking Project Management - has confronted this issue. It determines that if we are to bridge the divide between the conceptual base and the practice of project management, there has to be a better understanding of project actuality – to explore what goes on at the various levels of project working
(Winter et al., 2006a; Winter et al., 2006b).

The Self Aware Project Manager 2
One way of examining the practice of project management is to look at the ‘lived experiences’ of project managers. Recent PM literature, particularly the work of Svetlana Cicmil (2006), recognises and examines this topic of lived experience of the practitioner as a way to develop a better understanding of what actually goes on in project management.
Whilst the meaning of the term ‘lived experience’ may seem self-evident, it is often difficult and complex to adequately articulate. Lived experience is the basis of the philosophical position known as phenomenology (van Manen, 1990, p36) and has received considerable philosophical attention (Gadamer,
2004). The human lived experience has for many decades been a central topic in social sciences, exploring how people create realities and their lived experience, as they reflect on, interact with, and respond to others (Prus, 1996) and how we understand our personal experiences, for example the experience of pregnancy (Lundquist, 2008).
In order to interrogate the issue of the lived experience of the project manager, we start with the assumption that performing a role is part of one’s lived experience. We then attempt to gain insight into the ‘lived experience’ of the project manager by examining the issue of how we perform a role. Our discussion is founded on the premise that humans are active, reflective agents, capable of constructing their lives as opposed to being reduced to passive objects with no voice and no mind of their own (Ellis and Bochner, 2000). The world we live in is not our private domain, but one that we share intersubjectively with other humans (here we make the assumption that ‘intersubjectivity’ exists). In contemporary society interaction with other humans is largely inescapable and those interactions comprise a crucial part in the construction of the lived experience of what it is to be human.
The concept of ‘role’ is well known in psychological and managerial literature, and is recognised in project management literature. The concept of role implies that people modify their behaviour to suit the requirements of the role (e.g. behave as a manager) or the concept provides an explanation of aspects of people’s experiences (e.g. unease arising from role conflict). The concept of role, by logical requirement, also implies that people have internal processes whereby they act in accordance with, or deal with, the role; we use the expression ‘hold oneself in role’ to name these internal processes (the originator of the term ‘management of oneself in role’ is W. Gordon Lawrence (1979)). This ‘holding oneself in role’, while recognised in the psychological literature, is not widely explored in the project management literature. In this paper we outline a model that allows some exploration of ‘holding oneself in role’ within the practice of project management.

The Self Aware Project Manager 3
‘Holding oneself in role’ is a deep psychodynamic process, the field of practice of psychotherapists, family therapists, and psychologists. . We do not deny the importance of psychodynamics; we believe that these psychodynamic processes are crucial in gaining a full understanding of professional and organisational behaviour (e.g. the impact of anxiety in influencing professional and organisational practice (Menzies, 1988). These ideas though not far removed from explaining management behaviour, are still in their early stages of development (De Gooijer, 2009). However, we believe we can put forward a set of useful ideas in the area of ‘holding oneself in role’ without directly and explicitly entering the world of psychodynamics.
We recognise that the experience of ‘holding oneself in role’ is an internal process, only directly available, in its wholeness, to the individual person, in our case the particular project manager. Because of its specificity to an individual we combine autoethnography (we use narratives) with a model of the ‘Self’ derived from the literature to gain insight into the experience of ‘holding oneself in role’.
The model of the ‘Self’ makes the important distinction between ‘I’ and ‘me’. The ‘I’ and the ‘me’ interact. We explore this by using the model and the narratives of a particular project manager to show that ‘managing oneself in role’ involves interaction between the ‘I’ and ‘me’ of the model. By linking role theory to the internal dynamic model of the human being we provide a basis by which a selfreflective project manager may explore his or her own internal processes and gain insight into their own practice of project management.
It is important, at the outset, to recognise that we are not attempting to develop a generic or generalised model of ‘holding oneself in role’. A vital component in the dynamic of ‘holding oneself in role’ is the specific personalised history of and interpretation by the individual under discussion. Rather, we are saying that to understand one’s own ‘holding one self in role’ the individual needs to explore their own autobiography (and their lived experience). This exploration is through the interaction of the ‘I’ and
‘me’; the interaction between the ‘I’ and ‘me’ is an internal experience only available to the particular individual – in other words, how you see and interpret situations is highly personalised. The validity of this paper, for example, is in many ways only validated through the connection with you as the individual reader – and how it resonates with your ‘self’, rather than one of consensus by the general community. If an individual reader validates the paper then it is valid for them, although it may not resonate in the same way for others.

The Self Aware Project Manager 4
We assume the reader is familiar with the concept of ‘Role’. For our purposes role is a social construct based on expectations (both internal and external expectations). These expectations are social in nature and not immutable permanent constructs; they rely on interpretation for their existence and impact on behaviour. Hence we believe that interpretative frameworks of analysis are likely to be of benefit.
We derive the model from a set of ideas from the Chicago School (principally the work of George Mead
(1934), Charles Cooley (1922) and Erving Goffman (1959)) which allow us to draw a model of the internal psychological structure of the human being. The model has the advantage that it is a direct representation (i.e. avoiding the more complicated, albeit valid, concepts of psychodynamics) of an internal process. Psychodynamic processes can feed the internal dialogue in the model, but they are not crucial to this presentation.
To illustrate the operation of the model and to highlight the diverse and complicated nature of ‘holding oneself in role’ we present three specific narratives that were developed using an autoethnographic approach. We rely on autoethnography to justify using personalised narratives. We take a view of life that recognises the importance of time specific interconnected elements in any situation; situations do not only consist of ‘separable components’ each with their own independent existences, but as whole integrated together (for example see hammer example offered by Heidegger(2008)); it is the whole situation that needs to be comprehended. The narrative is a powerful method to present the wholeness of a situation. We contend that our model allows for the integration of the whole situation in the action of
‘holding oneself in role’ through the interaction of the ‘I’ and the ‘me’.
The ‘Model’
Our model is a model of the ‘Self’ that consists of the components ‘I’, ‘Me’, ‘Self Concept’, and the
‘Generalized Other’.
Self
It is important to understand the significance of the ‘self’. Focus on the ‘self’ largely emerges from psychology and medical sciences. There has also been parallel and important research in social psychology, exploring how the ‘self’ emerges and evolves through social process. Whilst there are various models of the self as it relates to social interaction, as we stated earlier we will for the purposes of this research limit our focus to the work of the Chicago School.

