Introduction

It is increasingly common for work activities to take place in projects, and projects are therefore of growing importance as sites for career development, for leading and managing professional workers, and for individual and organizational development. Links between human resource management (HRM) activities that occur on projects, and their broader implications for project-based organizations in terms of knowledge, learning, and competence development, are therefore important foci for research. Projects are also important from the perspective of the well-being, ethical treatment, and motivation of workers.

Projects are established within and between organizational functions (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011) but also span organizational boundaries (Lundin & Steinthórsson, Reference Lundin and Steinthórsson2003; Swart & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014). Projects involve people from within and between organizational departments and also within and between disciplinary specialties. The implications of project-based organizing for managing human resources would appear to be significant (Huemann, Reference Huemann2015; Keegan, Huemann, & Turner, Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012; Palm & Lindahl, Reference Palm and Lindahl2015; Söderlund & Bredin, Reference Söderlund and Bredin2006; Vicentini & Boccardelli, Reference Vicentini, Boccardelli and Russ2014), and yet traditional HRM models, where projects are not a key consideration, continue to dominate mainstream HRM theorizing (Swart & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014). In mainstream HRM theorizing, traditional long-term and stable employment relationships are assumed and focal organizations are those with clearly defined internal and external boundaries.

Project management literature has also traditionally downplayed what could be called the human factor – human capital or people aspects of project organization and management (Keegan & Turner, Reference Keegan, Turner and Turner2003). A shift from the mainly technical to increasingly people-focused aspects of project management has, however, been discernible in the past decade (Huemann, Keegan, & Turner, Reference Huemann, Keegan and Turner2007). Project management researchers have started to explore more systematically HRM issues and their possible contribution to the performance of organizations that do most of their work in projects (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011). The systematic study of project professionals’ careers has developed recently, reflecting an increased appreciation of the importance of projects as a major part of many organizations (Crawford, French, & Lloyd-Walker, Reference Crawford, French and Lloyd-Walker2013; Hölzle, Reference Hölzle2010) and the resulting increased importance of HRM issues and “people capabilities” (Bredin, Reference Bredin2008) required of project-based organizations is slowly increasing. Similarly, even though HRM theorists have not, to date, fully embraced the importance of the project context for practices, processes, and outcomes, this too appears to be changing as studies of HRM become more contextually sensitive. We are witnessing what might be regarded as the beginning of a general reorientation away from universal best practices and toward more contextually sensitive HRM research (Boxall & Purcell, Reference Boxall and Purcell2011; Kroon & Paauwe, Reference Kroon and Paauwe2014; Paauwe, Reference Paauwe2004; Watson, Reference Watson2010).

Our goal in this chapter is to provide an added stimulus to recent efforts to bridge the separate literatures of HRM and OPM. While the links between these fields are slowly attracting sustained interest from researchers operating from both domains (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011; Huemann, Reference Huemann2015; Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012; Pinto, Dawood, & Pinto, Reference Pinto, Dawood and Pinto2014; Swart & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014), much remains to be done in terms of research on HRM practices and processes in a project-based context. We therefore discuss findings from recent research on HRM in Organizational Project Management (OPM) and identify key themes and areas for further investigation.

This chapter is organized along two major themes that are of significance in recent work on HRM in OPM. First, we identify a distinction in the literature regarding HRM at the project level (Huemann, Reference Huemann2015; Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012; Palm & Lindahl, Reference Palm and Lindahl2015) and HRM at the broader organizational level (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011; Swart & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014). While highlighting research that deals with the processes and practices at both levels, we also discern a growing interest in the project level. The second major theme is the multiactor nature of HRM (Meijerink, Bondarouk, & Looise, Reference Meijerink, Bondarouk and Looise2013), which is perhaps more evident in project-based organizations than in other settings. We discuss research that indicates there is considerable complexity in terms of HRM influence distribution (Dany, Guedri, & Hatt, Reference Dany, Guedri and Hatt2008) in a project context and review findings from research on the actors involved in project-based HRM and the challenges they face. We then draw out the dominant theoretical lenses used to study HRM in terms of OPM. We highlight gaps that exist between these approaches in the project management literature and those evident in the broader HRM literature. On this basis, we offer a research agenda for how to go forward and deepen knowledge and insights on this important area of project management and HRM research.

HRM, Projects, and Organizations

We can distinguish between two foci in the literature on HRM and project-based organizations. One focus is that of HRM processes and practices on projects. The second is a focus on the organizational level whereby links between HRM in projects and HRM issues in the broader organization such as corporate strategy, strategic and functional capability development, and organizational development, are important (Bredin, Reference Bredin2008; Swart & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014). Our contention is that both these foci are vital to understanding the impact of HRM on OPM in practice and in theory.

HR Processes and Practices on Projects

Until recently, the project has to some extent been seen as a black box in terms of HRM. This is likely because of the inherently temporary or finite nature of projects (cf. Bakker, Reference Bakker2010; Turner & Müller, Reference Turner and Müller2003; Winch, Reference Winch2014) and the assumption that HRM policies and practices should have a permanent character. This assumption is in line with the fact that HRM research developed over several decades in the context of functional and permanent organizational structures and these continue to dominate how HRM is understood to work (Keegan & Boselie, Reference Keegan and Boselie2006). An exploration of the project itself as a site for HRM-related activity has in turn been viewed in terms of generally narrow technical aspects such as, for example, training techniques (Tabassi & Bakar, Reference Tabassi and Bakar2009) and safety requirements for projects (e.g., Lai, Liu, & Ling, Reference Lai, Liu and Ling2011).

