op

Ly

02

7; a

t p-onprof

de

force must be managed to stave o the cost of attrition andpoor productivity associated with burn out as a result of

blurred the lines between work and personal stress. Over

challenge for industry and a popular area for research ofwork-family balance [10,4]. Organisations are no longer

of industries. Projects are a dynamic and often fast-pacedmode of operation with the constant balance of time, costand quality, the constant alignment and realignment toorganisational strategy as well as managing the benetsdelivered throughout and beyond the life of the project.Projects that involve unique endeavours that challenge us

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9231 0488; fax: +61 2 9231 0208.E-mail addresses: Alicia.Aitken@student.uts.edu.au (A. Aitken),

Lynn.Crawford@uts.edu.au (L. Crawford).1 Tel.: +61 2 9514 8730; fax: +61 2 9968 1274.

International Journal of Project Mana

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OFstress overload. The complexity of this balance is furtheredby the fact that a stress free environment can create theopposite eect to burn out, whereby individuals are understimulated, resulting in rust out. Simply lowering the num-ber of stressful situations does not guarantee a mitigationof the risks.

Beyond the boundaries of the work environment, socio-economic and demographic changes to the workforce have

able to consider only the stress that is directly associatedwith work but must now ensure that they are acknowledg-ing, if not yet actively managing, the whole of life issueswhich their sta are dealing with that may impact theirjob satisfaction and productivity.

Projects as a way of doing business, has been emergingover the past decade as the preferred model of drivingchange and developing new business across a multitude1. Introduction

The impact of stress on the modern day workforce hasbeen an issue at the forefront of both research and practice.As the pace of work has increased exponentially fuelled bythe globalisation of economies and technological advances,an environment conducive to stress has been created. Asthe rate of productivity increases and nancial benet isdelivered to industry, the balance of stress within the work-

the past few decades these changes have included; anincrease in the number of women in the workforce, a risingdivorce rate and subsequent single parent households, anda rise in the number of working mothers in both full andpart-time employment [17]. Together with these issueseconomies around the world are booming and employmentis at an all time high in many of the industrialised nationsmaking the issue of sta attraction and retention a criticalfactor. These changes have lead to the emergence of a newCoping with stress: Dispositional c

Alicia Aitken *,

University of Technology, Building 6, 7

Received 1 February 200

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between project managemenby project managers when dealing with stressful situations. Seventying a web-based questionnaire. Results support the hypotheses thatwhen dealing with stressful situations and that the level of maturityning coping strategies. Findings and limitations are discussed. 2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Coping; Stress; Project management maturity; Project manager0263-7863/$30.00 2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.02.003ing strategies of project managers

nn Crawford 1

Harris Street, Ultimo 2007, Australia

ccepted 6 February 2007

ractices, control appraisals and dispositional coping strategies usede project managers from a global sample participated by complet-oject managers apply more Active Coping and Planning strategiesthe organisational practices is related to an increased use of Plan-

velopment

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

gement 25 (2007) 666673

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

nalto explore new ideas, test old ones and generate solutionsare taking the project manager and their team membersinto the unknown. Although, it is the excitement thatdraws many project managers to the eld, projects are alsohighly stressful environments. Understanding how projectmanagers cope with stressful situations is the rst step tobeing able to manage the outcomes, both positive andnegative.

This paper seeks to explore the relationship between thetwo elds, stress and coping and project management,looking at how project managers cope with stressful situa-tions. This paper will investigate both the appraisal of con-trol of stressful situations and the dispositional copingstrategies used by project managers in stressful situations.The purpose of this study is to provide preliminary indica-tors of a relationship between project management prac-tices, appraisal of control and coping strategy selection asthe basis for further research. The outcomes of stressful sit-uations are beyond the scope of this paper. Future researchshould target the adaptive outcomes of coping strategyselection.

