JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES

Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009: 140-159

Successful Project Sponsor Behaviors During Project

Initiation: An Empirical Investigation

Timothy J. Kloppenborg
Castellini Distinguished Professor of Management
Xavier University

Chris Manolis
Associate Professor of Marketing
Xavier University

Debbie Tesch
Associate Professor of Information Systems
Xavier University
In the two leading project manage-
ment bodies of knowledge, A Guide to
the Project Management Body of Knowl-
edge (PMBOKw Guide) and the Syllabus
for the APMP Examination, the execu-
tive sponsor has long been recog-
nized as critical to project success. Yet
research to substantiate this role is
limited. The term sponsor, by defini-
tion, suggests a financial responsibil-
ity. In fact, the most recent publica-
tion of A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge de-
scribes the sponsor as ‘‘the person or
group that provides the financial re-
sources, in cash or in kind, for the
project’’ (Project Management Insti-
tute, 2004: 376). In the Syllabus for the
APMP Examination (Association for
Project Management, 2000), a publi-
cation of the Association for Project
Management (APM), the sponsor is
considered to be, in addition to pro-
vider of funds, the individual or
group for whom the project is under-
taken, the primary risk-taker, and the
person(s) to whom the project man-
ager reports (APM). This senior ex-
ecutive or executive sponsor is
thought to ‘‘own’’ the project and is
considered responsible for ensuring
its success. He/she is also typically the
one who proposes the project in the
first place, whose business unit reaps
its benefits, and whose effectiveness is
used to predict project success. In-
volved and committed executive
sponsors must have enough clout to
dictate appropriate processes and/or
make organizational changes neces-
sary to bring about project success
(Perkins, 2005).