Explicitly conceptualizing the project as a temporary organization (Bakker, Reference Bakker2010; Huemann, Reference Huemann2015; Turner & Müller, Reference Turner and Müller2003; Winch, Reference Winch2014) has created a basis for researchers exploring HR processes and practices specific to projects in a more strategic manner (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011), and also in terms of broader issues such as the ethical treatment of workers and their well-being (Huemann, Reference Huemann2007; Turner, Huemann, & Keegan, Reference Turner, Huemann and Keegan2008). Articulating the idea of the project as a workplace (Palm & Lindahl, Reference Palm and Lindahl2015 or as a career (Huemann, Reference Huemann2015) changes the focus on project-specific HRM practices and processes from a largely technical and resource allocation issue to a focus on whether and how project-specific practices contribute to the long-term development of personnel, satisfaction of career goals, and achievement of competence development of broader relevance to the organization. The project, when viewed as a temporary workplace, can be seen as a specific work context with characteristics including high goal orientation, uncertainty, high degree of responsibility, and multirole assignments. These features create opportunities but also challenges for project professionals. Following Huemann (Reference Huemann2015), the project as a workplace has the following characteristics as presented in Table 11.1.

For example, according to Asquin et al. (Reference Asquin, Garel and Picq2010), projects elicit high levels of individual commitment because the time-limited nature of projects creates urgency and stirs individuals to action, giving them clear objectives to be fulfilled against challenging deadlines and through teamwork. A similar conclusion is drawn by Lindgren and Packendorff (Reference Lindgren and Packendorff2006), who studied project personnel in an IT consultancy context. They found that the project work practices are premised on rationality, efficiency, and control as well as high levels of personal commitment to project work. As a result of project work structures eliciting high degrees of personal responsibility, researchers hold that the challenges of project overload are especially high in organizations that perform small- to medium-sized external projects, where project personnel work simultaneously in more than one project (Lindgren & Packendorff, Reference Lindgren and Packendorff2006; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Huemann and Keegan2008; Zika-Viktorsson, Sundström, & Engwall, Reference Zika-Viktorsson, Sundström and Engwall2006). Project personnel need to take greater responsibility for their work (in terms of task completion), their work–life balance (including their personal health-related well-being), and their careers (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Huemann and Keegan2008).

However, projects also represent opportunities for project professionals. If projects, supported by professional project management methods, are introduced in an organization, this can lead to increased commitment, dynamism, support, and solidarity among personnel working in project teams toward joint goals (Hovmark & Nordqvist, Reference Hovmark and Nordqvist1996). Projects are motivating for project personnel (Bredin, Reference Bredin2008). The time-limited goal-orientation they construct provides the members of the project organization with clear objectives to be fulfilled using teamwork. Project work can create a sense of meaning for project personnel as their own contribution to achieving project outcomes is often highly visible for them due to the immediate and holistic aspects of project work compared with functionally structured work (Huemann, Reference Huemann2015). However, using projects to organize work requires new and different HRM practices and processes compared with traditional, functionally structured organizations.

Huemann et al. (Reference Huemann, Keegan and Turner2007) developed a broad framework for considering HRM practices and processes specific to the project, including processes for assigning personnel to projects, for managing performance on projects (e.g., developing, appraising, and rewarding), and for dispersing personnel from projects. Assigning personnel to the project constitutes the project from a human resource perspective and helps the project to come into existence. While formal assignment processes often exist in practice, they found that practices and processes for dispersing personnel at the end of projects are often not explicitly organized by companies. The dispersal function we envisage may be similar in nature and principle to the outplacement function in traditional organizations, where employees are facilitated to move from work to work in organizations with active employability processes (Peters & Lam, Reference Peters and Lam2015). Failure to actively facilitate project-to-project mobility creates the potential for insecurity among personnel and loss of valuable knowledge and expertise acquired by personnel who leave the organization at this time. This is also the case for project personnel working on projects on a secondment or contracting basis which is quite common (Keegan & Turner, Reference Keegan and Turner2001).

The topic of project-related training and development (e.g., Brière, Proulx, Flores, & Laporte, Reference Brière, Proulx, Flores and Laporte2015 Buganza, Kalchschmidt, Bartezzaghi, & Amabile, Reference Buganza, Kalchschmidt, Bartezzaghi and Amabile2013; Tabassi & Bakar, Reference Tabassi and Bakar2009; Tabassi, Ramli, & Bakar, Reference Tabassi, Ramli and Bakar2012) has also been described in some detail in the literature. Research by Tabassi and Bakar (Reference Tabassi and Bakar2009) suggests that most of the workers involved in construction projects are unskilled and that fundamental problems and barriers exist in terms of offering integrated training for project personnel. Barriers include:

Their research suggests that 77 percent of construction projects faced financial problems due to the use of unskilled project personnel and indicates that skilled labor plays an important role in decreasing the cost of construction projects.