2. Models of stress and coping

The exploration of stress began in earnest with Selyeswork with the study of animals and their reactions tonoxious agents. His later research led to the discoverythat all toxic substances introduced to an animal bodyproduce the same pattern of response. They all respondedwith adrenal enlargement, gastrointestinal ulcers, and thy-micolymphatic shrinkage. These three factors become theobjective indicators of stress and formed the basis of thegeneral adaptation syndrome (GAS) or biologic stresssyndrome as described by Selye in 1936. Selye denesstress as the non-specic (i.e. common) results of anydemand upon the body, be the eect mental or somatic[19].

From Seyles work a number of psychoanalytic ego psy-chology models were developed. These models dened cop-ing as realistic and exible thoughts and acts that solveproblems and thereby reduce stress [13, p. 118]. Thesemodels generally take the form of a hierarchy with thehigher levels containing coping responses thought to bemore mature and eective becoming progressively less soas you move down the levels.

In 1966 Lazarus put forward his transactional theory ofcoping, which redened the platform which would form thefoundation of nearly all future studies. Until this timestress had either been dened as a stimulus, i.e. an eventwas stressful, or a response, i.e. a person reacted to anevent in a stressful manner. In Lazarus view stress wasmore complex than an either/or denition. Lazarus pro-posed that coping is an interaction between a person andthe environment, primarily, that when an individualapproaches a situation a cognitive appraisal process is

A. Aitken, L. Crawford / International Jourbegun to assess the level of threat and the available copingresources. Lazarus & Folkman [14] outline a three-stagecognitive appraisal process: primary appraisal, secondaryappraisal and reappraisal.

Within the Transactional Theory of Coping primaryappraisal is the cognitive process of deciding whether youare being threatened or beneted, it answers the questionAm I in trouble or being beneted, now or in the future, andin what way?Once a situation or event is appraised as threat-ening or harmful secondary appraisal is engaged, addressingthe questionWhat, if anything, can be done about it?Duringsecondary appraisal a person will look to all possibleresources available for reducing the threat or harm andassess their suitability and chances of success. Finally, re-appraisals occur continuously as the event unfolds. As anindividual interacts with their environment, new informa-tion and experiences are added to their spectrum of avail-able resources and reappraisal of the situation occurs.

One of the key components of the Transactional Theoryof Coping that distinguishes it from its predecessors is theseparation of the coping strategies used and the outcomesgenerated. This separation acknowledges that individualswill often try to cope using a range of strategies when con-fronted with a stressful situation and that they will notalways be successful. Further to this, is that for each individ-ual the same coping strategies may have varying outcomesbetween people and between situations. This theory hasformed the basis of the research reported in this paper.

There have been two general approaches to measuringcoping strategies, the rst, measuring actual coping strate-gies employed within real situations, i.e. what did you doto cope (situational coping) and the second, seeking outcoping styles employed by individuals across multiple situ-ations i.e. what do you normally do to cope (disposi-tional coping).

State or situational coping is dened as being an indi-viduals responses when confronted with a specic situa-tional stressor [8, p. 19]. Folkman and Lazarus [13]transactional theory of coping is based on the premise thateach situation is approached anew by an individual and thecoping strategies employed are the direct result of the situ-ation specic cognitive appraisal process unique to thatmoment in time.

The terms coping style, trait coping and disposi-tional coping have been used in various ways to describea broad range of behaviours. The two most frequently useddenitions are, relatively consistent coping behavioursused by individuals across a wide variety of situations[8, p. 19], [16,1] and as a personality construct with rela-tively permanent and enduring qualities

the search for coping dispositions is a search for consis-tent ways of coping as used by a given person or per-sons, in short, a comparatively stable property of thepersonality that disposes a person to react in one oranother way to a stress stimulus [12, p. 252].

This paper will explore the dispositional coping strate-

of Project Management 25 (2007) 666673 667gies of project managers in stressful situations. Specically,it is hypothesised that (a) project managers use Planning

1 = you can change or do something about the event

aland Active Coping more frequently than other forms ofcoping with stressful situations, (b) that project managersappraise stressful situations as being within their controland amenable to change and (c) that the project manage-ment environment in which project managers work willbe positively correlated to the use of Planning and ActiveCoping.