The Self Aware Project Manager 5
At a broader level, there is still much confusion whether the ‘self’ is a process or a structure. This attests to the complexities and difficulties in one attempting to distinguish between ‘self’ and ‘self concept’
(Gecas, 1982, pp. 2-3). According to the Chicago School model, the ‘self’ has structure: it is not a simple single homogeneous entity. Parts of that structure will interact not only with others but also among themselves (Mead, 1934).
There is also the complex and difficult argument as to whether or not ‘self’ is separate from the human entity. Mead (1934) sees ‘self’ as a character different from a physiological organism, but as something that will undergo development and arise from social experience and activity.
To Mead (1934), ‘self’ serves both as an object and a subject: an object that has physical presence, whereas the subject is caught up in the social process of activity and experience in everyday life. The subject is conscious of the action and the experience, as well as experiencing anticipation. There is some division within the Chicago School where Mead sees the body as an object to itself, which can operate in very intelligible ways without the ‘self’ being involved with the experience. For example, our eyes can see our feet without being caught up in the experience, and we can lose parts of our body without much invasion of the ‘self’. In contrast, Cooley (1922, p. 35) argues that the “individual is not separable from the human whole. He cannot cut himself off; the strands of heredity and education are woven into all his being”. This view is at odds with the framework of Cartesian dualism that treats the mind and the body as separate entities (Descartes, 1954). The problematic of ‘locating the self’ will not be addressed here.
As Bergson (1911, p. 7) succinctly explains, Mead devotes extensive discussion to the concept of ‘mind’, demonstrating a consistency of ideas with those of William James , James Woodbridge and John Dewey .
Mead sees ‘mind’ as having the capacity for reflective intelligence (as against intelligence of lower forms) belonging only to humans; that is, the capacity to think ‘what’s going to happen’ and ‘what are we going to do’ by our present day reactions (1934, pp. 116-119). Prus (1996, p.53) offers a view that the
‘mind’ is an ongoing process; it is that by which one makes sense of their world, as encountered, and provides the basis for organizing their experiences. It is important to note, that there is continuing debate about whether or not the ‘self’ and ‘mind’ should be seen as separate entities.
‘I’ and ‘Me’
Mead sees the ‘self’ comprising ‘I’ - or the Ego - and ‘me’. Whilst deliberately avoiding the metaphysical question of how a person comes to have both the ‘I’ and ‘me’, Mead’s focus is to draw

The Self Aware Project Manager 6 distinction between the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ in human conduct. “I talk to myself, and I remember what I said and perhaps the emotional content that went with it”, but ‘I’ can never be ‘me’ (Mead, 1934, p. 174).
Mead’s description is that the ‘I’ is the active ingredient, whilst the ‘me’ remains the passive ingredient.
Explained another way, it is the attitudes of the others that constitute “me”, whilst it is the ‘I’ that reacts towards attitudes of others. Similarly, the ‘I’ takes action in a particular social situation within one’s own conduct.
It is largely due to this dialectic between the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ that the ‘self’ becomes referred to as a process. The process of reflexivity influences this view to a large extent (Gecas, 1982). Through process, an action only becomes an experience after the person who has carried out an act becomes aware of it through reflection. The ‘me’ arises to perform that reflective role. The ‘I’ is something rarely, and never entirely, calculable. It is the ‘I’ that both calls out to the ‘me’ and then responds to it. Mead’s description of the ‘self’ is therefore essentially an ongoing social process comprising these two distinguishable phases in complex interaction. Making this distinction is important to understanding the ‘self concept’.
Self Concept
We now turn to the ‘self concept’, which has in recent times has undergone something of a renaissance in contemporary social psychology. However, the ‘self concept’ still maintains its currency within the framework of symbolic interactionism and the seminal writings of Mead (1934), Cooley (1922)and James
(1890). According to Gecas (1982, p. 1), the ‘self concept’ is the impression an individual will have of themself, as a physical, social and spiritual being. In other words, self concept is the totality of the individual’s thoughts about themself. This interpretation is largely aligned with William James’ (1910) definition. It is through social interaction, that the individual’s self conception arises and that is what guides or influences attitudes and the behaviour of that individual (Epstein, 1973; Mead, 1936; Prus,
1996). Kinch (1963) defines the ‘self concept’ as the organization of qualities that individuals attribute to themselves, specifically the conception that they have of themselves from interaction with others.
Cooley’s concept of ‘looking glass self’ offers another perspective to the ‘self concept’, “As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them according as they do or do not answer to what we should like them to be; so in imagination we perceive in another's mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it” (Cooley, 1922, p. 184).

The Self Aware Project Manager 7
Cooley’s ‘self concept’ refers to an individual perceiving themself in the way that others might perceive them (Epstein, 1973). Cooley sees ‘I’ as a ’feeling-ingredient’ in our ideas as, “there can be no final test of the self except the way we feel; it is that toward which we have the “my” attitude” (Cooley, 1922, p.
35, p. 172). He regarded humans as having feelings for themselves, and so are affected by how they appear to others. When others respond warmly and favourably, we develop a positive ‘self concept’.
Similarly, through our respective experiences, we challenge our attitudes and values every day. The development of the ‘self concept’ is a social process, which undergoes continual change through subsequent ‘interaction’ in other social groups and with new experiences. Like many other phenomena, the subjective feeling of self that Cooley (1922) refers to is taken for granted until it becomes absent. As such, the consequence of the loss of such feeling is significant, particularly when it is involuntary; where individuals report overwhelming feeling of terror (Epstein, 1973).
Mead (1934) expanded on Cooley’s looking glass orientated ‘self concept’. Mead’s ‘self concept’ is how
‘I’ view myself and the set of perceptions ‘I’ will have of myself . The ‘self concept’ develops from social interaction as an “outgrowth of the individual’s concern about how others react to him” (Epstein,
1973, p. 2). Kinch (1963) suggests that the way individuals perceive their response towards themself will influence their behaviour. He demonstrates this through an insightful case study involving a group of college students taking a psychology class, and in particular the transformation of a young female student.
From being an ordinary looking and less desired female, she became a fashion conscious, sophisticated, and much-desired woman by perceiving the actual responses of her fellow male students towards her, through social interaction. By the end of the exercise, there was a transformation in her ‘self concept’, and a change in her behaviour. Consequently, the responses of the male students to this girl’s behaviour had also changed. The men were now reacting to her as a much more desirable young woman, and not just as an ordinary looking college student.
The Generalized Other
Mead (1934, p. 154) also coined in the term ‘the generalized other’ as taking the attitude (or stance) of the
‘others’ involved in the ‘interaction’. It is determined by the expectations ‘I’ believe ‘others’ have of
‘me’ - as learnt from interactions with ‘others’. According to Bittner (1931) and Mead (1934), we
‘sympathetically assume the roles of others’ and find in our own experiences the responses of others in our ‘interaction’ with the others. In doing so, the ‘self’ “enters the perspective of the community”
(Bittner, 1931, p. 16). This notion of the journey of learning about myself, suggests that with a better understanding of the attitude of others, ‘I’ will adjust my ‘self concept’.