Research by Buganza et al. (Reference Buganza, Kalchschmidt, Bartezzaghi and Amabile2013) pointed to the important effect that training can have in improving project manager behaviors. Their research provided evidence that the relationship between training effectiveness and the frequency of displays of effective managerial behavior is influenced by the compatibility between training activity and the role of trainees on the one hand and the context in which trainees operate on the other. They suggest organizations should pay close attention when designing (managerial) training activities so these are consistent with trainees’ roles and the environmental conditions in which trainees operate, as these have an impact on the effectiveness of the training.

Reward and performance management practices and processes, including appraisal, are somewhat underdeveloped as topics in both mainstream HRM writing on the project context and in project management literature dealing with HRM issues. Huemann et al. (Reference Huemann, Keegan and Turner2007) found that project managers have limited formal discretion for rewarding personnel for project-related performance. Their discretion extends mainly to formal use of budgets for celebrating project successes (e.g., achieving a milestone) or informally using their influence to suggest to others (e.g., line managers) that a project professional deserves some form of additional compensation. Considerably more research is needed on issues such as appraisal and reward practices and processes on projects.

Table 11.2 lists the practices and processes associated with HRM in projects reported in the literature.

HRM Practices and Processes Linking the Project and the Organization

Where project-based organizations and HRM are a focus of attention, Vicentini and Boccardelli (Reference Vicentini, Boccardelli and Russ2014) note that issues are often framed in terms of latent forms of organization of relevance to projects. Theorists therefore focus on the (more) stable context within which projects are embedded including, for example, project ecologies (Grabher, Reference Grabher2004) and networks (Swart & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014). Researchers have sought to determine how the broader structures (e.g., networks and project ecologies) provide the backdrop to finite project-based relationships and offer continuity and stability for the finite and transient conditions facing mobile project workers (Borg & Söderlund, Reference Borg and Söderlund2015).

Processes and practices linking HRM in the project and HRM in the permanent organization are described in literature (Huemann, Reference Huemann2013; Huemann et al., Reference Huemann, Keegan and Turner2007; Swart, & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Huemann and Keegan2008). From the perspective of the broader organization, Swart and Kinnie (Reference Swart and Kinnie2014) conceptualize a networked HRM model in which human capital can be deployed by organizations operating within a network at a network level as well as within individual firms (Swart, & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014). Their work highlights the reliance of the network on the human capital of each firm while at the same time focusing on the network implications of human capital development and deployment. Bredin (Reference Bredin2008), in a similar fashion, addresses the question of how project organizations might build broad capabilities for managing projects by exploiting more effectively people capability across projects and maintaining a focus on the strategic interactions between different forms of capability. People capability is seen as emerging at the intersection of strategic capability, project capability, and functional capability (Bredin, Reference Bredin2008).

In this stream of work, HRM practices and processes at the organizational level – at the cross-project and even cross-organizational levels – are the key focus. For example, Ballesteros-Pérez, González-Cruz, and Fernández-Diego (Reference Ballesteros-Pérez, González-Cruz and Fernández-Diego2012) discuss the use of sociometric techniques for HRM allocation across multiple projects. This method supports the project manager in decision making regarding the selection of the project team, from the perspective of social interactions. Ballesteros-Pérez et al. (Reference Ballesteros-Pérez, González-Cruz and Fernández-Diego2012) aimed to further develop the sociometric technique, focusing on the need to assign staff to different projects from a pool of available human resources, with the objective to choose the most effective combination of people from the perspective of social interaction.

One of the major themes dealt with in recent literature is the necessity of conceptualizing the integration between HRM practices at the level of the project (e.g., assigning personnel to a project) and the broader implications of such decisions at individual and organizational levels. The links between specific project assignments and career development of the individual (Calamel et al., Reference Calamel, Defélix, Picq and Retour2012; Crawford et al., Reference Crawford, French and Lloyd-Walker2013) or knowledge sharing and transfer for the organization (e.g., Borg & Söderlund, Reference Borg and Söderlund2015) are some examples. In terms of HRM in the project and links to careers, Dainty, Raidén, and Neale (Reference Dainty, Raidén and Neale2009) describe the importance of relationships between the deployment of project personnel and broader career management processes at the organizational level. They suggest that for effective management, a systematic and concurrent combination of organizational, project, and employee data is required in order to make appropriate resource allocation decisions. Similarly, Bredin (Reference Bredin2008, p. 573) argues that “finding ways to match the short-term requirement of the projects, with the careers and individual development of employees ought to be important activities of the people management system” (emphasis added). Keegan et al. (Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012) support this idea with their assertion that decisions made regarding project assignment are of strategic importance to meeting individual career interests of project professionals. A development strategy for project personnel may be premised on projects being explicitly used as learning opportunities and stepping stones within the career paths that organizations offer. Career systems and incentive systems suitable for supporting OPM could therefore be built on using experiences developed on projects in different career fields to support project management careers and professionalization (Hölzle, Reference Hölzle2010; Jones & DeFillippi, Reference Jones and DeFillippi1996; Larsen, Reference Larsen2002).