This research is the rst in a series of planned projects.Stage two will explore the situational coping strategies ofproject managers across both specic work and personalsituations with a view to exploring the consistency of cop-ing strategy selection.

Data for the current research was collected throughthe use of a web-based questionnaire. There are a num-ber of instruments being employed including a selectionof demographic details, project management experience,project management knowledge, project managementcompetency, stressful situation appraisal of control andcoping strategy selection and application. The majorityof the project management and demographic instrumentshave been used in previous research by Dr. Lynn Craw-ford [5,6]. The instruments have been updated to reectchanges in the eld of project management sincecreation.

The measurement of coping, both dispositional and sit-uational has primarily been measured through the use ofself-report instruments. There are a number of instrumentsthat have been developed and tested with varying degreesof psychometric validity. The most widely used instrumentsinclude, the Ways of Coping Questionnaire, developed byLazarus and Folkman [14]. The Coping Inventory ofStressful Situations (CISS) developed by Endler and Parker[7] and the COPE and BRIEF COPE developed by Carveret al. [3].

The BRIEF COPE was selected for several reasons, therst being the internal consistency of the scales. All Cron-bach alphas were over 0.50 and all except the venting,denial and acceptance scales exceeded 0.60 [2]. The desiredminimal level as dened by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994)is 0.70 however industry practice allows 0.60 as minimallyaccepted. Fillion et al. [8] found that an eight factor modelprovided strong internal consistency scores ranging from0.69 to 0.89. The testre-test produced similar alpha scores.Secondly, the instrument is rapidly implemented, with only28 items. Finally, the BRIEF COPE is designed, and hasbeen tested to be used as both a dispositional and situa-tional assessment tool.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Subjects for this study included experienced projectmanagers (N = 71) from ten organisations that agreedto participate in the study by providing up to twenty pro-

668 A. Aitken, L. Crawford / International Journject managers and their managers to complete the survey.The sample included 50 males (70%) and 21 females (30%)2 = you have to accept the event3 = you needed to know more before you can act4 = you have to hold yourself back from doing whatyou want to do

Coping Strategies were measured using the dispositionalformat of the Brief COPE measuring how subjects usuallytry to deal with stressful situations. The Brief COPE is a28-item assessment that measures 14 coping scales includ-ing, Self-Distraction, Active Coping, Denial, SubstanceUse, Emotional Support, Instrumental Support, Behav-ioural Disengagement, Venting, Positive Reframing, Plan-the median age bracket was 4150 years old. The meannumber of years of project experience was 9.89 and themean number of total work experience years was 19.81.The sample was geographically dispersed: 34% from Aus-tralia, 14% from New Zealand, 13% from Singapore, 11%from the United Kingdom, 8% from China, 7% from Eur-ope and 7% from the combined group of Malaysia/Thai-land/Vietnam, 4% from India and 1% from the UnitedStates of America. Due to the small sample size in eachregion/country no between country analyses has beenconducted.

3.2. Measures

This paper reports on the analysis of a subset of the datacaptured during this study. The measures used include, thedemographics, age and gender and country of residence;four items from the project experience questionnaireincluding, number of years project experience, number ofyears work experience and perceived level of project manage-ment maturity of the organisation in which the subject wasemployed. The measure of organisational project manage-ment maturity was a single item measure based on the velevels of organisational maturity dened by the SoftwareEngineering Institutes Capability Maturity Model Inte-grated [18] where

1 = Initial, Ad hoc & Chaotic2 = Repeatable, PM System and Experience3 = Dened, Organisation Wide PM System4 = Managed, Stable and Measured Processes5 = Optimising, Organisation Focused on ContinualImprovement

Appraisal of Controllability, secondary appraisal in the

Transactional Theory of Coping was measured using a sin-gle item taken from the study Folkman et al. conductedexamining the relationship between cognitive appraisal(primary & secondary), coping processes and short termoutcomes with stressful situations [9]. The question askedsubjects to rate how they usually felt when consideringstressful situations where

of Project Management 25 (2007) 666673ning, Humour, Acceptance, Religion and Self-Blame.Subjects were asked to rate to what extent they usually

and emotion-focused coping as postulated by Folkmanand Lazarus [13] the two factors found in this study canbroadly be described as such. However, it should be notedthat previous studies have had larger sample sizes, 978 [3],168 [2] than the current study and this may have inuencedthe factor analysis.