The Self Aware Project Manager 8
Cooley’s ideas surrounding the ‘looking glass self’, and Mead’s ideas surrounding the human ‘role taking’ ability, as well as estimating how the ‘generalized other’ would respond to actions have become the cornerstones for the process of reflective appraisals and formation of the ‘self concept’ (Epstein, 1973;
Gecas, 1982; Kinch, 1963).
The Internal Interaction Process
In interaction with others, the ‘self’ takes on, and ‘elaborates’, the attitudes of those individuals that we engage with. The ‘self’ will also arouse a set of responses through a complex process within itself, before effecting the necessary response (Mead, 1934, p. 242). Through this complex process, the individual will indicate to himself what the other person is going to do and then adopt a particular attitude in response to that indication.
Mead highlights the significance of the importation of outer conversations, the conversation of gestures with others, into the self. Through this process, the individual engages with the role of others as well as his own role, “He talks to himself. This talking is significant” (Mead, 1936, p. 385). This self-indication, or rather the self-interaction, process will continue throughout our interactions with others. The ‘self’ will continually check and adjust its response depending on the other’s gestures and indications.
The ‘self’ also needs to be understood in conjunction with broader ‘society’, because they are intertwined in a peculiar way (Hanaki, 2006, p. 12). According to Hanaki, one cannot understand ‘self’ without understanding ‘society’ and vice-versa, because ‘society’ is in fact a collection of different selves.
Society exists when interaction among human beings occurs with enough frequency and intensity so that people mutually affect one another (Turner et al., 1995, p. 248). This is generally consistent with
Cooley’s explanation of ‘society’ as made up of differentiated members but where, “everyone is more or less dependent on every other” (Cooley, 1922, p. 36). It is a constantly evolving entity (Mead, 1934).
Mead’s works have been cited as the central node for theorizing between ‘society’ and ‘self’ (Shaffer,
2005, p. 50). ‘Society’ and ‘self’ do not denote separable phenomena but are, “simply collective and distributive aspects of the same thing” (Cooley, 1922, p. 36). Cooley argues that if there is no
‘interaction’, then there can be no nomenclature and no thoughts. This is generally in agreement with
Mead’s view that both the ‘self’ and ‘mind’ emerge from ‘interaction’ with others (Mead, 1934, pp. 133-
135). To Mead (1936) thinking is a process of conversation with one’s self, when the person takes the

The Self Aware Project Manager 9 attitude of the other. A reflective process develops only by imagining the ‘self’ as an object from the standpoint of the other.
In the following section we bring together this internal interaction with the themes of ‘Self’ that consists of the components ‘I’, ‘Me’, ‘Self Concept’, and the ‘Generalized Other’, and summarise our model.
The Model in Summary
From the above discussion, the following five key points are highlighted:
> The ‘self’ is composed of the ‘I’ and the ‘me’. ‘I’ is the active ingredient. In other words, the ‘I’ is the unique, individual, conscious and impulsive aspect of the ‘self’, whereas the ‘me’ is the component that internalises the norms and values of society. Making the distinction between the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ is an important step towards understanding ‘self concept’.
> We offered two views of ‘self concept’: Self-concept (Mead) and Self-concept (Cooley). Self-concept
(Mead) is how ‘I’ view myself and the set of perceptions ‘I’ will have of myself. Self-concept
(Cooley) is what I imagine others think of me. These views sit together and are both important aspects of the ‘self concept’. The self-concept will undergo continual change through interaction with others and new experiences. “I” can go from ‘happy’ to ‘unhappy’, or ‘dislike’ to ‘like’, through this development of the ‘self concept’.
> The ‘self’ and ‘mind’ essentially all emerge from social interaction, thus ‘society’ is a collection of
‘selves’, more or less dependent on each other through ‘interaction’. Language is a very important part of interaction.
> Humans have a natural tendency to take the role of others through ‘mutual mind reading’ (Scheff,
2005). Mead also discusses the ‘generalized other’, where the ‘self’ takes the attitude of the ‘others’ involved in the ‘interaction’ by perceiving the expectations ‘I’ believe ‘others’ have of ‘me’. This is significant, as it underpins the development of the ‘self concept’ and the idea of intersubjectivity, or knowing the ‘other’.
> Whilst interacting with ‘others’, the individual engage in self-interaction (an internalised talking to oneself). Through this process, the ‘self’ will continually check and adjust its response depending on the other’s gestures and indications.
In the context of the Self Aware Project Manager, these five points are visually represented in Figure 1.

The Self Aware Project Manager
Figure 1: The Self Aware Project Manager
10
The location of the case study is an Australian ski resort within an environmentally protected area, where the economy is largely reliant on seasonal tourism. For the purposes of this research, we take you back to

The Self Aware Project Manager 11
July 1997 (winter southern hemisphere) when a large part of a road embankment sheered, above the resort, killing 18 people and demolishing two ski lodges. The landslip immediately undermined confidence in the geological stability of the hillside resort and hence in the structural integrity of most of the ski lodges. A major reconstruction project followed, and the lived experience of the project manager in that reconstruction project forms the basis of our case study.
The disaster had psychological, environmental, and economic impacts on the resort. The reconstruction commenced in September 1997, without the involvement of a professional Project Manager. Those responsible for the project at that time estimated the project being undertaken in two stages, under a single construction contract: Stage 1 between February and June 1998; and Stage 2 between November 1998 and June 1999. The planning phase took into consideration the constraints of the harsh and treacherous working conditions in Alpine areas during winter. Obviously the winter period is also the peak tourist season for the ski resort. The landowner is a government department and the ski resort is operated by a private operator.
The Project Manager, who is the focus of this case study, was involved in the project between February
1998 and April 1999, employed full-time by the contracted project management firm. Located full-time onsite, the Project Manager performed a central role as the onsite project management (PM) contact between the client, construction contractor, consultants, and the external stakeholders. The landlord
(government department) was the client.
The project was completed in March 2000, taking nine months longer than projected and significantly over the original budget estimate, due to scope changes and contract variations. Though it could be classified ostensibly as a failure against the traditional PM model, the project was hailed a success in serving as a significant step to returning normalcy in the Ski Resort. The project also received an engineering excellence award. The award was all the more significant as it was supported by the external stakeholders (i.e., the local community), who in other projects would have had almost no say.
Due to the circumstances in which this project commenced, there were multiple and complex social processes and influences encountered during the project sequence. Our case study draws on three episodes during the project, and is grounded in autoethnographic analysis. As Goffman (1974) identifies, it is possible for situations to be broken down into several other intersecting aspects going on concurrently. In keeping with recognized autoethnographic research protocols, the case study is written in the first person, in this instance from the perspective of the Project Manager. This approach is