Decisions regarding the assignment of personnel to projects also have fairness implications for employees and managers and may shape employee diversity outcomes at the organizational level. The reasons for this include that informal processes emerge from empirical evidence as playing an important role in project assignment (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011; Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012). As employees seek to arrange assignment to projects for personal and career-related reasons, they are motivated to be proactive in seeking out suitable assignments and often need to manage these processes at an informal and highly decentralized level. This creates a possible disconnect between the formal processes of project assignment arranged at an organizational and at an intended level (Purcell, & Hutchinson, Reference Purcell and Hutchinson2007) and practices realized by the actions of decentralized actors including employees (Arthur & DeFillippi, Reference Arthur and DeFillippi1998; Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012). Therefore, an area of significant research in terms of links between HRM in projects and HRM at the broader organizational level is the research describing processes and practices for the management of careers in project-based organizations.

In light of this, researchers have recently suggested a number of specific interventions for career development that consider the links between project-specific and broader organizational aspects. For example, in a recent study, Calamel et al. (Reference Calamel, Defélix, Picq and Retour2012) describe practices including the appointment of career-tracking officers to monitor project professionals’ movements between projects and career implications. They emphasize the importance of regular interviews for evaluating project professionals’ desire to move from one project to another. Crawford et al. (Reference Crawford, French and Lloyd-Walker2013) also identify the need for tailored career interventions, including the appointment of mentors, to address specific issues facing project managers with different characteristics, i.e., in terms of gender and age. Hölzle (Reference Hölzle2010) identifies career interventions for developing social and leadership competencies of project professionals and recommends integration of a mentoring model for project managers with mandatory support of project managers by higher-ranked project managers. This is needed so that development on projects is integrated into overall development in terms of the strategic needs of the organization.

While the literature indicates the importance generally of linking HRM in the project with career development issues, we think care is required in avoiding the suggestion that one-size-fits-all frameworks necessarily work. Bredin and Söderlund (Reference Bredin and Söderlund2013), for example, theorize that the type of project-based organization might moderate the appropriateness of particular career management models. They differentiate two archetypes of career development models known as the competence strategy model and talent management model. The emphasis of the competence strategy model lies on the needs of the organization, the strategic evolution, and growth areas. In contrast, the talent management model focuses more on the individual requirements and the ways to support the individual development process and less on the strategic evolution of the firm.

In earlier work, Bredin and Söderlund (Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011) found that line managers act as both technical leaders as well as mentors to project workers. This happens in intrafunctional projects while line managers in interfunctional projects tend to focus on longer-term competence development and career development in their units. The latter focus less on technical leadership and day-to-day mentoring activities. As such, their empirical research suggests that the specific type of career support required is likely to differ from setting to setting.

In their empirical study, Keegan et al. (Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012) highlighted the HRM roles of both line and project managers. They saw a clear HRM role for project managers in terms of employee well-being and career development, given the proximity of project managers to employees and their line of sight to employees’ career-related concerns and decisions. They identified tensions between the long- and short-term foci of project managers’ HRM responsibilities as a source of potential difficulties, with career development of particular concern for project workers as an issue spanning different specific projects.

Dainty et al. (Reference Dainty, Raidén and Neale2009) highlight the interactions between practices for project assignment and practices for career development to make an explicit link between what happens in projects and how this influences competence development more broadly for OPM. They recommend practices for aligning project assignment practices to ensure individual and organizational needs are dual foci of project assignment and career decisions. Broader fairness and transparency as well as equity issues involved in project assignment decisions and their links with diversity management and career development were also noted in the study by Keegan et al. (Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012).

Recent research theorizing on the kinds of competencies project professionals require for successful careers raises some interesting issues. For example, based on an exploratory study of workers’ interpretations of the nature of their work in engineering consultancies, Borg and Söderlund (Reference Borg and Söderlund2015) identify levels of “liminality competence” of different project workers. These are seen as influential in how workers approach assignments. They are also relevant for workers’ framing of assignments, and this in turn shapes the opportunities they see and can exploit in terms of their careers and opportunities. These competencies are therefore important for organizations in managing knowledge transfer. Liminality competence refers to the ability of project workers to cope with the transient nature of project work, an issue also raised in research by Keegan and Turner (Reference Keegan, Turner and Turner2003). While Bredin and Söderlund (Reference Bredin, Söderlund, Klimoski, Dugan, Messikomer and Chiocchio2014) do not provide concrete suggestions for how HRM professionals might support the development of liminality competence of employees, their work suggests a potential for further theoretical and practical developments in this area. Huemann (Reference Huemann2015) describes more generally that project-oriented careers are fragmented careers and stresses that the responsibility for career development rests primarily with the project professional, which points to a need for research that examines how HRM professionals align to these emerging types of career models where liminality, transience, and fragmentation are key features. Finally, the specifics of dynamic bridging HRM processes and practices may also change with the project maturity of an organization (Huemann, Reference Huemann2010).