4.2. Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics for the variables in this studyare shown in Table 1. This sample reported a median agerange of 4150 years in age, mean of 9.81 years projectexperience (SD = 5.39) indicating that the subjects withinthe sample have a moderate amount of project experience.The mean number of year total work experience is 19.81(SD = 7.71).

Subjects reported the median level of perceived projectmanagement maturity of their employing organisations as3, Dened, Organisation Wide PM System. The distribu-tion of scores is show in Fig. 1 below. These results arecomparable to those found by Crawford [5] however theresults from the current study show a slight increase in fre-quency of the higher level score (4 and 5) which pointtowards an overall improvement in the perceived maturityof employing organisations in recent years.

nal of Project Management 25 (2007) 666673 669used each of the coping strategies listed on a 4-point scalewhich is

1 = I dont usually do this at all;2 = I usually do this a little bit;3 = I usually do this a medium amount and4 = I usually do this a lot.

The Cronbach Alpha score is acceptable for this sample(.6631). Internal reliability was explored for each scale. Forthe scales, Emotional Support, Instrumental Support,Behavioural Disengagement, Venting, Positive, Reframing,Planning, Humour, Religion and Self-Blame high internalconsistency scores were found ranging from .6827 to.9166. Cronbach Alphas for Active Coping, Denial andSubstance Use were below .6 but remained above .5, theminimum acceptable level [2]. However, the scales Self-Dis-traction and Acceptance returned unacceptably low scoresof .3360 and .4615. These scores are similar to those foundby other researchers [8,2].

4. Results

4.1. Factor structure

Although the sample size is relatively small (N = 71) afactor analysis was conducted. The 14 scales from the BriefCOPE were subjected to a principal component analysisusing SPSS Version 11. Inspection of the correlation matrixidentied a number of coecients of 0.3 and above. TheKaiserMeyerOklin value was 0.619, exceeding the rec-ommended value of 0.6 and the Barletts Test of Sphericityreached statistical signicance, supporting the factorabilityof the correlation matrix.

Principal component analysis revealed ve factors witheigenvalues greater than 1 explaining, 20.32%, 17.03%,10.16%, 9.50% and 8.12% of the variance, respectively.The ve factor model explained 65.13% of the overall var-iance. However, from further inspection of the Scree Plot aclear break was evident after the second factor. A Varimaxrotation was performed on the basis of a two factor model.The rotated solution revealed a simple structure with bothfactors showing strong loadings and each scale loadingsubstantially on only one factor. Only two scales, UsingInstrumental Support and Self-Blame loaded onto bothcomponents. The rst factor included, Planning, ActiveCoping, Positive Reframing, Acceptance, Using Instru-mental Support, Religion and Self-Blame. The second fac-tor included Using Instrumental Support, Using EmotionalSupport, Venting, Humour, Self-Distraction, BehaviouralDisengagement, Self-Blame and Substance Use. Denialdid not load to either factor. This nding is contrary tomost other research using the COPE and Brief COPEinstruments, where an 8, 9 or 11 factor model is commonlyfound [8,2,3]. However, some research studies have foundthree and four factor models. [15,11]. Although, Carver

A. Aitken, L. Crawford / International Jouremphasises that the Brief COPE is not designed to assessthe dichotomous coping construction of problem-focusedThe appraisal of the controllability of stressful situationsyielded interesting results, in that the sample reported avery high frequency of 1 = you can change or do some-thing about the event and moderately high frequency of 3 = you needed to know more before you can act. The

Table 1Descriptive statistics (N = 71)