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

(140)
 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH
Englund and Bucero (2006) rec-
ognize sponsorship as a commitment
by management to define, defend,
and support major activities from
start to finish. As a link between the
project manager and senior manager,
the project sponsors’ roles vary dur-
ing the project life cycle to include:
seller, coach, mentor, filter, business
judge, motivator, negotiator, and
protector. For purposes of this re-
search, we define the sponsor as
‘‘normally a senior executive who has
an interest in the results of a project.
This executive may also have mone-
tary control over the project. Often
the executive has organizational
clout, but does not often have signif-
icant time to personally manage the
project’’ (Kloppenborg, 2009: 60-61).
Interestingly, very little research
exists specifying exactly what tasks or
behaviors constitute the role of the
executive sponsor and how these be-
haviors contribute to project success.
Furthermore, little research has
tested the intuitively appealing no-
tion that sponsor behavior during
project initiation (from the first idea
concerning the project to a signed
charter or other form of commit-
ment) contributes to project success.
The purpose of the current re-
search is to identify and empirically
validate sponsor behavior during the
initiating stage of a project. After de-
scribing the mechanisms employed to
identify specific project sponsor be-
haviors, we then discuss how these be-
haviors are validated and the extent
to which they affect project out-
comes.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
OBJECTIVES
While most project management
bodies of knowledge recognize the
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
141
sponsor as a key stakeholder on every
project, very little research has ex-
amined empirically the role and be-
havior of the executive sponsor in
achieving project success. Highlight-
ing the need for such research, re-
cent studies have stressed the role of
the project sponsor with respect to
project success, often quoting advice
from senior project managers on how
to deal with inadequate project spon-
sors (Englund and Bucero, 2006;
Kloppenborg et al., 2006; Melymuka,
2004; Perkins, 2005).
Although there is a dearth of em-
pirical research from which to base
the current study, two studies stand-
out out as particularly relevant. First,
Helm and Remington (2005) under-
took a combined analysis of, one, the
roles and responsibilities of the pro-
ject sponsor in relation to project or-
ganizational structure and, two, the
behavior and practices of key identi-
fied agents. Couched in Grounded
Theory, the methodology in this re-
search involved the gathering of data
(prior to interviews) via ‘‘assisted self-
analysis.’’ Grounded Theory allows,
among other things, successive devel-
opment of the researcher’s knowl-
edge regarding the subject matter.
This process allows for the develop-
ment of questionnaires containing
items that might not otherwise be an-
ticipated (prior to interviews). Based
on this analysis, in conjunction with
evidence from the literature, ques-
tions were formed into guided in-
depth interviews with selected project
personnel. Project managers and
sponsors were asked to define the
role of the project sponsor and how
that role contributed to project suc-
cess, ultimately leading to a list of fre-
quently cited project sponsor char-
acteristics, including: (1) appropriate
seniority and power in the organiza-
142 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
tion, (2) political knowledge and
savvy, (3) ability/willingness to make
project/organization connections,
(4) courage/willingness to go to bat-
tle with others on behalf of the pro-
ject, (5) ability to motivate the team
and provide ad hoc support to the
team, (6) willingness to partner with
the project team and project man-
ager, (7) excellent communication
skills, (8) personally compatible with
other key players, and (9) ability/will-
ingness to challenge the project and
provide objectivity (Helm and Rem-
ington, 2005).
Another study considered project
management in the public sector.
The project sponsor in the public sec-
tor is described as the person respon-
sible for representing the public cli-
ent and acting as a day-to-day
manager of the client’s interests
within the project. In a series of in-
terviews considering the role of the
project sponsor in areas where New
Public Management (a term used to
describe distinctive new themes,
styles, and patterns of public service
management, primarily in Europe) is
being practiced, Hall, Holt, and Pur-
chase (2003) revealed the complexity
of the public sponsor’s role. Public
sponsors are simultaneously involved
with juggling multiple needs of stak-
eholders and user groups, depart-
mental procedures, and government
edicts while continually dealing with
a legacy of mistrust and adversarial
contracts. Hall, Holt, and Purchase’s
(2003) research led to the suggestion
that public sponsors develop a mech-
anism for dealing with the ‘‘softer’’
cultural and attitudinal issues in or-
der to encourage dialog and promote
cooperation. Thus, in order to cope
with the variety of demands, public
project sponsors need to develop
long-term relationships with constit-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
uents as well as acquire significant ex-
perience in their role.
The Current Research
The stages of a project life cycle are
often thought to include initiating,
planning, executing, and closing
(Kloppenborg et al., 2003). In our
study, we limit the evaluation of pro-
ject sponsor behavior to the initiating
stage, which starts when a project idea
is first identified and ends when the
project is formally authorized, often
in the form of a signed charter. At a
minimum, ‘‘the project charter pro-
vides the project manager with au-
thority to apply organizational re-
sources to project activities’’ (Project
Management Institute, 2004: 4). The
project charter frequently includes
purpose of project, requirements that
satisfy stakeholder needs, and a sum-
mary milestone schedule among
other things (Project Management
Institute, 2004). As described in the
PMBOKw Guide, the ability of the
stakeholders, in this case the sponsor,
to influence the final characteristics
of the project, including costs, is
highest at the start of a project
(2004). We focus exclusively on the
initiating stage for two reasons. First,
we contend that sponsors have a
more direct role in the initiating
phase than they do later in the life of
a project. Second, we hold that the
initiating phase of a project is partic-
ularly significant due to the impor-
tance of getting a project off to a
good start.
In addition to identifying and em-
pirically validating project sponsor
behaviors, we also aim to evaluate the
effects of sponsor behavior. Thus, we
need valid indicators of a project’s
success. Although we focus on spon-
sor behavior associated with the ini-
 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH
tiating phase of a project, we are in-
terested in the effects these behaviors
might have on a project’s ultimate or
overall success. Key indicators of in-
formation technology project success
as described by Delone and McLean
(1992) provide an initial framework
for proposing project success indica-
tors. This framework expands the
early ‘‘triple constraint’’ notion of
time, cost, and performance indica-
tors to also consider information and
project quality dimensions, as well as
use and satisfaction constraints. Kerz-
ner further expands project success
to include time, cost, performance to
specification, and customer accep-
tance (Kerzner, 2003). Mulcahy
(2005) states that project success can
be defined according to cost, time,
scope, quality, risk, and customer
(stakeholder) satisfaction. Shenhar
and Dvir suggest that meeting sched-
ule and budget constraints are part of
an efficiency factor and meeting per-
formance requirements are part of an
impact on customer factor. They go
on to say that to fully measure project
success five factors need to be consid-
ered: efficiency, impact on customer,
impact on team, business and direct
success, and preparation for future
(Shenhar and Dvir, 2007).
Pinto (2004) adds to this develop-
ment and proposes a time-dependent
dimension in assessing the effective-
ness of a project, indicating that we
must not only evaluate projects in
current terms but also consider the
future potential a project might offer
in terms of generating new business
and/or opportunities. Ultimately,
Pinto (2004) describes four relevant
dimensions of success that we adopt
currently. These include project effi-
ciency, impact on the customer, busi-
ness success, and future potential.
Project efficiency includes meeting
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
143
budget and schedule expectations.
Impact on the customer includes
meeting technical specifications, cre-
ating a product that is used by the cli-
ent and satisfies customer needs, ul-
timately leading to customer
satisfaction. Business success includes
commercial success and market
share. Future potential includes new
markets, products, and technologies.
We deem Pinto’s expanded defini-
tion of project success as especially
relevant because sponsors, as execu-
tives of an organization, should take
a broad perspective in deciding what
constitutes project success. Note that
all of the definitions (including ours)
contain the traditional success factors
of time, cost, and performance.
In the present study, we propose to
test the effects of rigorously identified
project sponsor behaviors on project
outcomes as suggested by current lit-
erature. Given the exploratory nature
of our research, we are unable to of-
fer specific, a priori hypotheses. In
general, we predict that derived spon-
sor behaviors (independent varia-
bles) will positively influence derived
project outcomes (dependent varia-
bles). Next, we describe the proce-
dure whereby these behavior and out-
come variables were obtained.
METHODOLOGY
Project Sponsor Behavior
The role of the executive sponsor
is best examined in context. From a
comprehensive list of risk factors, a
set of nine risk factor groups was de-
veloped (Kloppenborg and Tesch,
2004) that is consistent with previous
research (Barki et al., 1993; Oz and
Sosik, 2000; Schmidt et al., 2001). Us-
ing this list of risk factors, project
management professionals in a local
144 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Project Management Institute (PMI)
development seminar identified 745
avoidance and mitigation behaviors
associated with the identified risks.
Each behavior was categorized as as-
sociated with a specific leadership
task in one of four project life cycle
stages (Kloppenborg et al., 2003) and
identified as to the leadership role
(sponsor, project manager, etc.) re-
sponsible for the behavior. This cat-
egorization forms the initial frame-
work for examining successful
executive sponsor behaviors. Of these
identified behaviors, 142 are associ-
ated with steering teams and sponsors
specifically during the project life cy-
cle initiating stage. A subsequent lit-
erature review revealed eight new in-
itiating stage sponsor behaviors (Oz
and Sosik, 2000; Schmidt et al., 2001),
for a total of 150 avoidance/mitiga-
tion behaviors.
Using the Method for Priority
Marking (MPM), a select group of
five senior project management pro-
fessionals (PMPs) examined the list
of 150 behaviors in order to eliminate
redundancy, validate behaviors, and
simplify narrative descriptions. These
experts collectively record 167 years
of business experience, much of
which is in project management, and
have worked in insurance, health
care, information systems, govern-
ment, military, consulting, and man-
ufacturing environments. Method for
Priority Marking, a technique for re-
ducing a large amount of language
data to a vital subset, allows teams or
individuals to select the best qualita-
tive data in an iterative process by
eliminating non-candidates in several
phases (Center for Quality of Man-
agement, 1997). Fifty-six behaviors
that all five experts agreed had either
little impact on project success,
should not happen during the initi-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
ating phase, or that sponsors had no
responsibility for were deleted from
the list. The remaining behaviors
were then grouped into similar sets
and further examined to eliminate
duplicate behaviors. This step re-
sulted in 22 additional behaviors be-
ing removed, with 72 behaviors re-
maining at this point.
Sample, Procedures, and Measures
The next step in our research was
to empirically validate the list of ini-
tiating behaviors and test their effects
on measures of project success. In or-
der to do this, we used a convenience
sample of 109 respondents that was
developed from contacts at Project
Management Institute conferences
and other professional settings. Dem-
ographics for the sample may be
found in Table 1. These respondents
were solicited since they attended
project management and related con-
ferences and professional events and
expressed strong interest in the man-
agement of projects. Over 42 percent
are executives, while less than five
percent are frontline workers. Ap-
proximately 29 percent had 30 or
more years of experience, while less
than two percent had five years of ex-
perience or less. In the end, the sam-
ple appears to represent a reasonably
experienced group.
Approximately 60 percent of the re-
spondents described their field of
work as general management, infor-
mation systems, or operations. Simi-
larly, about 60 percent said their in-
dustry was consulting, manufacturing,
service, or education. About half said
projects in their organization averaged
less than one year in length. The re-
sponse to their fields of work, their
industries, and the sizes of their pro-
jects provides a wide diversity of ex-
 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH 145