HRM Actors in OPM

The second major theme emerging in recent years is that of HRM actors in project management and the roles they play. The prevailing understanding of HRM actors in mainstream HRM literature is that multiactor HRM systems are important (Meijerink et al., Reference Meijerink, Bondarouk and Looise2013), and also that there is a golden triangle between HRM practitioners (specialists), line managers, and employees (Jackson, Schuler, & Werner, Reference Jackson, Schuler and Werner2011).

This golden triangle provides a dominant framing of HRM actors and influences distribution (Dany et al., Reference Dany, Guedri and Hatt2008). It has become gradually translated into a generalized conceptualization that HRM specialists develop intended policies, line managers are mainly responsible for actual or implemented practices, and employees perceive practices (Nishii & Wright, Reference Nishii and Wright2007; Purcell & Hutchinson, Reference Purcell and Hutchinson2007).

Empirical research in the context of project-based organizations suggests a much wider range of actors as having roles in both policy development, and in HRM enactment and implementation tasks in OPM. Actors identified include line managers, senior managers, project managers, specialist HR personnel, and employees (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011; Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012; Lai et al., Reference Lai, Liu and Ling2011). Given the high levels of decentralization in terms of tasks and supervision, and the extent of boundary spanning work activity in project-based organizations, HRM tasks and influence over policies and practices appear to be quite diffuse and spread across actors in and beyond the HR department and line management.

A useful framework for capturing this increased complexity is the “HR Quadriad” developed by Bredin and Söderlund (Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011), which highlights the roles of line managers, employees, project managers and HR specialists. Huemann’s work (Reference Huemann2010) further identifies the diffuse nature of actors involved in HRM when she describes the importance of the portfolio group, expert pool managers, the project management office, and the project academy, as shaping HRM processes and practices. The project owner/client may also play an important role in HRM practices and processes, and project workers/team members are clearly involved in implementing HRM tasks (Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012).

HRM Task and Influence Distribution

The project-based organization is an especially challenging HRM context because of the interplay of actors carrying out different HRM tasks and influencing different levels of policy and practice development. Added to this, very little empirical research has been carried out to date on the overarching role of the HRM function in this context, or how HRM specialists coordinate the activities of different actors. Bredin and Söderlund (Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2013) stress that HRM should be a collaboration between HR specialists, line managers, project managers, and project workers. They differentiate two configurations of HRM coordination based on whether project work is intrafunctional or interfunctional. As more work in an organization is carried out in projects, more of the HRM responsibilities of the HRM specialist are handed over to others, including line managers and project workers and, to some extent, to project managers (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2013). To the extent that situational factors encourage a task rather than people orientation in project manager leadership behavior (Yukl, Reference Yukl, Rowe and Guerrero2012), this could form a barrier to effective HRM in an OPM context. The role of the HRM department is also clearly changing in this context, but details are lacking regarding precisely what this means for HRM actors or the possible configurations of HRM-related activities.

In the mainstream literature, there is an increased tendency to highlight the devolution of HRM to line managers. In the project-based context, the HRM department needs to set policy and provide guidance, consultancy, and advice not only for line managers but for all actors involved. Given the diffusion of responsibilities, it is also likely it needs to advocate and protect employee well-being and act as an arbiter in disputes and conflicts (Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Huemann and Keegan2008). Whether and how it does this remains unclear from current research. Limited empirical research does suggest there are contextual differences in HRM role distribution and interplay, depending on the organizational structure of the company and particularly on the kinds of projects that are undertaken (Keegan & Turner, Reference Keegan and Turner2002). The average size and duration of projects and the understanding or philosophy of the HRM department all appear to play a role in how HRM in these settings takes shape and can, or does, influence OPM (Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011; Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012).

The HR roles of project managers remains somewhat unclear from current literature. Keegan et al. (Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012) argue that project managers carry out HRM tasks de facto, which is unsurprising given their daily contact with and influence over the motivation and performance of project workers. However, they also acknowledge that in most cases project managers are not given formal responsibility for HRM. Bredin and Söderlund (Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011) also see a possible role for project managers, but emphasize the changing role of line managers much more in their framework, leaving the HRM role of project managers somewhat underspecified.

Brière et al. (Reference Brière, Proulx, Flores and Laporte2015) conceptualize at a general and quite abstract level a range of competencies that project managers operating in international nongovernmental organizations need, including change management, team building, and communication skills. Zhang, Zuo, and Zillante (Reference Zhang, Zuo and Zillante2013) studied the social competencies of project managers in construction projects and argue that leading others and social awareness is important for project managers.

To the extent that project managers’ leadership behavior influences project workers’ abilities, motivation and opportunities to perform, the HRM roles of project managers remains a critical issue. Researchers to date, with few exceptions, have not yet adequately explored this issue. The project management office may play a more or less important role in the HRM system depending on the level of readiness of the HRM department to embrace a project-orientation (Huemann, Reference Huemann2010). Academic research highlights the importance of the HRM tasks by the PMO office, especially if the HRM department does not provide adequate HRM support for OPM (Huemann, Reference Huemann2010; Huemann, Reference Huemann2015). To support a high level of project orientation, Huemann (Reference Huemann2010) suggests that the HRM function needs to be structured as a project-oriented HRM unit. This involves a more networked form of operating in terms of dealing with and supporting a wider range of HRM relevant actors including project managers and workers. Research by Swart and Kinnie (Reference Swart and Kinnie2014) also provides suggestions in this direction.