Variable Mean Median SD N

Gender 0.30 0.00 0.46 71.00Agea 2.55 3 0.71 71.00Years project exp 9.89 10.00 5.39 71.00Years work exp 19.81 20.00 7.71 70.00PM Knowledge 21.41 21.00 5.03 71.00PM Complexity 19.08 19.00 3.25 71.00Years project exp 9.89 10.00 5.39 71.00Years work exp 19.81 20.00 7.71 70.00PM Maturity 3.03 3.00 1.03 71.00Appraisal of control 1.66 1.00 0.96 68.00Self-Distraction 4.41 4.00 1.45 71.00Active coping 7.21 7.00 0.89 71.00Denial 2.44 2.00 0.81 71.00Substance use 2.24 2.00 0.64 71.00Emotional support 4.42 4.00 1.57 71.00Instrumental support 6.06 6.00 1.31 71.00Behavioral disengagement 2.42 2.00 0.95 71.00Venting 4.15 4.00 1.50 71.00Positive reframing 5.94 6.00 1.33 71.00Planning 7.01 8.00 1.24 71.00Humour 4.11 4.00 1.46 71.00Acceptance 5.93 6.00 1.30 71.00Religion 3.56 2.00 2.04 71.00Self-Blame 4.18 4.00 1.54 71.00a Note. For age the ranges were 1 = under 30 years, 2 = 3040 years,3 = 4150 years, 4 = over 50 years.

expected, the greater the number of years project experi-ence, the greater the number of years total work experience(Fig. 2).

5

10

15

20

25

30

Component

1 2

Planning 0.793Positive reframing 0.721Active coping 0.708Acceptance 0.585Instrumental support 0.544 0.351Religion 0.319Emotional support 0.747Venting 0.683Humour 0.591Self-Distraction 0.547Behavioural disengagement 0.523Self-Blame 0.311 0.505Substance use 0.382Denial

670 A. Aitken, L. Crawford / International Journalsample reported extremely low frequencies for; 2 = youhave to accept the event and 4 = you have to hold your-self back from doing what you want to do. These resultsprovide support for our second hypothesis that projectmanagers will appraise stressful situations as amenable tochange and within their control.

The use of coping strategies revealed that the most fre-quently reported coping strategies were Planning andActive Coping followed closely by Using InstrumentalSupport and Positive Reframing. The least reported copingstrategies included Behavioural Disengagement, Denial,Substance Use and Religion. These results provide preli-minary support for our rst hypothesis that project manag-ers use more Planning and Active Coping when dealingwith stressful situations. (see Tables 24).

4.3. Correlation between variables

Table 5 depicts the bivariate correlations for the inde-pendent and dependent variables in the study. For the inde-pendent variables, Gender, PM Knowledge, PMComplexity, PM Maturity, Year of Project Experience,

01 2 3 4 5

Fig. 1. Frequency of organisational maturity scores.Yrs of Work Experience and Appraisal of Control onlythree signicant correlations were found. The greater thecomplexity of the projects worked on the greater the pro-ject management knowledge demonstrated and as

Table 2Geographic dispersion

Variable Frequency Cumulative(%)

Individual(%)

Australia 24 33.80 34China 6 42.25 8Europe 5 49.30 7India 3 53.52 4Malaysia/Thailand/

Vietnam5 60.56 7

New Zealand 10 74.65 14Singapore 9 87.32 13UK 8 98.59 11USA 1 100.00 1Table 3Cronbach alpha scores for coping strategies

Cronbach alpha Items N

Overall .6631 14 71Self-Distraction .3660 2 71Active coping .5954 2 71Denial .5093 2 71Substance use .5745 2 71Emotional support .8386 2 71Instrumental support .7371 2 71Behavioral disengagement .8247 2 71Venting .6827 2 71Positive reframing .7255 2 71Planning .7540 2 71Humour .7017 2 71Acceptance .4615 2 71Religion .9166 2 71Self-Blame .7063 2 71