Table 1
Sample Demographics

Sex Males 78 71.6% Experience 1 – 5 years 2 1.8%

Females 24 22.0% 6 – 10 years 10 9.2%
No Response 7 6.4% 11 – 15 years 9 8.3%
16 – 20 years 14 12.8%
Level Front Line 5 4.6% 21 – 25 years 19 17.4%
First Level 6 5.5% 26 – 30 years 17 15.6%
Second Level 18 16.5% > 30 years 32 29.4%
Executive 46 42.2% No Response 6 5.5%
Other 27 24.8%
No Response 7 6.4% Duration < 4 months 6 5.5%
4 mo to 1 year 52 47.7%
Field Accounting 1 0.9% 1 – 2 years 24 22.0%
Finance 4 3.7% 2 – 3 years 11 10.1%
General
Management 27 24.8% 3 – 5 years 9 8.3%
Human Resources 5 4.6% No Response 7 6.4%
Information
Systems 20 18.3%
Marketing 2 1.8%
Operations 19 17.4% Cert Certified 29 26.6%
Pursuing
Other 25 22.9% Certification 5 4.6%
No Response 6 5.5% Not Certified 69 63.3%
No Response 6 5.5%
Industry Consulting 21 19.3%
Construction 2 1.8% Region Eastern Europe 1 0.9%
Education 12 11.0% Western Europe 10 9.2%
North America –
Engineering 7 6.4% Canada 15 13.8%
North America –
Manufacturing 18 16.5% US 71 65.1%
Retail 5 4.6% South America 1 0.9%
Service 15 13.8% Asia – India 1 0.9%
Other 23 21.1% Asia – other 2 1.8%
No Response 6 5.5% Africa 2 1.8%
No Response 6 5.5%

periences. Just over one-fourth of project and ending with a commit-

the respondents hold a PMP certifi-
cation from the Project Manage-
ment Institute.
Respondents were initially in-
structed to consider behaviors that a
project sponsor might engage in
during the project initiating stage in
order to facilitate the ultimate suc-
cess of a project. Project initiating
was described to participants as be-
ginning with the idea for a potential
ment, often in the form of a charter
that is signed by both the sponsor
and the project team. The sponsor
was described as a senior executive
who has an interest in the results of
a project, may have monetary con-
trol over the project and, although
enjoying a certain level of organiza-
tional clout, does not have signifi-
cant time to personally manage the
project.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