The distance of HR specialists from operations in intrafunctional project settings can prevent the effective coordination of different HR actors. Bredin and Söderlund (Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011), for example, showed that HRM specialists are valued as expert advisors in interfunctional project settings, and that HR should acknowledge and support HRM roles of project managers in intrafunctional settings more substantially, a finding also supported by the work of Keegan et al. (Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012).

Swart and Kinnie (Reference Swart and Kinnie2014) conceptualize the boundaries of contemporary HRM models at an extraorganizational network level and argue that as work activities take place across organizations in networks, appropriate HRM models need to be developed for these contemporary contexts. They identify three models: buffering the network, borrowing, and balancing.

Finally, the operationalization of ”management by projects” as an explicit HRM strategy impacts the organization of HRM, especially in terms of the HR department. The HR department can no longer be seen as a functionally organized administrative function. It should acquire an increasingly networked character to manage cooperation among multiple actors in a distributed, networked HRM setting.

Arguably, the HRM department must itself operate in a project-oriented manner, and the HR department will increasingly need to apply projects and professional project management to organize the required cooperation between actors in networked project-based settings (Huemann, Reference Huemann2015). To date however, few studies of HRM in OPM have addressed these emerging issues.

A more networked form of HRM system with a clear interplay between HR managers, the project management office, and project managers is perhaps required. This would facilitate a viable structure for raising the HR-related issues that support OPM, project managers, project workers, and others operating in tandem in this context. The systematic incorporation of project learning opportunities, and seeing projects as sources of potential employee motivation and opportunity to perform (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, Reference Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg and Kalleberg2000) would be more likely to occur.

In addition, the HRM function could play a role in addressing systematically the well-being and personal challenges of managing projects for project personnel (Pinto et al., Reference Pinto, Dawood and Pinto2014). These challenges emanate from the uncertainty/novelty of project work, fragmented careers, and multirole assignments (Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Huemann and Keegan2008; Zika-Viktorsson et al., Reference Zika-Viktorsson, Sundström and Engwall2006). The search for balance between organizational and employee well-being needs (Francis and Keegan, 2006), which exist in a paradoxical relationship to each other (Aust, Brandl, & Keegan, Reference Aust, Brandl and Keegan2015), would be actively stimulated when the HRM specialists focus on employees also as a key stakeholder.

Discussion

In the past decade, more attention has been paid by researchers to HRM in project-based organizations. However, despite calls for increased contextual sensitivity on the part of HRM researchers (Boxall & Purcell, Reference Boxall and Purcell2011; Keegan & Boselie, Reference Keegan and Boselie2006; Paauwe, Reference Paauwe2004), the context of project work is still not a mainstream topic in HRM research. While there is an increased interest in project work and the project work environment (Vicentini & Boccardelli, Reference Vicentini, Boccardelli and Russ2014), HRM theorists do not focus a great deal on this context, and mainstream HRM theorizing is still based mainly on assumptions that tend not to hold in the project context (Huemann et al., Reference Huemann, Keegan and Turner2007; Swart & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014). From recent research, which we have discussed throughout the chapter, some recurring issues arise that merit discussion in the following sections.

Based on an examination of research linking HRM and OPM, more attention should be given to HR practices and processes in projects. We do not mean that attention should be paid only to the technical aspects of project management, such as allocating people to projects using simulation models, or project-specific technical training. Rather, attention should be focused on the importance of the project as a site of work activity from the perspectives of motivation, ability, opportunity, well-being, fairness, and development, which are core to HRM theorizing in general. Undoubtedly, some of these issues are beginning to attract researchers’ attention (Bredin, Reference Bredin2008; Pinto et al., Reference Pinto, Dawood and Pinto2014), but much remains to be done.

A stronger emphasis on HRM specifically focused at the project level would be a positive development for the following reasons. First, the current discussion in mainstream HRM theorizing focuses on the difference between intended and implemented HRM practices (Nishii & Wright, Reference Nishii and Wright2007; Purcell & Hutchinson, Reference Purcell and Hutchinson2007). A focus on HRM activities specifically in projects can address a gap between the kinds of HRM processes and practices at an organizational-, network-, and macrostructure level as reported by HRM managers, and those practices and processes that multiple actors are engaged in day to day, in terms of project HRM. Line managers and project managers have different perspectives on how HRM is implemented. These perspectives need to be acknowledged and, where necessary, aligned.

Second, HRM practices at the project level are the practices that are most proximal to workers. These are the practices that workers perceive and encounter. They may therefore have large effects in terms of outcomes of interest, including project and organizational performance. In terms of the well-being of project professionals, fairness and the sustainability of work practices are important (Ehnert, Reference Ehnert2009). More team-based research would also be valuable, given the growing prominence of project-based work in general, and especially in knowledge-based industries.