The Self Aware Project Manager 12 reinforced by Gerardi’s (2006, p. 225) view that knowledge and action are connected within a field of practice.
For the purposes of this paper, we explore three separate episodes during the project, which we describe as: (i) on arrival; (ii) the pub encounter; and (iii) a media moment. The narrative of each event is in italics and is written in the first person. Following the narrative, we analyse and explain the current PM conceptual framework in relation to each episode, using the term PM BoK somewhat loosely to avoid confusion. We then offer insights in relation to our model, introduced above, to enhance the description of the lived experience of the project manager.
To humanise and offer context to the ‘self concept’ of a Project Manager entering the project, we offer a candid snapshot of the development of our subject from childhood through the various experiences that had a bearing on their notion of ‘self concept’ and the ‘generalized other’.
The Human Project Manager
I have many different ‘selves’ of me: me as a member of the public, me as a Project Manager with tertiary qualifications and many experiences with large-scale projects to my colleagues and clients; me as a researcher in a university environment, interacting with students and academics; me as a husband to my wife; me as a son to my parents; and me as a brother to my sister. There can be as many corresponding selves of the ‘I’: a motivated and goal orientated Project Manager with a passion for the profession; a loving and hardworking provider for the family; a caring and concerned son; a caring and sharing brother; and a researcher with a quest to make a positive contribution to project management. In each of these selves, I will have a ‘generalized other’ and a corresponding ‘self concept’. Whilst these different selves may stand alone, my experiences in any of these roles may influence the ‘self’ as a whole.
I grew up in a close-knit, caring and conservative middle class family in a south-eastern Asian country.
Being the eldest and the only son in the family, I felt my parents had certain expectations of me.
Similarly, they were extremely supportive and empowering in my life decisions as I grew up into my teenage years. I had a choice of religion, but my parents’ only expectation was that I would follow a religion for it might guide me to see moral right from wrong. I chose to become a Catholic, following my mother.
I have very early recollections of my father often singing the words “do what you do, do well boy”. I am not sure if there was such a song, I thought he was singing it to me. As I grew up in to teenage years I

The Self Aware Project Manager 13 began to reflect on it more and more. I came to assume this as a ‘generalized other’; the expectations my father had of me as “do what you do, do well boy”.
I decided to leave home as a teenager pursuing a career as an Officer in the Defence Forces in my country of origin. I saw my Chief Instructor at the Defence Academy as a role model that I would follow in my professional role. From his lectures in leadership studies, I came to regularly reflect on his phrase
“be firm, fair and friendly”. I thought this encapsulated well enough, the attitude I would take in my professional self. I came to make this phrase a personal motto in my role as a practitioner.
Later, having completed my postgraduate education, I came to work in project management for a small management consulting firm in Sydney, Australia. Though a small firm, they had been involved with some exciting and complex projects including several recent iconic projects in Australia. The boardroom walls were covered with various awards they had received. Soon I came to have the opportunity to work on some of those complex projects, such as the Homebush Bay Infrastructure Development as part of the
Sydney 2000 Olympics. Although this was a small firm, I felt they were seen favourably in the marketplace as innovative and at the forefront of promoting positive change in our industry. Each year, every member of their professional staff would be called upon to prepare and present a research paper at the firm’s annual research and development conference. From this, I came to recognise a personal weakness in my fear of public speaking and the company obligingly sent me off to undertake the Dale
Carnegie course over a three month period.
Perhaps having said to myself things such as “do what you do, do well, boy” and “be firm, fair, friendly” over many years, I continually seek professionalism and perfection in what I do. I perceive myself as a no-nonsense, even-handed person. From my senior colleagues at work, I learnt the value of questioning traditional industry practices. Professionally, what my clients thought of me was important. Their views were mixed. Some clients have openly used the terms “good operator”, “tough as nails”, “the most thorough person I have ever come across”. Conversely, some clients have indirectly insinuated that I was not experienced” or “did not understand the detail” to describe me. I had come to believe all these in my ‘self-concept’. In essence, despite the mixed views of my previous clients, I saw myself as an experienced and capable practitioner. I came to see myself so, based on my interpretation of the experiences and the appointments I had held on the various projects I had been involved in up to that time.

The Self Aware Project Manager 14
The above offers an autobiographical window, a vignette as it were, of the psyche of a particular
(individual) project manager at a given point in time. Inevitably, we will all find honesty and, in varying degrees, some aspects of our own ‘self’ in what is openly shared in this personal recollection. This window into the human project manager provides important and rich context, as we move into the events of three episodes in the case study.
(i) On Arrival
Having examined the tender drawings for the landslip reconstruction project, this appeared a relatively small and straightforward project in comparison with the scale of some of my previous projects. I felt confident that this would be well within my capability. Having followed the media reports, I saw that this project had several challenges but I perceived that I would be capable of dealing with those challenges too.
There was a real urgency to mobilise on site urgently - within less than two weeks. Hence, the PM team could not engage in any planning for project implementation before arriving on site.
Arrival on site - the PM team had agreed to assemble onsite on the weekend, ready to commence work onsite in early February 1998.
The almost six hour drive from Sydney to site was not very comfortable, perhaps since the high country was in severe drought. The normally lush countryside, now looked dry and parched, with stock feeding on whatever was left on the ground.
This was going to be my first visit to Alpine country. Not having been to the site before, and not knowing what to expect, I felt quite apprehensive. Not having been to this part of the country before herself, my wife decided to join me for the first two weeks of my stay onsite. She needed to return to Sydney by the end of February, in time for the commencement of her university semester as a student. Despite her presence besides me and our intermittent conversations, I was preoccupied with an internal thought process. I was having self-doubt; if I would be good enough for the task; if the client might like me. I was also worried if my job could be at risk, if I did not perform adequately on this project.
This was going to be the first time that I had planned to work away from Sydney over many months.
Though my wife joined me on this journey to site, and was due to return to Sydney in a few weeks, I was

The Self Aware Project Manager 15 worried about my wife having to live alone at home, as she had been experiencing sickness for sometime.
I was also worried by what my wife might be thinking of me for leaving her alone at home. During the drive, my wife and I engaged in conversation on various things, but I could not escape these thoughts going on in my mind. Intrinsically, my self-concept was affected.
It was approximately 8pm and turning dusk as we finally drove into the Village. The landslip site was not immediately visible at the entrance to the Village. However, as one drove less than two minutes into the
Village, no one could miss it. The massive, and overwhelming, scar in the landscape was still covered with tarpaulins and plastic, placed by the Coronial investigation. The landslip appeared much larger in reality than what I had imagined from the photos and images.
The feeling in the Village seemed sombre, giving the sense that there was no one at home. I cannot remember seeing a single human being, as we drove around the Village, looking for the Ski Lodge where the PM team would be living for the duration of the project.
Initial Reflections in the next few days - Over the next few days, my colleagues in the PM team and I walked many times on site. We managed to get past the wire mesh fencing preventing public access to the site.
Now, having seen the site I felt both relaxed and excited about the imminent start of the project. At the same time, I experienced some uncertainty. This complex thought process was inescapable however much I tried to distract myself. Because I was to be the senior engineer onsite, I was anxious: How should I respond if there were to be a serious incident during the work? Will the community be hostile towards the project? How would they react to dust, noise and disruption when the work commenced?
What if the contractor does not finish the work before winter and the road cannot be reopened to schedule? One the other hand, I was also thinking about the work methodology: How would we get an excavator down to the bottom bench, some 15-20m below road level in potentially unstable ground, and then move the trucks down and up the construction site safely? How many people and how much machinery would we need to get the project finished on time? If we have a wet summer, sediment control could be a real challenge, particularly due to the extent of earthwork, the steep terrain and our knowing how sensitive the site’s location was? I imagined that coupled with the environmental safety challenges, community consultation could also become a real challenge. I could see that the detailed construction planning would need to be carefully thought out to execute this project adequately around these issues.
From my previous experience of projects with a similar public interface, it was “anyone’s guess” as to