146 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Respondents were then given a
survey containing the list of 72 spon-
sor behaviors. They were asked to
evaluate each behavior in terms of
how important it is with respect to
facilitating a successful project. Each
behavior was in a statement format
indicating that it was important and
respondents indicated their agree-
ment with each statement according
to a Likert-type response scale (1 5
Strongly Disagree, 7 5 Strongly
Agree).
The survey also contained state-
ments pertaining to 13 performance
dimensions. These dimensions or
project outcomes are based on
Pinto’s work discussed earlier and
describe the value of a project upon
completion (Pinto, 2004). For each
outcome statement, respondents
considered the extent to which the
outcome is significant in terms of a
project’s success. Not unlike the
sponsor behavior statements, the 13
outcome statements followed a
seven-point, Likert-type response
scale (1 5 Strongly Disagree, 7 5
Strongly Agree).
A principle components analyses
(with varimax rotation) was con-
ducted separately for both the spon-
sor behavior and project outcome
statements (survey items). Based on
these analyses and a priori reasoning,
seven behavior and three outcome
composite variables or factors were
identified. A total of 49 individual
behavior items grouped to form the
seven behavior factors and a total of
13 individual outcome items com-
pose the three outcome factors. The
items constituting each behavior fac-
tor are depicted in Table 2. The
sponsor behavior factors are: (1)
benefits — 19 items asking respon-
dents about the importance of estab-
lishing commitment for a project
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
through appropriate communica-
tion and goal alignment, (2) per-
formance — four items asking re-
spondents about the importance of
a sponsor defining performance/
success standards on behalf of a pro-
ject manager, (3) project manager
— three items asking respondents
about the importance of a project
sponsor both selecting and mentor-
ing project managers, (4) prioritize
— five items asking respondents
about the importance of prioritizing
tasks, (5) teams — ten items asking
respondents about the importance
of selecting and establishing project
teams, (6) risk — three items asking
respondents about the importance
of risk planning (i.e., predicting and
assessing risk, etc.), and (7) change
— five items asking respondents
about the importance of establish-
ing change control (i.e., having pro-
cedures in place for handling
change, etc.).
The outcome factors are: (1)
agreements — four items asking re-
spondents about the importance of
meeting agreements (e.g., budgets,
scheduling expectations), (2) cus-
tomer — three items asking respon-
dents about the importance of pleas-
ing the customer (customer
satisfaction), and (3) future — six
items asking respondents about the
importance of creating future ben-
efits (e.g., commercial success, in-
creased market share, new products
and technologies). Table 3 presents
the outcome factors and associated
items.
In order to test the internal-con-
sistency reliability of these factors,
Cronbach’s (Cronbach, 1951) coef-
ficient alphas were computed (see
Table 2). The reliabilities for these
ten variables ranged from .70 to .94,
with a mean of .82. The correlations
 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH 147

Table 2
Sponsor Behaviors during Initiation Stage

Cronbach’s
SPONSOR Items Constituting Factor Coefficient
BEHAVIORS Alpha
Aligning and Communicating support for a project is .94
Communicating important.
Project Benefits Demonstrating the proper level of
(Benefits) commitment to a project is important.
Understanding the expectations of
management is important.
Making sure a project has the support of
management is important.
Ensuring that executives are committed to a
project is important.
Personally demonstrating appropriate levels
of participation in a project is important.
Ensuring that identified stakeholders support
the project is important.
Ensuring that plans are communicated with
stakeholders is important.
Ensuring that communication procedures with
management are established is important.
Demonstrating a high enough level of
commitment to a project is important.
Ensuring that a charter is signed is important.
Aligning the objectives/goals of a project with
the objectives/goals of a firm is important.
Ensuring that expected project benefits to the
business are defined is important.
Aligning project scope and funding is
important.
Ensuring that project goals and objectives are
clearly defined is important.
Validating project priority in terms of
business value is important.
Ensuring that a project’s goals and success
factors are clearly defined is important.
Personally communicating the strategic value
of a project is important.
Ensuring that the scope of a project is clearly
defined is important.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

148 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

Table 2 (continued)
Sponsor Behaviors during Initiation Stage

Cronbach’s
SPONSOR Items Constituting Factor Coefficient
BEHAVIORS Alpha
Ensuring that metrics to measure a projects’ .70
Defining success are established is important.
Performance/Success Ensuring that the strategic value of a project
(Performance) is communicated is important.
Empowering project managers so that they
can do their job effectively is important.
Defining a project manager’s performance
expectations is important.

Selecting and Helping the project manager develop people .77

Mentoring the Project skills is important.
Manager (Project Monitoring a project manager’s performance
Manager) is important.
Helping the project manager understand the
“big picture” is important.

Prioritizing (Prioritize) Ensuring that a “project feasibility study” is .77

conducted that includes expected benefits
to the business is important.
It is important that general project goals and
objectives are agreed upon prior to more
detailed planning.
Ensuring that a steering committee prioritizes
projects is important.
Ensuring that all stakeholders of a project are
identified is important.
Emphasizing the benefits of the project to the
steering team is important.

Selecting and Staffing a project with people who have .91

Establishing the appropriate skills is important.
Project Team (Teams) When selecting team members and subject
matter experts for a project, understanding
the required skills necessary to insure
project success is important.
Selecting people with proper knowledge is
important.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH 149

Table 2 (continued)
Sponsor Behaviors during Initiation Stage

Cronbach’s
SPONSOR Items Constituting Factor Coefficient
BEHAVIORS Alpha
Selecting and Ensuring that a team has proper training and
Establishing the tools is important.
Project Team (Teams) Ensuring that all parties involved know and
(continued) understand their personal responsibilities is
important.
Selecting people with appropriate people
skills is important.
Ensuring that project managers quickly
resolve issues that could hinder the
performance of a project is important.
Ensuring that regular meetings to review the
status of a project are held is important.
Ensuring that team operating procedures are
included in a charter is important.
Ensuring written documentation of required
involvement by all parties is important.

Risk Planning (Risk) Ensuring that risks are identified is important. .79
Ensuring a risk assessment plan is developed
is important.
Ensuring that project risks are analyzed is
important.