However, to the extent that HRM theorists have begun to systematically address the project work context, in the past few years we observe that this has mainly been from a managerialist perspective (Delbridge & Keenoy, Reference Delbridge and Keenoy2010; Greenwood, Reference Greenwood2013). The emphasis is focused on how to improve the functioning of organizations by developing appropriate HRM systems to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of resource deployment and development. Swart and Kinnie (Reference Swart and Kinnie2014, p. 293) argue, for example, that “[t]he raison d’être of a configuration of HRM practices is to enable effective working both individually and collectively,” and put forward an organizational and managerial perspective.

The theoretical perspectives that dominate the study of HRM in OPM are quite narrow compared with the range of theories used generally in the HRM field that include theoretical approaches from both managerial and critical perspectives (Deetz, Reference Deetz1996). While managerial and unitarist perspectives tend to dominate HRM research (Keegan & Boselie, Reference Keegan and Boselie2006; Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, Andrade, & Drake, Reference Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, Andrade and Drake2009; Marchington, Reference Marchington2015), there has been a broadening of perspectives in recent years to include critical HRM perspectives (Delbridge & Keenoy, Reference Delbridge and Keenoy2010); ethical HRM perspectives (Greenwood, Reference Greenwood2013; Guest & Woodrow, Reference Guest and Woodrow2012); and perspectives such as sustainable HRM (Ehnert, Reference Ehnert2009; Kramar, Reference Kramar2014). To date, these theoretical lenses have not been widely adopted by theorists studying HRM in OPM.

One exception is the article by Asquin et al. (Reference Asquin, Garel and Picq2010) exploring the question of when project-based management causes distress to actors in the organization. The authors focus on the emergence of “dual” organizations and argue that the use of projects to achieve competitive advantage has a cost for organizations as well as employees in HR systems. Both have to evolve in order to accommodate new and more cross-cutting operating systems that challenge their personnel in many ways. Considering that permanent and temporary organization coexist, they argue that the HRM function needs to move from a uniform bureaucratic model to flexible and tailor-made, temporary, project-based HR support: “[t]hus an organization’s ability to operate effectively on a cross-functional basis relies on the ability of HRM systems to incentivize and recognize the human resources involved in activities that diverge from the standard organizational models” (Asquin et al., Reference Asquin, Garel and Picq2010, p. 172). There is much opportunity still for enriching the field of HRM in OPM with insights on issues such as worker health-related well-being associated with HRM systems (Ehrnrooth & Björkman, Reference Ehrnrooth and Björkman2012) and sustainable employment practices (Ehnert, Reference Ehnert2009) in project-based organizations. Whether and how discourses of HRM and/or OPM enable or constrain balanced attention to well-being and ethical HRM issues as well as performance HRM issues is a question that requires further exploration. If studies on the emerging “textscape” of HRM business partnering are an accurate reflection, then prevailing managerial discourses of HRM constrain discussion and debate on well-being and ethical HRM issues (Keegan & Francis, Reference Keegan and Francis2010). Given that project-based organizations are characterized by both uncertainty and ambiguity, which is likely to influence employees’ experiences of their workplace in not always a positive way (e.g., Pinto et al., Reference Pinto, Dawood and Pinto2014; Zika-Viktorsson et al., Reference Zika-Viktorsson, Sundström and Engwall2006), explicit attention to employee issues of well-being and ethical treatment are very important (Greenwood, Reference Greenwood2013). Structural breaks between temporary and permanent parts of the organization require balancing many aspects such as short-term- and long-term orientation, stakeholders with different interests, social and economic interests, and individual and organizational interests (Huemann, Reference Huemann2015). These are likely to create pressures at emotional and cognitive levels for organizational members. However, project management discourses themselves, which are highly rationalistic and functionalistic (cf. Hodgson & Cicmil, Reference Hodgson and Cicmil2006) in orientation, may constrain attention to these aspects. This is also worth considering in future research endeavors.

Within the more traditional managerial domain, HRM research is inspired by a wide variety of micro- and macrotheories (Wright & Boswell, Reference Wright and Boswell2002), including economic theories (e.g., resource-based view, human capital theory), institutional theory (Boselie, Brewster, & Paauwe, Reference Boselie, Brewster and Paauwe2009), and in the past ten years especially organizational psychology and organizational behavior theories (Godard, Reference Godard2014; Marchington, Reference Marchington2015). The focus on employee behavior as a key factor mediating the link between HRM practices and organizational performance is now one of the main topics in HRM theorizing (Bowen & Ostroff, Reference Bowen and Ostroff2004; Purcell & Hutchinson, Reference Purcell and Hutchinson2007). A focus on individual behavior includes attention to the importance of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs); e.g., helping and courtesy, proactivity, and prosocial behavior. Factors contributing to individuals’ motivation, ability and opportunity to perform are seen as critical foci for HRM research in the mainstream literature (Purcell & Hutchinson, Reference Purcell and Hutchinson2007). However, these theoretical approaches are only beginning to inform writing on HRM and OPM. Pinto et al.’s (Reference Pinto, Dawood and Pinto2014) study on how managerial and supervisory support buffers employees’ well-being is one of the rare studies informed by an organizational behavior (OB) perspective on HRM in a project setting (Geare et al., Reference Geare, Edgar, McAndrew, Harney, Cafferkey and Dundon2014).

