Developing teams capable of completing projects in extreme situations is becoming a major challenge for a growing number of organizations. The notion of collective competence is increasingly being seen as a vital precondition for the success of project teams, particularly in extreme environments. However, we still know little about the ingredients of this collective competence. To partially fill this gap, we make use of the insights offered by the very particular world of the French Special Forces, which have been operating successfully for several decades in extreme environments. Based on an in-depth qualitative study of their project-based mode of operations, we detail the six main ingredients of the collective competence that underpins the activities of commando units in the field and insist upon the criticality of the pre- and postmission phases during which this collective competence is actively reinforced.
AntonacopoulouE. (2006). The relationship between individual and organizational learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices. Management Learning, 37, 455–474.
2.
BakerD. P., DayR., & SalasE. (2006). Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations. Health Services Research, 41, 1576–1598.
3.
BatailleF. (2001, April/May/June). Compétence collective et performance [Collective competence and performance]. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, pp. 66–81.
4.
BeloutA., & GauvreauC. (2004). Factors influencing project success: The impact of human resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1–11.
5.
BigleyG. A., & RobertsK. H. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1281–1299.
Cannon-BowersJ. A., & SalasE. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202.
8.
Cannon-BowersJ. A., SalasE., & ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision-making. In CastellanN. J.Jr., (Ed.), Individual and group decision-making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
CascioW. F. (2003). Changes in workers, work and organizations. In BoormanW. C., IlgenD. R., & KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 401–422). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
10.
ChengM.-I., DaintyA. R. J., & MooreD. R. (2005). Towards a multidimensional competency-based managerial performance framework: A hybrid approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 380–396.
11.
CongerJ. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 107–123.
12.
CoorenF. (2004). The communicative achievement of collective minding. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 517–551.
13.
DameronS., & JoffreO. (2007). The good and the bad: The impact of diversity management on co-operative relationships. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 2037–2049.
GarelG. (2003). Le management de projet [Project management]. Paris: Editions La Découverte.
17.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
18.
HendersonL. S. (2008). The impact of project managers’ communication competencies: Validation and extension of a research model for virtuality, satisfaction and productivity on project teams. Journal of Project Management, 39(2), 48–59.
LièvreP. (2005). Vers une logistique des situations extrêmes, de la logistique de projet du point de vue d'une épistémologie de l'activité d'une expédition polaire [Towards a logistic of extreme situations: About logistics of projects from an epistemologic perspective of polar activities]. Cedot, France: Université Aix Marseille II.
21.
LièvreP., & AubryM. (2008, September 26). L'ambidextrie des chefs de projet: Le cas des expéditions polaires [Project managers’ ambidexterity: The case of polar expeditions]. Colloque Gérer la tension entre exploration et exploitation. Chambéry, France: IREGE Université de Savoie.
22.
LièvreP., & RixG. (2005). Le management des expéditions polaires [Managing polar expeditions]. Revue Française de Comptabilité, 383, 46–52.
23.
Loufrani-FedidaS., & AnguéK. (2006). Pour une approche transversale et globale des compétences dans les organisations par projets [For a transversal and global approach of competences within organizations]. In RetourD., PicqT., & DefélixC. (Eds.), Gestion des compétences: Nouvelles relations, Nouvelles dimensions (pp. 123–148). Paris: Vuibert.
24.
MaznevskiM. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47, 531–550.
25.
MidlerC. (1995). 'Projectification’ of the firm: The Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 363–375.
26.
MoormanC., & MinerA. S. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23, 698–723.
27.
MuscaG. (2004). Construction de compétences et environnement turbulent: Le cas d'équipes-projet internet [Building competences in turbulent environments: The case of internet project-teams]. Revue Française de Gestion, 33(174), 117–131.
28.
PerrowC. (1977). The bureaucratic paradox: The efficient organization centralizes in order to decentralize. Organizational Dynamics, 5, 3–14.
29.
RatchevaV. (2009). Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes—The case of multidis-ciplinary project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 206–215.
30.
RetourD., & KhromerC. (2006). La compétence collective, maillon-clé de la gestion des compétences [Collective competence at the heart of competences management]. In KlarskeldA., & OiryE. (Eds.), Nouveaux regards sur la gestion des compétences (pp. 149–183). Paris: Vuibert.
31.
RobertsK. H. (1990). Some characteristics of high reliability organizations. Organization Science, 1, 160–177.
32.
RuuskaI., & TeiglandR. (2009). Ensuring project success through collective competence and creative conflict in public-private partnerships: A case study of Bygga Villa, a Swedish triple helix e-government initiative. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 323–334.
33.
SchulmanP. (1993). The analysis of high reliability organizations. In RobertsK. H. (Ed.), New challenges to understanding organizations (pp. 33–54). New York: Macmillan.
SimonL. (2006). Managing creative projects: An empirical synthesis of activities. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 116–126.
36.
Smith-JentschK. A., SalasE., & BakerD. P. (1996). Training team performance-related assertiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49, 909–936.
37.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
38.
SuchmanL. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication.Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SundstromE., DeMeuseK. P., & FutrellD. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.
40.
TompkinsT. C. (1995). Role of diffusion in collective learning. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 69–85.
41.
VashdiD. R., BambergerP. A., ErezM., & Weiss-MeilikA. (2007). Briefing-debriefing: Using a reflexive organizational model from the military to enhance the performance of surgical teams. Human Resource Management, 46(1), 115–142.
42.
Von KroghG., & RoosJ. (1996). Managing knowledge: Perspectives on cooperation and competition.London: Sage.
43.
WeickK. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.
44.
WeickK. E., & RobertsK. H. (1993). Collective mind and organizational reliability: The case of flight operations on an aircraft carrier deck. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.
45.
WeickK. E., SutcliffeK. M., & ObstefeldD. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. In StawB. M., & SuttonR. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 81–123). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