Establishing Change Ensuring that formal change process is in .78

Control (Change) place is important.
Ensuring that project goals and objectives are
approved is important.
Ensuring that a “change control board” is
established is important.
Ensuring that any and all changes are noted
and understood is important.
Ensuring all parties agree on project scope is
important.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

150 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

Table 3
Project Outcomes during Project Initiation

Cronbach’s
PROJECT OUTCOMES Items Constituting Factor Coefficient Alpha

Agreements Meeting schedule expectations. 0.93

Meeting budget.
Finishing a project on time.
Meeting technical
specifications.

Customer Creating a project that leads to 0.83

enhanced satisfaction on the
part of the customer.
Creating a project that is used
by the client.
Addressing customer needs.

Future Increasing market share. 0.75

Opening new lines of products.
Opening new markets.
Generating a large market
share.
Developing a new technology.
Achieving significant
commercial success.

between the factors are depicted in
Table 4.
RESULTS
To test the effects of the sponsor
behaviors (seven factors) on the pro-
ject outcomes (three factors), a path
model was estimated. Recall that the
general prediction of the study was
that the derived behavioral variables
would positively affect the derived
outcome variables. Accordingly,
every possible behavior➞outcome
path was estimated in the model, as
were the correlations between each
of the exogenous behavior factors
(independent variables). Due to
missing data, the final usable sample
for testing totaled 100. The resulting
fit statistics for the model are x2(3)
5 6.86, p 5 .08; CFI 5 .99; IFI 5 .99;
RMSEA 5 .11, and suggest a good fit
between the model and the data
(the x2 for the null model was x2(45)
5 337.56). The findings are de-
picted in Figure I where all sponsor
behavior factors and project out-
come factors are presented, but only
the significant relationships be-
tween constructs (p’s , .05) are por-
trayed.
The results indicate six significant
paths between sponsor behavior and
project outcome variables (see Fig-
ure I). First, sponsor prioritizing
tasks affected positively the securing

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

 Table 4
Factor Correlations

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Benefits 1.00

2. Teams .39 1.00

3. Risk .33 .33 1.00

4. Change .53 .46 .47 1.00

5. Performance .60 .46 .26 .54 1.00

6. Prioritize .58 .47 .24 .46 .50 1.00

7. Project Manager .39 .57 .24 .38 .48 .39 1.00

KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH

8. Future .11 .33 -.01 -.02 .26 .31 .38 1.00

9. Agree .28 .13 .16 .17 .28 .16 .22 .11 1.00

10. Customer .24 .29 .05 .07 .43 .29 .41 .42 .21 1.00
151

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

Note. Significant (p < .05) correlations are underscored.
152 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

Figure I
Path Analysis: The Effects of Sponsor Behaviors on Project Outcomes

Behaviors Outcomes

Prioritize +.29
Future
-.35
Change
+.27

Project Manager -.34

+.28

+.41
Performance Customer

Benefits Agreements

Teams

Risk

Note. Only significant (p < .05) relationships (paths) are depicted in the Figure.
Values represent standardized path coefficients. And, although not
illustrated, correlations between each of the exogenous variables were
estimated in the model; each of these correlations was significantly (p < .05)
positive.

of future benefits (i.e., a positive re- that as the importance of having

lationship between the prioritize be-
havior and future benefits outcome
variables). Next, the change behav-
ior factor affected negatively both
the customer and future outcome
variables. These findings suggest
procedures in place for handling
change on behalf of the project
sponsor increases, the importance
of both satisfying customers and se-
curing future benefits as outcomes
of a project decrease. We also see a