Table 4Factor analysis loadings

of Project Management 25 (2007) 666673The variable, project management maturity of the orga-nisation was negatively correlated with the appraisal ofcontrol score, indicating (the appraisal score of 1 is thehighest degree of control) that the greater the perceivedproject management maturity of the organisation thegreater the appraised control of stressful situations. Projectmanagement maturity was also signicantly and positivelycorrelated with the use of Planning as a coping mechanism,demonstrating preliminary support for the concept thatworking in a project environment with strong project prac-tices inuences the selection of coping strategies which arealigned to the Planning and problem-solving fundamentalsof project management practice. This will be explored infuture studies. Project management maturity was also sig-nicantly and negatively related to Venting, Humour andSelf-Blame.

There were only two signicant correlations betweengender and coping strategy selection. Women were more

Table 5Correlations between variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1. Gender2. Knowledge 0.078 13. Complexity 0.069 0.351** 14. Years project exp 0.165 0.085 0.170 15. Years work exp 0.061 0.182 0.154 0.408** 16. Maturity 0.133 0.012 0.021 0.008 0.003 17. Appraisal 0.064 0.075 0.008 0.038 0.1910.268* 18. Self-Distraction 0.009 0.159 0.032 0.068 0.076 0.031 0.087 19. Active coping 0.120 0.004 0.120 0.044 0.102 0.102 0.1620.134 110. Denial 0.007 0.062 0.140 0.067 0.150 0.002 0.0740.045 0.049 111. Substance use 0.095 0.079 0.140 0.165 0.2150.162 0.030 0.307** 0.135 0.154 112. Emotional support 0.437**0.078 0.0630.095 0.1710.149 0.074 0.286* 0.054 0.012 0.350** 113. Instrumental Support 0.281* 0.023 0.0120.285* 0.0140.044 0.0900.042 0.259* 0.098 0.052 0.488** 114. Behavioral disengagement 0.029 0.056 0.104 0.034 0.0700.202 0.087 0.153 0.157 0.166 0.019 0.270* 0.095 115. Venting 0.140 0.067 0.2150.021 0.0550.448**0.117 0.155 0.067 0.121 0.080 0.396** 0.221 0.294* 116. Positive reframing 0.191 0.180 0.008 0.015 0.032 0.116 0.0240.099 0.359** 0.0370.051 0.223 0.289* 0.030 0.062 117. Planning 0.033 0.111 0.104 0.058 0.168 0.247* 0.1910.123 0.631**0.006 0.122 0.041 0.229 0.090 0.148 0.478** 118. Humour 0.056 0.243* 0.161 0.072 0.0390.250* 0.165 0.403**0.008 0.030 0.123 0.315**0.041 0.264* 0.331** 0.040 0.120 119. Acceptance 0.084 0.074 0.201 0.160 0.0040.009 0.040 0.008 0.246* 0.0380.048 0.084 0.103 0.047 0.130 0.369** 0.409** 0.147 120. Religion 0.155 0.248* 0.1470.110 0.099 0.224 0.0610.127 0.058 0.1080.050 0.272 0.245* 0.030 0.022 0.154 0.053 0.060 0.311** 121. Self-Blame 0.064 0.142 0.0620.061 0.0320.328** 0.192 0.132 0.137 0.268 0.157 0.291* 0.342** 0.102 0.364** 0.172 0.029 0.092 0.156 0.089* Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

A.Aitk

en,L.Crawford

/Intern

atio

nalJournalofProject

Managem

ent25(2007)666673

671

[10] Gryzywacz JG, Almeida DM, Mcdonald DA. Work-family spillover

allikely to use both Emotional and Instrumental Support.This is comparable with other studies such as Tamreset al. [20], and no other gender dierences were signicant.

There was moderate correlation between the copingscales that were grouped in conceptually meaningfulways. Self-Distraction, Humour, Substance Use andEmotional support were positively correlated. ActiveCoping, Planning, Positive Reframing, Use of Instrumen-tal Support and Acceptance were positively andsignicantly correlated. Behavioural Disengagement,Venting, Humour, Self-Blame and Seeking both Emo-tional and Instrumental Support were also positivelycorrelated.