The Self Aware Project Manager 16 how the community might react. But, generally, once you come across as genuine and forthcoming, and seen as wanting to do the right thing and willing to listen, the community can become accommodating and responsive.
(ii) The Pub Encounter
This episode took place within a week after I had arrived onsite.
From what I had heard and read about life in the ski resort, I was expecting the local community to be warm, friendly, and welcoming towards visitors. From the client’s briefings we had received, the community had already been notified that the reconstruction works were due to start soon. Hence, I expected that the local community would be looking forward to our arrival on site and would welcome the speedy remediation of the landslide and related reconstruction.
The PM team strategically agreed to move around the Village as much as possible, to familiarise ourselves with the Village, to have a high profile and to make our arrival known. Wherever we went in the Village, we tried to introduce ourselves to the local community. Some people were naturally friendly, but most were not, although they were all courteous, particularly when we went into the local shops.
We also thought a daily visit to the local Public House would also be a good way to engage with the locals. The bartender was, of course, a good source of information on what was going on in the Village.
Because of our high visibility in the Village so far, I had thoughts that the majority of the local community would by now have come to know about us.
As we had done every evening since we arrived onsite, on this particular evening too, we made our way to the local Pub. This was a temporary hostelry, as the regular pub was being renovated.
On this particular day, there were two gentlemen already seated around the bar counter. They both looked middle aged and greying. One of them, though shorter than the other, was stockier. The taller of the two gentlemen wore spectacles and was dressed in his shorts, whilst the other was dressed in a pair of denim jeans. They seemed to know each other very well.

The Self Aware Project Manager 17
As we had done on our previous visits to the Pub, the PM team decided to sit around the bar counter.
Intending to engage in a cordial conversation with the two gentlemen (already seated around the bar) we took the adjoining seats. These seats were bar stools. We took the first step in introducing ourselves to these two gentlemen offering an extended hand to shake their hand. They, in turn, introduced themselves to us, shaking our hands. Perhaps we interrupted their deep and meaningful conversation as they turned around to introduce themselves to the three of us. They were neither rude nor friendly towards us during the introductions. I had hoped that we could get to know them and, through good conversation, build a rapport with them to better understand the current sentiment and concerns in the Village: we could consider these in our approach to the project. After a few uneasy moments looking at each other they turned around in their bar stools and continued talking to each other. They did not appear interested in making conversation, and clearly wanted to be left alone. I later learnt that these two gentlemen were very well respected members of the local community.
Following the incident, the two locals stayed on for approximately another half an hour before leaving the Pub, and the PM team stayed on for another one hour to have a couple of more drinks.
The local’s behaviour was not consistent with my expectations. I felt embarrassed and insulted at the time, as I had certain expectations of how we might be received in the Village. I was worried that this might become typical of the reception the local community would present us with during the project.
Similarly, I was trying to see the situation from their perspective, with what the local community might be feeling; firstly, they were probably experiencing a sense of shock and grief from the scale of the landslip and the loss of some of their closest friends. Secondly, I had come to read in the media that the community had lots of unanswered questions and concerns such as; what had caused the disaster, will someone be held responsible, how safe was the rest of resort, will there be compensation, and the landowner and resort operator were not providing them with any meaningful answers to these questions.
Perhaps these gentlemen may have seen us as government spies. I could also see that the Village was by now experiencing the economic effects of the landslip: one lodge in particular was at serious risk of being foreclosed by a Bank and there was the growing problem of unemployment in the Village. So having thought about and become more aware of all these difficulties that the local community might be going through, and our imagination that there was a growing distrust of the outsiders by the local community, I came to think that the two gentlemen’s behaviour was after all legitimate .
My self-concept had been affected and I came to assume a new generalized other, from this experience – recognising the responsibilities of my role as the Senior Engineer onsite, I had self doubts about my

The Self Aware Project Manager 18 capability and I felt distrusted by the community. This made me even more determined that I was going to do my best possible, striving to win the local community’s trust.
(iii) A Media Moment
On 24 March, the Manager of our Ski Lodge came into the PM team office saying that the Resort
Operator was briefing the Community at 9:00 am and invited me to come along.
This episode took place approximately 6 weeks after we had established onsite and about four weeks after reconstruction work had commenced. I felt good that it was progressing well and, based on the progress so far and good weather prevailing, I could foresee that the first stage of the project could be completed without much difficulty by the 1998 ski season. The local community by now had got know the project team well. The initial distrust of us had now been overcome. Having viewed the quality and intensity of the work program, they had recognized our genuine intentions.
I walked to the briefing, with our Lodge Manager. The room where the briefing was held is the functions hall and becomes very active during the busy ski season and various events such as the Jazz weekend.
The room had two tiers of floor; the back section of the room is approximately two steps higher than the front section of the room and separated by a balustrade at the edge of the level change. There was no seating available in the room and everybody including the Spokesperson from the Resort, their staff and the local community were all left to stand. I stood in an upper tier immediately adjoining the balustrade.
There was a reasonable turnout of the local community at the meeting. By now, I could recognise all the faces and knew most of them by their first name or their nickname.
To the surprise of all the attendees, the spokesperson commenced the briefing stating their serious concerns over the government’s delay in commencing the project and, secondly, the speed at which the work was progressing. He said there was “too little too late” being done, hence the Resort Operator saw a significant concern that adequate work required to mitigate the safety risk was unlikely to be completed by winter. Under these circumstances, the Resort Operator saw little option left but to recommend the closure of more than half of the Ski Lodges in the Resort identified as “high” risk in their Specialist
Engineer’s Report.