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH
positive relationship between pro-
ject manager behavior and both the
customer satisfaction and future
benefits outcome variables. These
findings seem to indicate that as the
importance of a sponsor to select
and mentor (assist) a project man-
ager increases, so does the impor-
tance of both satisfying customers
and securing future benefits upon
the completion of a project. Lastly,
we find that the performance behav-
ior factor positively affected the cus-
tomer outcome variable, indicating
that as the importance of a sponsor
to define performance/success stan-
dards on behalf of a project man-
ager increases, so does the impor-
tance of satisfying customers upon
the completion of a project.
DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL
IMPLICATIONS
This exploratory research identi-
fied and measured project sponsor
behaviors and associated project
outcomes. The constructs demon-
strated satisfactory internal validity
and their associations provide im-
portant insights into behaviors ex-
ecutive sponsors might exhibit (or
not) in order to realize positive pro-
ject outcomes.
Customer Success
The customer success outcome
variable includes meeting the cus-
tomer’s needs, creating a project
that the customer uses, and enhanc-
ing customer satisfaction. Many cur-
rent quality measures are more fre-
quently associated with the ability of
a product or service to meet or ex-
ceed customer expectations than
with the overall quality of the prod-
uct. Customer success depends on
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
153
this combination of behaviors. The
sponsor behaviors directly affecting
customer success include defining
project performance and success,
mentoring the project manager, and
establishing change control.
Defining project performance
and success includes a focus on met-
rics to measure project success, a
strategic consideration of the pro-
ject’s value, and empowering the
project manager to make decisions
he/she feels are necessary. These di-
mensions, in turn, are very consis-
tent with keeping the needs of the
project customer (and not just the
technical specifications) in mind. As
would be expected, the sponsor be-
havior of project performance and
success affected significantly and
positively the customer satisfaction
measure.
Mentoring a project manager on be-
half of a project sponsor includes help-
ing the project manager understand
the ‘‘big picture,’’ monitoring a pro-
ject manager’s performance, and help-
ing the project manager develop peo-
ple skills. The project manager also
requires strong management skills, in-
cluding communication, leadership,
and political skills, and skills necessary
to lead, communicate, negotiate, prob-
lem solve, and influence the project
development process. Sponsor behav-
ior that supports and mentors project
management positively and signifi-
cantly affected the customer satisfac-
tion outcome measure. It appears
that time spent by the sponsor in en-
suring that a good project manager is
hired and mentored has a significant
impact on the success of the project
customer. Perhaps this is because
many of the decisions a project man-
ager needs to make, and many of the
interactions a project manager has
with a customer, require maturity and
154 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
judgment that can be enhanced by
the sponsor. This supports other find-
ings that suggest mentors need to set
expectations early in a mentoring re-
lationship — especially with regard to
setting clear goals and helping the
protégé understand a project’s pur-
pose (Young and Perrewe, 2004).
Interestingly and somewhat unex-
pectedly, one sponsor behavior vari-
able was found to significantly and
negatively affect the customer success
outcome measure — establishing
change control. While this surprising
finding warrants additional future re-
search, it is interesting and merits fur-
ther explanation here. This result
may represent behaviors that should
be avoided with respect to achieving
customer success. On the surface this
seems counterintuitive as establishing
change control is widely believed to
be quite useful. If these behaviors are
useful, but still have a negative impact
on customer success, how might these
findings be interpreted? Although
these behaviors are ultimately useful,
perhaps the sponsor is not the person
who should perform them and/or
they should not be performed during
the initiating stage. It certainly seems
that change control systems should
be established for projects and at least
some of those activities should be in-
itiated very early (during project com-
mencing), but perhaps some of these
activities should be conducted by the
project manager (versus the sponsor)
and/or be conducted during the
next stage of the project life cycle —
project planning. Another possible
explanation comes from a new model
for managing projects. In this model,
project control should ‘‘identify
changes in the environment and ad-
The model was tested for and shown to be free of multicollinearity.
1
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
just the plans accordingly’’ (Shenhar
and Dvir, 2007: 11). In other words,
as a project sponsor focuses on estab-
lishing change control during the in-
itiating stage of a project, he/she is
decidedly less involved in securing
customer success as an outcome of
the project. It is also helpful to con-
sider the context in which these be-
haviors are shown to have a negative
impact. They are negative when ana-
lyzed simultaneously with other be-
havioral variables, including (but not
limited to) mentoring the project
manager and defining performance/
success. As with any statistical analysis
or model, the findings depend in part
on which variables are included in
the model.1
The Firm’s Future
As a project outcome variable, the
firm’s future includes increasing or
generating a large market share,
opening new lines of products and
markets, developing new technology,
and ultimately achieving significant
commercial success. The sponsor be-
havior factors found to directly and
significantly affect this outcome vari-
able include prioritizing the project,
change control, and selecting and
mentoring the project manager.
The variable entitled prioritizing
the project includes sponsor behav-
iors such as ensuring that project ben-
efits to the firm are studied, the ben-
efits of the project are emphasized to
the steering team, and the steering
team prioritizes the project. This
sponsor behavior factor was found to
positively, significantly affect the fu-
ture outcome variable. It appears that
when a sponsor considers what to pri-
 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH
oritize both within a new project and
across varying projects, he/she is im-
pacting positively the future. Prioritiz-
ing is a behavior that can help one to
think beyond the narrow goals of an
individual project and toward future
benefits for the firm.
As discussed above, establishing
change control engages the project
sponsor as a participant in ensuring
that a formal change process is in
place and that a ‘‘change control
board’’ is established. The effective
project sponsor ensures that project
goals and objectives are approved
and that any and all changes are both
understood and noted. The project
sponsor plays a role in assuring that
all stakeholders agree on project
scope. In the current study, we find
the change control factor signifi-
cantly and negatively affects the fu-
ture outcome variable. The same ra-
tionale noted above regarding
potential reasons for the negative im-
pact of behaviors on customer success
(i.e., wrong stage in the project life
cycle, not the sponsor’s duty) seems
applicable here as well. An additional
explanation suggests that an over-em-
phasis on change control by the spon-
sor may stifle possible innovations
that could help the organization in
the future.
The mentoring the project man-
ager factor was also found to signifi-
cantly and positively affect the future
outcome variable. This finding sug-
gests when a sponsor is effective in
mentoring a project manager, and
that manager in turn is better able to
understand where the project fits in
with the goals of the organization, the
firm’s future is positively impacted.
Better mentored project managers si-
multaneously perform well on their
specific responsibilities and think
more broadly.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
155