5. Discussion

In general, the results of the study provide support forthe concept that project managers use more Active andPlanning coping strategies when dealing with stressful situ-ations and that the use of Planning strategies is related tothe level of project management practice that they are

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4

Fig. 2. Frequency of appraisal of controllability scores.

672 A. Aitken, L. Crawford / International Journexposed to (represented by organisational project manage-ment maturity). The ndings from this study on the apprai-sal of control show a tendency for project managers toappraise stressful situations as controllable or requiringmore information however there was no correlationbetween appraisal of control and coping strategy selectionwhich is often found in studies of this nature. This may bedue to the scale chosen and should be reviewed beforefuture studies are conducted, to ensure that a continuousscale is applied.

The internal reliability of the Brief COPE and the indi-vidual scales within the instrument for this sample indi-cate that this instrument is suitable for use in samplesof project managers and will be applied in future studies.The factor analysis resulted in a two factor solutionwhich can be broadly described as covering problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. This nding is con-trary to the intention of the instrument, to identify copingstrategies as per the 14 scales detailed in this paper, and

and daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labour force.

Fam Relat 2002;51:2836.

[11] Hudek-knezevic J, Kardum I, Vukmirovic Z. The structure of copingstyles: a comparative study of Croatian sample. Eur J Psychol1999;13:14961.

[12] Lazarus RS. Patterns of adjustment and human eectiveness.McGrawHill; 1961.

[13] Lazarus RS, Folkman S. the concept of coping. stress, appraisal andcoping. New York: Springer Publishing Company Inc.; 1984.

[14] Lazarus RS, Folkman S. the coping process: an alternative totraditional formulations. New York: Springer Publishing CompanyInc.; 1984.

[15] Livneh H, Livneh CL, Maron S, Kaplan J. A multidimensionalapproach to the study of the structure of coping with stress. J Psychol1996;130:50112.

[16] Oconnor DB, Shimizu M. Sense of personal control, stress andcoping style: a cross-cultural study. Stress Health 2002;18:17383.

[17] Perry-Jenkins M, Repeti RL, Crouter A. Work and family in the1990s. J Marriage Fam 2000;62:98198.

[18] SEI. Software Engineering Institute CMMI Capability Maturitycontradictory to most research using this instrument how-ever the relatively small sample size may have impactedthis result. Future studies should aim for samples of>200.

This study has a number of limitations including thesmall sample size, the construct of the appraisal scale andthe fact that dispositional coping covers a broad and variedarray of possible stressful situations. Future studies shouldseek to explore in more detail the control construct andexplore situational coping strategy selection. The analysisconducted in this study has looked only at correlationsbetween scales. Future studies should explore the abilityof perceived control, project management experience,organisational maturity and individual project manage-ment skills to predict coping strategy selection.

References

[1] Anshel M. Coping styles among adolescent competitive athletes. J SocPsychol 1996;136:31123.

[2] Carver CS. You want to measure coping but your protocols too long:consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med 1997;4:92100.

[3] Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK. Assessing coping strategies: atheoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989;56:26783.

[4] Chan KB, Lai G, Ko YC, Boey KW. Work stress among sixprofessional groups: the Singapore experience. Soc Sci Med2000;50:141532.

[5] Crawford L. Project management competence: the value of standards.Henley Management College; 2000.

[6] Crawford L. Senior management perceptions of project managementcompetence. The Netherlands: IRNOP V. Rotterdam; 2004.

[7] Endler NS, Parker JDA. Assessment of multidimensional coping:task, emotion and avoidance strategies. Psychol Assess 1994;6:5060.

[8] Fillion L, Kovacs AH, Gagnon P, Endler NS. Validation of theshortened COPE for use with breast cancer patients undergoingradiation therapy. Curr Psychol: Dev, Learn, Persona Soc2002;21:1734.