The Self Aware Project Manager 19
Whilst the briefing was in progress, I could feel that everybody’s eyes were in my direction. I felt red with embarrassment, and perhaps shocked. I did not feel like looking around. I can clearly remember leaning forward, resting both my hands on the balustrade in front of me and looking down on it. None of these concerns had been previously raised by the Resort Operator in meetings with the PM team.
At the end of the meeting, Resort’s spokesperson came up to me and apologised for any embarrassment caused personally to me or the team but advised that their Engineers were very concerned. With difficulty I tried to look unconcerned. Some members of the local community, as we all filed out of the room, gave me a tap on the shoulder or arm, as if to say, “Don’t take it personally”.
I returned to the office and whilst walking back I contacted my client on my mobile phone to brief him on the Resort Operator’s community briefing just concluded. My client, too, had been left unaware of this media release. On returning to the PM office, attaching a copy of the media release, I faxed a note recording my interpretation of the presentation. Approximately an hour later, my client called me to advise that the Resort Operator’s media release was likely to be aired over the 6 pm news that evening. I then briefed the project team regarding the incident, and the possibility of this being in the evening’s news coverage, giving them advice that we should not be distracted by these media releases and to maintain focus on the task at hand.
It was business as usual for the rest of the day for us. However, I felt extremely uneasy all day, thinking about the incident and fearing what might be the consequences. I also had concerns for how this could affect the morale of the workmen, already struggling from the long working days and extended time away from their families. I also thought of the effect on the lodges and the already struggling local economy.
That evening, expecting the Resort Operator’s media statement to air on the 6 pm news coverage (by the television stations) and thinking of the team’s morale, I joined the project team at the Pub. The gathering at the Pub that evening was larger than the usual group, with several members of the local community joining us too. We sat at a large table facing the TV screens. As the news bulletin commenced, the entire
Pub went quiet with everybody now concentrating on the TV screens. The news item regarding the Resort was the first piece of coverage. As in the media statement, I can vividly remember comments, such as
“too little too late” being quoted. Having listened to the coverage briefly, I couldn’t help but feel disappointed and embarrassed: firstly, thinking how the local community might now see us and, secondly, thinking of the disappointment in the entire team, who had been working tirelessly for long hours—

The Self Aware Project Manager 20 sometimes also the weekends—to speed up progress. The TV coverage was followed by articles in all the major newspapers the following morning.
Putting my personal disappointment to one side, I could not help but empathise with the lodge owners and the local community for what they might be feeling.
The self-revelation and the narratives provide a contextualisation from the PM perspective.
At the outset there has to be recognition of the Project Manager’s ‘self’ as an entity. That ‘self’ is complex. The model posits that there is a complex interaction within the ‘self’ (comprising the ‘I’ and the
‘me’), ‘the generalized other’, and the ‘self concept’ as the person comes to terms with his/her role.
From the point of view of holding oneself in role, significant questions arise in the Project Manager’s mind. Along with the usual project technical and managerial questions, the project manager is forced to imagine what others expect of him, and identify what he thinks of himself. He is forced to recognise his
‘self concept’ and his ‘generalized other’ and to come to terms with the ‘I’ and the ‘me’, accepting that all of these are possibly going through simultaneous change as a result of what he experiences (both internal and external) as the project proceeds.
Only the subject, in our case the Project Manager, can access these thoughts. Both Mead (1934) and
Cooley (1922) contend that all these thoughts are constructed and reconstructed from social experiences and activity. In this complex process, the self interaction (the process of talking to one’s self) becomes a powerful means for the reconstruction of the ‘self concept’. This process will continue throughout the waking hours of a person and may possibly continue through the subconscious hours of sleep. The internalised process of talking to one’s ‘self’ is significant, as ‘self’ continually checks and adjusts its response depending on the ‘other’s’ gestures and indications. The ‘self’ takes their attitude based on their self-indication / self-interaction. Human nature ensures that the construction and reconstruction of the
‘self concept’ is a social process, which will continually change with interaction with others and new experiences.

The Self Aware Project Manager 21
In analysing the self-revelation and narratives, we reflect on each of the three episodes in two ways.
Firstly, in the context of the Project Management body of knowledge (PM BoK) and secondly, through the lens of the role of the self, the self-concept, and the generalized other (Self Aware).
The Human Project Manager
We introduced the episodes by offering a window onto the psyche of the subject Project Manager, to both humanise and contextualise their (individual) personality. The PM BoK and much of the classical PM literature discuss PM Practitioner attributes as so called “soft” skills associated with managing people.
The PM BoK, in particular, acknowledges that this is difficult to describe, but sets desirable behavioural characteristics of PM professionals. This represents one position, as a manager of projects and people. In contrast, there is increasing awareness (and importance) of attempting to understand the lived experience of the PM practitioner. Since the research by Cicmil et al. (2006) is still relatively recent and embryonic, the broader engagement with the lived experience hitherto only existed at a conceptual level.
The lived experience can only become meaningful when one looks back at one’s self reflectively (Schutz,
1973). As our Project Manager reports in his own words, “ I approach this case study as being similar to scratching an old wound; the deeper it gets, sometimes the more painful it becomes, but the more it reveals of what is beneath my skin. Hence, I go beyond a mere technical description of the project to access aspects of my self concept as the Project Manager and my motivations for acting the way I did; drawing on my thoughts, feelings, meanings and interpretations.
”
In this illustrative case study, we limit discussion to the part of the lived experience that incorporates the professional life of the subject project manager as he comes to terms with his role after providing a candid insight into the human being behind the professional facade.
(i) On Arrival [PM BoK]
The PM BoK and related literature focus on the processes following the appointment of the project manager. The BoK identifies that the project manager should enter the execution / implementation phase of a project, armed with the Project Management Plan (PM Plan), together with the appropriate monitoring and control tools for the project.

The Self Aware Project Manager 22
This project required extensive site investigation and detailed planning. However, due to both to the urgency to mobilise onsite immediately on execution of contracts, and the PM team not having an adequate understanding of the project, the preparation of the PM Plan, setting up monitoring and control tools were planned to be undertaken following the PM team’s establishment on site.
What is significant about this episode but not readily acknowledged by the PM literature and the BoK, are the complex thought processes that go on internally within the project manager, the anticipation, confidence and thinking about the broad and specific issues at the time they engage with the project.
(i) On Arrival [Self Aware analysis]
This episode illuminates three important insights in relation to the self. Firstly, the self is not a simple single homogeneous entity but a complex structure, with various parts of the ‘self’. This episode also highlights how the ‘self’ develops with experiences and human interaction. There are many different sides to the ‘self’. The concepts of ‘generalized other’ – the other’s expectations of the person— and
‘self-concept’ also intersect and come to influence the construct of the ‘self’.
The narrative also highlights how important our ‘self concept’ is to the ‘self’ and how we come to perceive another’s mind, their thoughts of our appearance, character, manners, effectiveness, and how we become affected by it through our ‘self concept’. This episode also highlights the significance of the selfinteraction in developing one’s self concept and attitude.
Secondly, the episode allows an understanding of the development of the Project Manager’s ‘self concept’ and the different ‘generalized other’ with social experiences. An example of this is the Project
Manager’s recollection of his ‘self concept’ as taking a military or serviceman-like approach to life.
However, having worked in project management, there is a desire to challenge traditional practices and engage in innovative thinking, which is perhaps in contrast to the serviceman responding to and obeying orders. We also see that prior to arrival onsite, his evolving self-concept is impacted by anticipation, oscillating from the confidence of a competent practitioner to feelings of self-doubt, not knowing what to expect.
Thirdly, the complex and inescapable thought processes that take place, particularly when having difficulty in comprehending the situation. Not knowing what to expect, the Project Manager experiences self doubt over a range of issues: Am I capable enough? Will my job be at risk if I fail? What will my