Having started with 150 specific
sponsor behaviors, we ended up with
behaviors that formed seven reliable
factors or composite variables. Four
of these factors, in turn, were found
to significantly affect at least one of
the outcome variables. Three behav-
ior factors — benefits, risk planning,
and selecting and establishing the
project team — did not demonstrate
any significant effects on any of the
outcome factors. The findings sug-
gest that these behaviors are not ef-
fective sponsor-related behaviors dur-
ing the initiating phase in terms of
bringing about project success. These
behaviors may, however, still be im-
portant during the more detailed
project planning stage that follows in-
itiating.
In summary, there are three spon-
sor behavior factors (prioritize, pro-
ject management, and performance)
that if performed during project ini-
tiation were found to effect at least
one of two project success outcomes
(future and customer). Importantly,
one behavior variable, establishing
change control, was found to curtail
project outcomes. If future- and cus-
tomer-based outcomes are important
for a particular project, our findings
provide insights into types of sponsor
behaviors that might well bring about
project success.
Interestingly, none of the behavior
factors affected the meeting agree-
ments outcome variable. As an out-
come variable, meeting agreements
includes meeting technical specifica-
tions while not exceeding cost and
schedule constraints. Meeting agree-
ments does not appear to be an out-
come that the project sponsor has a
direct effect on in the initiating stage
of a project.
156 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
CONCLUSIONS
An important finding concerns the
project outcome or success factors. In
support of extant research, the vari-
ous measures of project success
group very well into the three factors
of meeting agreements, customer fo-
cus, and organization’s future (Pinto,
2004). Meeting agreements deals
with the classic project triangle of
cost, schedule, and technical per-
formance, and these issues are usually
the primary focus of project manag-
ers. The interesting finding is that
none of the sponsor behavior varia-
bles has a significant impact, either
positively or negatively, on the ability
of the project to meet agreements.
For those steeped in project manage-
ment this may be surprising upon
first glance. Upon closer considera-
tion, however, it makes sense. Project
managers may still work hard to man-
age agreements; however, project
sponsors should concentrate their ef-
forts where they can make a differ-
ence. Compared with the meeting
agreements factor, the other two out-
come measures (customer focus and
the organization’s future) are more
appropriate for sponsors to consider.
Both are higher-level considerations
and, as such, are appropriate for ex-
ecutive attention. Thus, upon close
examination, our findings do appear
to demonstrate some level of face va-
lidity.
Three sponsor behavior variables
were shown to be significantly posi-
tively predictive of project success: de-
fining performance/success, mentor-
ing the project manager, and
prioritizing. One behavior factor ac-
tually has a negative impact on pro-
ject success: establishing change con-
trol.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
Defining performance/success has
a positive impact on customer focus.
Elements of this behavioral variable
include defining performance expec-
tations for the project manager, em-
powering project managers, ensuring
that the strategic value of a project is
communicated, and ensuring that
project success metrics are estab-
lished. Sponsors are wise to ensure
that these performance and success
measures are established with the
project’s customers clearly in mind.
Once a project manager and team
understand the project’s importance
and how its success will be measured,
they can focus their efforts on what
matters most — the customer.
The second behavior factor that
has a positive impact on customer fo-
cus is mentoring the project man-
ager. Elements comprising this factor
include helping the project manager
understand the ‘‘big picture,’’ help-
ing the project manager develop peo-
ple skills, and monitoring the project
manager’s performance. The project
manager is the lynch pin. When spon-
sors want to really leverage their time,
they help the project manager suc-
ceed. As project managers become
more skilled and confident, they cre-
ate better value for the customer.
Mentoring the project manager
also has a positive impact on the or-
ganization’s future. The organiza-
tion’s future outcome factor includes
dimensions of commercial success,
market share and new markets, prod-
ucts, and technologies. More skilled
and knowledgeable project managers
can understand how their project im-
pacts these things and work toward
them.
A third sponsor behavior, prioritiz-
ing, has a positive impact on the or-
ganization’s future. Sponsor prioritiz-
ing behavior includes ensuring that
 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH
the organization’s steering team pri-
oritizes projects and that expected
benefits are understood and agreed
upon by all stakeholders. When eve-
ryone involved in a project has a com-
mon understanding of how it benefits
the organization and where it fits in
comparison to other projects, deci-
sions can be made in a manner that
is consistent with the desired future
outcomes for the organization.
One sponsor behavior factor neg-
atively impacted project success meas-
ures. As suggested earlier, it could be
that these behaviors should be per-
formed during a later project stage,
such as planning or execution, and
perhaps by someone other than the
project sponsor. Since these results
were somewhat surprising, we specu-
late why they might be true and sug-
gest that they are worthwhile topics
for further research.
The sponsor behavior variable that
significantly negatively affected pro-
ject outcomes is establishing change
control. Although this variable had
no impact on the meeting agree-
ments outcome variable, it did have a
negative impact on both of the other
two success measures (future and cus-
tomer). Specific dimensions of the
change control factor include ensur-
ing a formal change approval process
is in place, ensuring all changes are
noted and understood, ensuring all
parties agree on project scope, etc.
Change control is vital on many pro-
jects since without it, many projects
could have substantial scope creep
and have a very hard time meeting
their commitments. Change control
does, therefore, need to be estab-
lished. Perhaps project managers,
versus project sponsors, should work
to establish and maintain change
control. Our finding seems to suggest
that by focusing on change control
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009
157
during project initiating (before
there is even a high-level agreement
on the project), project sponsors may
actually inhibit these particular out-
comes (future and customer) from
occurring. Again, perhaps a better
time to establish change control is
during the more detailed project
planning that follows approval of the
project charter.
Everyone is busy in the 21st century
and executives are no exception. This
study suggests behaviors that execu-
tive sponsors can engage in during
project initiation that will be most
helpful in achieving certain project
outcomes or successes. Sponsors can
enhance their projects by focusing on
prioritizing the project, mentoring
the project manager, and defining
performance/success expectations.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
This study is exploratory in nature
and only a single study at that. Any
one study can only go so far in terms
of demonstrating validity; a series of
research studies is always preferred
over a single study (Calder et al.,
1982). Thus, future research is
needed to further validate the
makeup of both independent and de-
pendent variables (internal validity)
as well as the structure of the path
model (i.e., relationships between
variables or external validity).
Internal Validity. The factor struc-
ture of the variables should be verified
with additional samples of project
sponsors; with a larger sample a con-
firmatory measurement model might
be estimated to further insure the in-
ternal structure of our measures. Fur-
ther, both convergent and discrimi-
nate validities might be obtained by
comparing the behavioral and out-
158 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