[9] Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Dunkel-schetter C, Delongis A, Gruen RJ.Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping andencounter outcomes. J Person Soc Psychol 1986;50:9921003.

of Project Management 25 (2007) 666673Model Integrated, 2006. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ AccessedMay 15 2006.

[19] Selye H. History of the stress Concept. In: Goldberger L, Breznitz S,editors. Handbook of stress theoretical and clinical aspects. NewYork: The Free Press; 1993.

[20] Tamres LK, Janicki D, Helgeson VS. Sex dierences in copingbehavior: a meta-analytic review and an examination of relativecoping. Person Soc Psychol Rev 2002;6:230.

Glossary of terms

Coping: constantly changing cognitive and behavioral eorts to managespecic external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxingor exceeding the resources of the person. (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984b,p. 141).

Stress: a relationship between the person and the environment that is ap-praised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources andendangering his or her well-being. (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984a, p. 21).

Primary Appraisal: Primary appraisal is the cognitive process of decidingwhether you are being threatened or beneted. It answers the questionAm I in trouble or being beneted, now or in the future, and in what way?

Secondary Appraisal: Secondary appraisal addresses the question What ifanything can be done about the stressful situation?During secondary ap-

praisal a person will look to all possible resources available for reduc-

ing the threat or harm and assess their suitability and chances of

success.

Emotion-Focused Coping: One large group consists of cognitive pro-cesses directed at lessening emotional distress and include strategiessuch as avoidance, minimization, distancing, selective attention, posi-

also includes strategies that are directed inward. (Lazarus and Folk-

man, 1984b, p. 152).

Coping Strategies from the Brief COPE: The following items are takenfrom the Brief COPE.

Self-distraction: Ive been turning to work or other activities to take mymind o things; Ive been doing something to think about it less, suchas going to movies, watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, orshopping.

Active coping: Ive been concentrating my eorts on doing somethingabout the situation Im in; Ive been taking action to try to make thesituation better.

Denial: Ive been saying to myself this isnt real; Ive been refusing tobelieve that it has happened.

Substance use: Ive been using alcohol or other drugs to make myself feelbetter; Ive been using alcohol or other drugs to help me get through it.

Use of emotional support: Ive been getting emotional support from oth-ers; Ive been getting comfort and understanding from someone.

Use of instrumental support: Ive been getting help and advice from otherpeople; Ive been trying to get advice or help from other people aboutwhat to do.

Behavioral disengagement: Ive been giving up trying to deal with it; Ivebeen giving up the attempt to cope.

Venting: Ive been saying things to let my unpleasant feelings escape; Ivebeen expressing my negative feelings.

Positive reframing: Ive been trying to see it in a dierent light, to make itseem more positive; Ive been looking for something good in what ishappening.

A. Aitken, L. Crawford / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 666673 673tive comparisons and wresting positive value from negative events.(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984b, p. 150).

Problem-Focused Coping: Problem-focused coping strategies are similarto strategies used for problem solving. As such, problem-focused ef-forts are often directed at dening the problem, generating alternativesolutions, weighing the alternatives in terms of their costs and benets,choosing among them, and acting. However, problem-focused copingembraces a wider array of problem-oriented strategies than problemsolving alone. Problem-solving implies an objective, analytic processthat is focused primarily on the environment; problem-focused copingPlanning: Ive been trying to come up with a strategy about what to do;Ive been thinking hard about what steps to take.

Humor: Ive been making jokes about it; Ive been making fun of thesituation.

Acceptance: Ive been accepting the reality of the fact that it has hap-pened; Ive been learning to live with it.

Religion: Ive been trying to nd comfort in my religion or spiritual be-liefs; Ive been praying or meditating.

Self-blame: Ive been criticizing myself; Ive been blaming myself forthings that happened.

Coping with stress: Dispositional coping strategies of project managersIntroductionModels of stress and copingMethodParticipantsMeasures

ResultsFactor structureDescriptive statisticsCorrelation between variables

DiscussionReferencesGlossary of terms