Overall, project management research on the topic of HRM is still mainly approached from a narrow technical perspective focused on efficiency in resource allocation in project management. The use of critical theoretical perspectives on HRM in OPM is not well developed and this contrasts greatly with developments in the broader field of HRM. There is evidence in current research of an emphasis on unitarism and managerialism, and these perspectives could usefully be challenged or at least supplemented by more critical theoretical perspectives (e.g., Hodgson & Cicmil, Reference Hodgson and Cicmil2006). Perspectives on HRM in OPM that pursue a stakeholder perspective and emphasize issues such as fairness and legitimacy (Godard, Reference Godard2010) would also be merited in a context where it appears that employees and managers often confront serious challenges in terms of levels of work stress and intensity (e.g., Zika-Viktorsson et al., Reference Zika-Viktorsson, Sundström and Engwall2006). Given that the wider field of project management has begun to systematically incorporate insights from critical theory (Hodgson & Cicmil, Reference Hodgson and Cicmil2006) perhaps there is potential for a more critical or dissensus-oriented perspective on HRM in OPM to be developed in the future (Keegan & Boselie, Reference Keegan and Boselie2006). The incorporation of a capabilities theoretical perspective for HRM (Bredin, Reference Bredin2008) is also promising as an indication that new insights on HRM in a project-based context are being developed, as is the focus on the individual employee level and the incorporation of a perspective on well-being in the recent work of Pinto et al. (Reference Pinto, Dawood and Pinto2014).

In terms of research designs and methodologies, most work on HRM and project-based organizations is centered on fairly conventional qualitative and quantitative methods. Interview-based (e.g., Keegan et al., Reference Keegan, Huemann and Turner2012) and case study approaches (e.g., Bredin & Söderlund, Reference Bredin and Söderlund2011) are common. Studies based on surveys (e.g., Calamel et al., Reference Calamel, Defélix, Picq and Retour2012) are also common.

Less evident as research methods are, for example, (critical) discourse analysis (Alvesson & Karreman, Reference Alvesson and Karreman2000; Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2003; Keegan & Francis, Reference Keegan and Francis2010), multilevel statistical analysis (Sanders, Shipton, & Gomes, Reference Sanders, Shipton and Gomes2014), diary studies (Tadić, Bakker, & Oerlemans, Reference Tadić, Bakker and Oerlemans2014), and ethnographies (McCann, Granter, Hassard, & Hyde, Reference McCann, Granter, Hassard and Hyde2014), to name just a few. We see potential for enriching the study of HRM in OPM when researchers expand their repertoire of methods to explore novel and interesting research questions in a contextually sensitive way, developing new knowledge in this emerging field of management activity.

A Research Agenda for HRM in OPM

Based on our discussion of current issues and the trends in the literature on HRM in OPM we have presented, we use this section to offer a research agenda based on four sets of priorities that we see as salient for the development of this field of study. These priorities demonstrate a need for a broader range of theoretical lenses to study HRM in OPM, for broader research methods and designs, for the range of actors involved, and their interactions, and finally for the dynamic and paradoxical aspects of managing HRM in OPM.

Conclusion

The topic of HRM in OPM is an important and dynamically emerging area of research. In this chapter we have discussed that it is increasingly common for work activities to take place in projects and described research on the links between HRM activities that occur on projects and broader implications for project based organizations. While it is clear that, to date, the implications of project-based organizing for managing human resources are somewhat underexplored, we see trends suggesting that HRM aspects of project organizations are beginning to attract sustained systematic attention. Findings from recent research on HRM in OPM suggest that research on HRM at the project level is gaining attention in light of the idea of the project as temporary organization (Turner & Müller, Reference Turner and Müller2003). The attention being paid to HRM at a broader organizational and network level (Swart & Kinnie, Reference Swart and Kinnie2014), reflecting the ideas of projects and project professionals as embedded in a broader, more permanent context (Sydow, Lindkvist, & DeFillippi, Reference Sydow, Lindkvist and DeFillippi2004), is also a critical area of development and fertile discussion. The multiactor nature of HRM in project-based organizations aligns with well-developed discussions in mainstream HRM writing on the increased tendency to devolve HRM to line managers (e.g., Larsen & Brewster, Reference Larsen and Brewster2003; Renwick, Reference Renwick2003). The increasing importance of other actors in HRM systems that has gained attention in mainstream HRM theorizing in recent years (Meijerink et al., Reference Meijerink, Bondarouk and Looise2013) is clearly of great importance in understanding HRM in OPM.

We have offered suggestions for research on HRM in OPM to increase our knowledge and enrich our insights on this important area. Broader theoretical insights, more and innovative research methods, and research that goes beyond managerialism, are all potentially valuable for improving the quality of research on HRM in OPM. Finally, we encourage an increased focus on the dynamic and emergent aspects of HRM in OPM to provide insights that shed light on how project workers and managers can cope cognitively and emotionally with the uncertain and ambiguous aspects of working and managing human resources in this setting, which is linked with dualistic short- and long-term pressures, and contradictory people and project performance pressures. Finally, there is reason to be optimistic that with a willingness on the part of researchers to adopt wider theoretical perspectives, and draw insights from critical as well as mainstream HRM research methods and findings, the prospects for future research on HRM in OPM are positive indeed.