come variables, respectively, with those different manner as suggested by

constructs that they should be related
both positively and negatively.
External Validity. The model should
be tested in specific industries and/
or regarding specific types and sizes
of projects to further validate the cur-
rent path model. Do the identified
paths and relationship between vari-
ables demonstrate invariance across
varying industries and/or projects?
The finding suggesting that spon-
sors engaged in change control be-
haviors during project initiation
might actually inhibit project success
points toward another area for fur-
ther research. Should change control
behaviors be performed by someone
other than the sponsor, performed in
a later project phase, performed in a
Shenhar and Dvir (2007), or is there
yet another explanation?
This research study is focused ex-
clusively on the behaviors of the spon-
sor during project initiation. One log-
ical extension is to consider the
behaviors of the sponsor during pro-
ject planning, execution, and closing.
Another logical extension is to con-
sider behaviors of people serving in
roles other than project sponsor,
such as project manager, functional
manager, core team member, subject
matter expert, customer, and steering
team. Finally, it may be interesting to
determine if people serving in non-
sponsor roles have different percep-
tions concerning appropriate spon-
sor behavior.

References

Association for Project Management. 2000. Syllabus for the APMP Examination (2nd
Ed.) High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, England.
Barki, H., S. Rivard and J. Talbot. 1993. ‘‘Toward an Assessment of Software
Development Risk.’’ Journal of Management Information Systems 10 (2): 203-225.
Calder, B. J., L. W. Phillips and A. M. Tybout. 1982. ‘‘The Concept of External
Validity,’’ Journal of Consumer Research 9 (December): 240-244.
Center for Quality of Management. 1997. The Method for Priority Marking (MPM).
Cambridge, MA.
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. ‘‘Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.’’
Psychometrika 16: 297-334.
DeLone, W. H. and E. R. McLean. 1992. ‘‘Information Systems Success: The
Quest for the Dependent Variable.’’ Information Systems Research 3 (1): 60-95.
Englund, R. L. and A. Bucero. 2006. Project Sponsorship Achieving Management
Commitment for Project Success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, M., R. Holt and D. Purchase. 2003. ‘‘Project Sponsors under New Public
Management: Lessons from the Frontline.’’ International Journal of Project Man-
agement 21: 495-502.
Helm, J. and K. Remington. 2005. ‘‘Effective Project Sponsorship an Evaluation
of the Role of the Executive Sponsor in Complex Infrastructure Projects by
Senior Project Managers.’’ Project Management Journal 36 (3): 51-61.
Kerzner, H. 2003. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling,
and Controlling, 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009

 KLOPPENBORG, MANOLIS, AND TESCH 159

Kloppenborg, T. J. 2009. Contemporary Project Management. Mason, OH: Thomson

Southwestern.
, A. Shriberg and J. Venkatraman. 2003. Project Leadership. Vienna, VA:
Management Concepts Incorporated.
and D. B. Tesch. 2004. ‘‘Using a Project Leadership Framework to Avoid
and Mitigate Information Technology (IT) Project Risks.’’ Chapter in Inno-
vations: Project Management Research. Eds D. P. Slevin, D. I. Cleland and J. K.
Pinto. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. pp. 23-34.
, , C. Manolis and M. A. Heitkamp. 2006. ‘‘Understanding the
Sponsor’s Role During the Project Initiation Stage.’’ Project Management Journal
37 (3): 16-25.
Melymuka, K. 2004. ‘‘Surviving the Sponsor Exit.’’ Computerworld 38:7.
Mulcahy, R. 2005. PMPw Exam Prep: Rita’s Course in a Book for Passing the PMP
Exam, 5th ed. RMC Publications, Inc.
Oz, E. and J. Sosik. 2000. ‘‘Why Information Systems Projects are Abandoned: A
Leadership and Communication Theory and Exploratory Study.’’ Journal of
Computer Information Systems Fall: 66-78.
Perkins, B. 2005. ‘‘The Elusive Executive Sponsor.’’ Computerworld 39 (32): 46.
Pinto, J. K. 2004. ‘‘The Elements of Project Success.’’ Chapter in Field Guide to
Project Management. Ed. D. I. Cleland. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
pp. 14-27.
Project Management Institute. 2004. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (3rd Ed.) (PMBOKw Guide). Newton Square, PA.
Schmidt, R., K. Lyytinen, M. Keil and P. Cule. 2001. ‘‘Identifying Software Project
Risks: An International Delphi Study.’’ Journal of Management Information Sys-
tems 17 (4): 5-36.
Shenhar, A. J. and D. Dvir. 2007. Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond
Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Young, A. M. and P. L. Perrewe. 2004. ‘‘The Role of Expectations in the Men-
toring Exchange: An Analysis of Mentor and Protégé Expectations in Relation
to Perceived Support.’’ Journal of Managerial Issues 16 (1): 103-126.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXI Number 1 Spring 2009