The Self Aware Project Manager 23 wife think of me? Have I done the right thing? This is inescapable and natural when faced with situations of uncertainty as described in Dewey (1910). These thoughts were internal to the Project
Manager and only accessible by him. Whilst we all experience similar anticipatory emotion at times in our personal lives and careers, professionals rarely articulate the importance of these thoughts, as sociocultural norms may construe such articulation as a sign of weakness. Our approach attempts to break down such facades and barriers.
Even though the Project Manager had his wife besides him as they travelled to the site, and she may have understood that her husband was quiet and thoughtful, she did not have access to his thoughts. Then, immediately following his arrival onsite and with reconnaissance of the site, the thought process continued. However, the nature of the issues occupying his thought process had changed. Some of the self-doubt was no longer relevant. There was now, on one hand, a sense of excitement for the Project
Manager as he was looking forward to the imminent commencement of the project. Yet, on the other hand, he was clearly feeling somewhat apprehensive and worrying about various “what if’s” and various planning aspects of the project.
(ii) The Pub Encounter [PM BoK]
The BoK and the PM literature recognise the existence and significance of stakeholders and community engagement. There has been extensive research devoted towards identifying, then developing, strategies and methodologies for dealing with stakeholders. For instance, the PMI framework identifies the need to adequately identify the stakeholder groups and their needs, requirements and expectations. These should then be incorporated in the communications management plan. A range of methods are utilised, such as face-to-face meetings, telephone, electronic-mail to exchange information, dialogue, then record and respond. A PM framework recognises communication through several media: oral, body language, written, paper, and electronic.
Having identified the local community as an important stakeholder, the PM team’s visit to the Pub was a practical mechanism of information gathering on their needs, requirements and expectations so that community consultation process could be effectively structured. As none of the BoK or the PM literature can provide insight and instruments for dealing with a situation such as this, it has to be left to the judgement of the project manager – so without candid revelations such as those shared through the autoethnographic approach, the individual project manager can often experience feelings of isolation as the BoK does not engage with the emotional dimensions of being an effective PM practitioner.

The Self Aware Project Manager 24
(ii) The Pub Encounter [Self Aware]
Entering this episode, we evidenced that the Project Manager had a self-concept that had developed from previous events and experiences. He had a certain view of him ‘self’ and his ‘I’ had feelings of ‘myself’ as his ‘I’ appeared to others.
With the understanding that the government department and the Resort Operator had already informed the local community of the imminent start of the reconstruction work, the Project Manager had perceptions and expectations that the local community would recognise the PM team, and come to accept them. He also had intentions of getting to know these two local gentlemen. In return, by engaging with them, he hoped to seek a better understanding of the current feeling and concerns within the local community.
Given the response the PM team received from the two gentlemen, the Project Manager reports that he felt embarrassed. This is consistent with Berendzen (2006, p. 222) view, that ‘I’ can be ashamed of myself depending on how I appear to the ‘other’. As noted earlier, entering the event the Project Manager imagined the local community’s expectations as being one that would warmly welcome the team, hence a
‘generalized other’ that reflected a positive image of the ‘me’, or us, by the local community.
Following the incident and a subsequent complex social interaction process there was a different
‘generalized other’ constructed. This ‘generalized other’ reflected an imagination that the local community now saw the Project Manager and the rest of the PM team as “government’s spies”. With this perception of the attitude of the local community towards the PM team, the project Manager came to adjust his ‘self-concept’.
(iii) A Media Moment [PM BoK]
The BoK and PM literature draw attention to the project manager’s diligence towards stakeholder issues beyond the limits of the project. In such situations, the project manager is guided to maintain a watching brief.

The Self Aware Project Manager 25
(iii) A Media Moment [Self Aware]
This episode illuminates two important insights into the ‘self’. Firstly, the internal thought process that took place in the Project Manager, during a relatively difficult and embarrassing situation. Conflict, harmony, attraction, repulsion, love, surprises, shock, disappointment, embarrassment, and hatred are part of human interaction. Humans have a tendency to recognise emotion as a part of the social context they find themselves in (Prus, 1996).
Secondly, the evolving ‘self concept’ of the Project Manager emanating from this experience. He had a self concept developed from the various events and experiences. Despite the initial perception of distrust by the local community, there were now definite indications that they liked, supported and trusted the project team (witnessed by the arm touching gestures). The Project Manager reports that he felt good as he entered the media meeting, because the project was progressing well. With a sense of a muchimproved relationship with the community, he had a positive ‘self concept’. Yet this confidence was fragile. Following the resort operator’s criticism of the project’s progress, the Project Manager shares feelings of embarrassment and disappointment. Consequently, the Project manager’s self-concept had evolved - the Project Manager was imagining that the resort operator, a key stakeholder was not satisfied.
There is growing dissatisfaction that a large part of PM practice is not explained by the PM literature.
Project Management has been systemised and formalised as a ‘how to’ process that often overlooks the critical component to success, the role of the human and self-aware project manager as he and she hold themselves in the role of project manager. A convincing and emergent argument exists that the project manager’s experience in ‘holding oneself in role’ is a worthwhile area to explore, share, and discuss in order to better understand what goes on in the PM practice.
We assert that before the Project Manager can understand and explore their role, it is important that they fully understand themselves - the ‘self’ and ‘self concept’. The current PM literature clearly misses many of the human and emotional concepts that emerge from our analysis and discussion. In order to understand my ‘self’, my thoughts, my interpretations, my feelings, and my circumstances, the analysis of
Project Management Practice has to go beyond mere technical description.

The Self Aware Project Manager 26
We have shared three episodes from a real project, as seen through the eyes of the project manager and expressed or articulated in their own words. Firstly, we share a rare and inherently personal window on the experience of a particular Project Manager, incorporating his thoughts, feelings, experience, and action as he came to terms with his role. Secondly, this approach provides important insights into the
Project Manager’s ‘self’, ‘self concept’, and the ‘generalized other’. The episodes are analysed through this lens to share how they evolved with social experience in a live project.
At the broader level, we highlight the importance of professionals recognising and knowing themselves subjectively. The Self Aware Project Manager has to go beyond the temporal, actively questioning their relationship to spirituality and humanity. This is an evolving process. In order to understand one’s own choice of how to perform one’s role, there has to be recognition of the ‘self’ as an entity.
The model adopted has enabled an exploration of the project manager’s personality. It situates his ‘self’ as a professional practitioner in the context of the different roles he performs in society. As the case study illustrates, the different roles that one plays in society cannot be seen as independent and standing alone but will intersect and influence one another depending on the circumstances of a particular situation and the role that the project manager is playing. The model that we have applied highlights the importance of professionals recognizing and knowing themselves subjectively, including their spiritual and human dimensions; this is an evolving process. By contextualising the professional role as a social construct and elaborating on the experience of ‘holding oneself in role’, we take a step (and acknowledge the associated risks) in attempting to humanise PM research.
The case study discusses the self-concept the PM practitioner had at the time of entering the project and how it evolved through the experiences he encountered over three episodes presented. Many of these were challenging for the parties involved. Our Project Manager, an experienced professional engineer, oscillated between a level of technical self-confidence and varying degrees of human self-doubt. There is no question that the experiences described here, and subsequent multiple facets of his professional and personal life, will have continued to refine our Project Managers understanding of ‘self’, ‘self concept’, and the ‘generalized other’. It is through this self-interaction that he, and others like him, will evolve into a new paradigm, that of The Self Aware Project Manager.
We claim to have presented a better way to understand the PM practice by using part of the lens of the lived experience of practitioners. As the PM literature is limited in its sociological explanation of the human lived experience, we extended the search beyond the PM literature to various other bodies of

The Self Aware Project Manager 27 knowledge, including management and behavioural science. We found that there is a body of social psychology and sociology literature of particular relevance to PM.
To facilitate a better understanding of the human lived experience, there is a role for academics and researchers alike to provide a legitimate forum for practitioners to socialise their thoughts, experience, feelings and actions (Prus, 1996). We should do this, not as distant observers staring at specimens in a laboratory, but as co-subjects engaging with their subjects in their world of real projects.
Each of us has an intimate access to our own lived experience (when we pause to reflect on or observe it).
However, we may rarely have accurate access to the lived experience of another person, unless they can articulate that experience in a way that allows it to be shared. We hope, through our Project Manager and the three vignettes presented that we have demonstrated the importance of this sharing to build capacity in well rounded and balanced professionas. There has to be recognition of each individual human’s ‘self’ as an entity. It is also on the basis of one’s own inner state that, when sharing a ‘life experience’ with others, we are able to intersubjectively infer from their outward expressions a way of accessing their inners states
(Prus, 1996). There is inseparability of the self from the other. The ‘self’ is rooted and thoroughly grounded in people’s experience in the interactive community of others.
To be properly positioned to understand and explain their human lived experience, one needs to connect with and understand the thoughts and feelings of other Project Managers, engaging with the meanings the participants ascribe to their actions and experience. This approach offers a preferred way to drawing much richer insight by giving project participants a voice to talk about their own thoughts, experiences, feelings, and actions.
Berendzen JC. 2006. Satre and the Communicative Paradigm in Critical Theory. Philosophy Today
50(2):190-197.
Bergson H. 1911. Matter and Memory. Paul NM, Palmer WS, translator. London: George Allen Unwin.
Bittner CJ. 1931. G. H Mead's Social Concept of Self. Sociology and Social Research 16:6-22.
Blomquist T, Hällgren M, Nilsson A, Söderholm A. 2010. Project-as-Practice: In Search of Project
Management Research That Matters. Project Management Journal 41(1):5-16.
Cicmil S. 2006. Understanding Project Management Practice through interpretative and critical research perspectives. Project Management Journal 37(2):27.

The Self Aware Project Manager 28
Cicmil S, Hodgson D. 2006. New Possibilities for Project Management Theory A Critical Engagement.
Project Management Journal 37(3):111-122.
Cicmil S, Williams T, Thomas J, Hodgson D. 2006. Rethinking Project Management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management 24(8):675-686.
Cooley CH. 1922. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
De Gooijer J. 2009. The murder in the merger: a systems psychodynamic exploration of a corporate merger. London: Karnac.
Descartes. 1954. Descartes Philosophical Writings. Anscome E, Geach PT, translator. Anscome E, Geach
PT, editors. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Limited.
Dewey J. 1910. How We Think. Lexington: Heath.
Ellis C, Bochner AP. 2000. Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexology: Researcher as Subject. In:
Norman K D, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications. p 733 - 768.
Epstein S. 1973. The Self Concept Revisited Or a Theory of a Theory American Psychologist
1973(28):404-414.
Gadamer HG. 2004. Truth and Method / Hans-Georg Gadamer. Weinsheimer J, Marshall DG, translator.
London: Continuum
Gecas V. 1982. The Self Concept. Annual Review of Sociology 8:1-33.
Gherardi S. 2006. Organizational knowledge: the texture of workplace learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Goffman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Double Day.
Goffman E. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper Colophon.
Hanaki T. 2006. Transformation of self-identity through intercultural experience: Stories of self from
Japanese students in a United States Midwestern university [Ph.D]. United States -- Ohio: Ohio
University.
Heidegger M. 2008. Being and Time, Translation of German Seventh Edition of Sein und Zeit
Macquarrie J, Robinson E, translator: HarperCollins Harper Perennial Modern Thought.
James W. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, [1955].
James W. 1910. Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Holt.
Kinch JW. 1963. A Formalized Theory of the Self Concept The American Journal of Sociology
68(4):481-486.
Lawrence WG. 1979. A Concept for Today: The Management of Oneself in Role. In: Lawrence WG, editor. Exploring Individual and Organizational Boundaries: A Tavistock Open Systems
Approach. London: Karnac. p 278.

The Self Aware Project Manager 29
Lundquist C. 2008. Being Torn: Toward a Phenomenology of Unwanted Pregnancy. Hypatia: Wiley-
Blackwell. p 137-155.
Mead GH. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Morris CW, editor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mead GH. 1936. Movement of Thought through the Nineteenth Century. Moore MH, editor. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Menzies IL. 1988. Containing anxiety in institutions : selected essays London: Free Association Books.
269 p.
Morris PWG. 1994. The management of projects: Thomas Telford Services. 358 p.
Prus R. 1996. Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research - Intersubjectivity and the Study of
Human Lived Experience. New York: State University of New York Press.
Scheff TJ. 2005. Looking-Glass Self: Goffman as Symbolic Interactionist. Symbolic Interaction
28(2):147.
Schutz A. 1973. Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. Natanson M, editor. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Shaffer LS. 2005. From mirror self-recognition to the looking-glass self: Exploring the Justification
Hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61(1):47.
Turner JH, Beeghley L, Powers CH. 1995. The Emergence of Sociological Theory: Wadsworth
Publishing Company. van Manen M. 1990. Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy.
Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Winter M, Smith C, Cooke-Davies T, Cicmil S. 2006a. The importance of `process' in Rethinking Project
Management: The story of a UK Government-funded research network. International Journal of
Project Management 24(8):650-662.
Winter M, Smith C, Morris P, Cicmil S. 2006b. Directions for future research in project management:
The main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal of Project
Management 24(8):638-649.